Review of Jeffrey Rosen's William Howard Taft

If Americans remember William Howard Taft (1857-1930), the twenty-seventh president of the United

States, for anything it is for being stuck in a bathtub. In part, Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia (which I cannot recommend highly enough for a visit), seeks to rescue Taft from this infamous place in popular memory by reminding the reader in this contribution to the American Presidents series that Taft was a great American with a long list of unparalleled accomplishments, that included service as solicitor general, circuit court judge, high commissioner of the Philippines, secretary of war, president of the United States, and chief justice of the United States. Taft was certainly not a passive character. He was a striving, ambitious man, who was thin-skinned to the point where he became capable, as Theodore Roosevelt recognized, of intense hatred. As a young man he thrashed a report who had written a story critical of his revered father, Alphonso Taft.  

Rosen positions Taft as the anti-Theodore Roosevelt, a man who famously changed his political positions throughout his career. Instead, Taft was remarkably consistent from his earliest legal cases through his presidency and as chief justiceship. Both men had very different perceptions of the presidency. While Roosevelt believed that he could do anything that was not expressly forbidden by the constitution, Taft argued that he could only do what was expressly permitted. For example, Taft felt that under article 2, section 3, he could only recommend items for Congress to consider, and not to try to persuade legislators either individually or collectively toward adopting specific measures. Roosevelt, of course, saw no such barrier to the president exerting as much influence as he could to shape legislation. Finally, unlike the Roosevelt who selectively prosecuted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act according this his own definition of good and bad business combinations, the conservative Taft followed the dictates of the statutes and his administration filed more suits than his progressive predecessor. 

Taft seems bland and overshadowed by both his predecessor Roosevelt and his successor Woodrow Wilson, two of the most important and progressive presidents in American history. The fact that Taft suffered the worst return of any president seeking re-election in the history of our nation, only adds to this perception. Taft is considered to be one of the unhappiest of our chief executives. The signature issue of his administration, the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, is traditionally portrayed a complete fiasco that Taft compounded with one of the biggest presidential gaffes of the twentieth century. Rosen presents an alternative view. He argues that Taft was an exceptional administrator who wanted the federal government to function efficiently. This is certainly an underappreciated attribute in evaluating presidents. We certainly could use someone with Taft’s sensibilities in the oval office today! Rosen devotes considerable time to the tariff revision and makes the case that it was significant accomplishment, even claiming that Taft successfully tackled an issue that Roosevelt dared not touch. While there is a certain element of truth in this, Roosevelt was a master politician who wielded threats of tariff revision to build legislative majorities and support for his administration on issues that concerned him. In truth, he really did not care about the tariff. In tackling such a complex issue with a fractured party (thanks in some part to Roosevelt), the borderline politically inept Taft put his own administration on the defensive from day one and struck a fault line that continued to divide his party right through the 1912 election and beyond. Instead of seeing Taft as out of place between two progressives, Rosen points to some continuities. One example, is Rosen’s argument that some of Taft’s foreign policy initiatives like the World Court and the reciprocity treaty with Canada (although it was not ratified by Canada) were harbingers not only of Wilsonianism but much more broadly of American policy later in the twentieth century. Admittedly, it seems that Rosen does overreach in some of his claims. Personally, I wish he would have addressed Peri Arnold’s claim in Remaking the Presidency(2009) that Taft’s difference from his progressive predecessor and successor was somewhat due to the fact that he had a antiquated nineteenth century concept of the presidency, whereas Roosevelt and Wilson recognized how the office had changed in the early years of the twentieth century. Rosen is much more convincing in describing Taft’s reformist tendency to the institution of the Supreme Court. His innovative reforms, which he aggressively lobbied Congress to pass, substantially altered the focus of the federal judicial system. 

Circling back to where I began this short review, Rosen notes that Taft was at his heaviest when he was in

the White House. He was a classic stress eater who put on the pounds during his unhappy term. The stress and weight gain contributed to his sleep apnea, which caused him to fall doze off in embarrassing situations. But, in biographical terms, this was an aberration. While it is true that Taft struggled with his weight throughout his life, for the most part he exerted his strong will and self-control that allowed him to master his eating. He shed all the weight he had gained during his presidency as soon as he left the office. It serves Rosen’s interpretation to highlight this fact because Taft firmly believed that self-control was the one essential character trait necessary to a democracy. Taft lived this through his own daily battle with food and his waistline. 

The Best/Worst 2018 (inspired by the McLaughlin Group)

For as long as I can remember, I have been watching the McLaughlin Group. I eagerly anticipated the  last two episodes of December, the best/worst of the year. While the show is not quite the same without its inimitable host (RIP John), I still consider it the best weekly political show.

Here are some of my best/worst for 2018. I tried not repeat answers given by the panelists.

Biggest Loser: Financial stability. Between the astronomical federal deficit and debt, increasing personal debt, skyrocketing healthcare costs, the "trade war" with China, and the see-sawing stock market, it looks like stability is a thing of the past.

Worst Politician: Baby Boomers. Yes, that's right, I am designating an entire generation as the worst politician. Whatever your political viewpoints might be, you have been fighting in the gutter for the last thirty years and succeeded in bringing the entire political system down to that level. You've warred on other generations, demonstrated an unprecedented generational narcissism, politicized the personal to the point where you cannot associate with people who disagree with you at all, and consider anyone who disagrees with you on every point to be a total moron deserving only contempt, among other things. Thanks!

Underreported Story: Good news. Yes, there has been some good news, but we are so caught up in seeing everything at all times as a disaster that we only focus on the negative and then wonder why we are in such a funk.

Overreported Story: The Amazon HQ2 search. This was particularly acute in Colorado, where I live, because it was supposedly on the short list of possible locations. It was a monstrously self-indulgent shakedown attempt for the most advantageous concessions from local governments. Local news, ratio, and television were all full of stories.

Bummest Rap: Millennials. I am a proud gen-Xer, but I feel that Millennials have gotten a bum rap. First off, Baby Boomers lump everyone who came after them as a Millennial, when they really mean Gen X, the Millennials, and gen Z (teens to early twenty-somethings). Millennials get tagged as frivolous whiners who waste their time on social media. However, I see a generation that is tolerant and willing push (i.e. expand) social boundaries, generous with their time and money to social commitments, and willing to think outside the box in many ways.

Sorry to See You Go: Ok, I have two candidates (several panelists made two selections for some categories). First, the White Rhinoceros. The last living member of the species died earlier this year. Like Martha the passenger pigeon and Lonesome George the Pinta tortoise, there was a last white rhino. It is always depressing when a species goes extinct. As Theodore Roosevelt said, it is like losing all the great works of art or literature from an artist or author. Sadly, species are becoming extinct faster than we can catalog them; meaning, that there are some who will pass from the earth that we will never even have identified. Second, Toys-R-Us, because shopping for toys online just flat out sucks.

Best Political Theater: Kevin Kruse's tweets. Princeton historian Kevin Kruse has taken on the awesome responsibility of using history to combat those who misuse the past to defend their political views, most notably Dinesh D'Souza.

Worst Political Theater: President Donald Trump's tweets. Awful stuff. Peppered with lies, distortions, and self-pity. The worst of it is that these tweets decide and announce important national policy, fire cabinet officers, and dominate the news cycle.