The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt

by John Milton Cooper Jr.

The colossal figures who shaped the politics of industrial America emerge in full scale in this engrossing comparative biography. In both the depth and sophistication of intellect that they brought to politics and in the titanic conflict they waged with each other, Roosevelt and Wilson were, like Hamilton and Jefferson before them, the political architects for an entire century.

All previous efforts to treat the philosophies and programs of Roosevelt’s New Nationalism and Wilson’s New Freedom have been partial and episodic. Now John Milton Cooper reconstructs in parallel lines the entire range of their ideologies and their struggles―their social identification in terms of class, education, and regional roots; the origins and evolution of their political thought; their party leadership roles; and their psychological characters.

After tracking the shared identities of young manhood, Cooper explains the conflict of their mature years that developed from opposing philosophies of government. Not until 1912, when Wilson ran for president, did they come together partially and briefly on common practical grounds of reform of the political process and efforts to curb big business in the public interest. Later, foreign policy in particular pitted them in a deeper conflict that consumed the rest of their lives.

Genres: History, Biography, American History, Presidents, Politics, Nonfiction, The United States Of America

480 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

John M. Cooper (born 1940) is an American historian, author, and educator. His specialization is late 19th- and early 20th-century American Diplomatic History. Cooper is currently Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Reviews

[Aaron Million · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lest there be any confusion about how important John Milton Cooper Jr. thinks that both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are, he dispels that immediately on page xiv of the Preface, calling them "...the most significant presidents and political leaders since the Civil War." More significant than Franklin Roosevelt? More significant than Lyndon Johnson? I would also add Ronald Reagan but this book was written early in Reagan's first term. Still, I am not sure why Cooper thinks that TR and Wilson are more significant than FDR was, especially considering that he spends the last several pages of the book writing about how FDR modeled some of his behavior in office on both of those presidents.

This is not a standard presidential biography. While biographical elements are present, and Cooper follows both men from the beginning to the end of their respective lives, he writes very little of their personal sides, especially after childhood. The second wives of both men are barely mentioned, as are their children. So if that is what you are looking for, look elsewhere. Also, a reader unfamiliar with both of these men is not Cooper's intended audience. He provides limited context to the major life events of both. If you don't already have a decent understanding of them, I think it would be difficult to follow Cooper, especially in the first half of the book.

Cooper basically compares and contrasts TR and Wilson as political adversaries. Roosevelt has to be one of the most interesting subjects that a person could write about - the man was larger than life and did so many things throughout his life. Wilson was no slouch either, especially once he became President, but his pre-presidential life is one of an academic and definitely pales in interest to Roosevelt's pre-presidency. For the first half of the book, Cooper alternates chapters between the two men, more or less following a chronological pattern. However, he would often move ahead with one man, only to then go back in time several years to bring the other man forward in time. This was a bit disorienting but not terribly so.

The book picks up speed when Cooper reaches the 1912 election, when the paths of the two intertwine and go into opposition against each other. The chapters then no longer alternate, but rather consist of both men shaping and reacting to events. Cooper's review of that election is academic and detached, much like this book as a whole. The assassination attempt on Roosevelt in Milwaukee that October is mentioned matter-of-factly.

Wilson then becomes President, with Roosevelt in strident opposition until his death shortly after the conclusion of WWI. Cooper spends this part of the book reviewing each man's political philosophy, with Roosevelt shifting from that of a progressive Republican to more inline with Old Guard Republican orthodoxy, while champing at the bit to get America into the War. Meanwhile Wilson carries out an extremely successful domestic agenda in his first term, with his achievements standing right up there with FDR and LBJ (but not surpassing them, in my view). Wilson attempts to avoid U.S. entry into the War as long as he possibly can but finally does so in April 1917. After he (understandably) spurns Roosevelt's request to let him gather up a regiment himself and go fight in Europe, he once again becomes the main target of Roosevelt's ire.

Cooper shows only a slight bias towards Wilson, and that really comes once Roosevelt becomes increasingly belligerent during WWI. However, he does criticize Wilson for keeping "stooges" such as Colonel Edward House around him (page 57, and then again on page 243). I am not a fan of House either, but I'm not quite sure I would label him as a stooge. Cooper also states that Roosevelt "...was much better prepared in foreign affairs than any of his predecessors since John Quincy Adams." (page 73). I don't agree. If you take a look at James Buchanan's career prior to him becoming President, it is pretty impressive: Ambassador to Russia, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Great Britain. I think that would make him pretty well prepared on foreign affairs. Martin Van Buren is worth a mention as well in that department.

Still, Cooper is a bit too favorable to Wilson. On page 210 he writes "For a white man born and raised in the nineteenth-century South, Wilson held surprisingly mild racial views." Yet he immediately admits that Wilson lost his temper with W.E.B. DuBois and other black leaders, kicking them out of the White House, that blacks did not feel that he helped advance their causes, and that Wilson allowed segregation into the federal workforce. Hmm. That doesn't seem very "mild" to me. In the same vein of attempting to deflect blame from Wilson himself for things that his administration did, on page 262 Cooper briefly mentions the "Red Scare" of 1919 and the unlawful raids carried out by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, then goes on to note that "Wilson neither approved nor knew anything about Palmer's actions...". That hardly seems likely. Wilson was fine with citizens' rights being trampled on during the War. For Cooper to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

For anyone familiar with both men, and who wants to see them juxtaposed against each other, this is a worthwhile read. But keep in mind that the scope of this work is rather limited, and the writing is devoid of much of the character and flavor that made these two men - especially Roosevelt - so interesting to read about.

Grade: C

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2015/...

“The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt” is John Milton Cooper, Jr.’s 1983 comparative biography of the 26th and 28th presidents. Cooper is Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of nearly a dozen books, including “Woodrow Wilson: A Biography” which was a finalist for the 2010 Pulitzer Prize.

In many ways, Cooper’s book is similar to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s more recent “The Bully Pulpit” which is a dual biography of Roosevelt and Taft. Just as the early chapters of Goodwin’s book alternate between TR and Taft – revealing similarities and differences in their backgrounds and philosophies – Cooper’s “The Warrior and the Priest” alternates between TR and Woodrow Wilson. The threads permanently converge when the two men are running for president in 1912.

Cooper offers two early contentions of note: that TR and Wilson were the most consequential presidents since the Civil War, and that these two men were far more similar than might be suspected at first glance. The first proposition is never fully fleshed-out and remains an untested hypothesis. The second claim is pursued with far more effort – and with significant success.

“The Warrior and the Priest” is exceptionally readable, interesting and intellectually engaging. Given its mission, it is a manageable length for most readers. But with a fairly modest 361 pages it is far too short to really be the comparative biography it claims to be. Instead, it is far more a comparative study of these two fascinating presidents (on personal and political levels).

While a traditional biography often allows the reader to see the world from the subject’s perspective, in this book the reader more often views events, and analyzes history, through the eyes of an observer looking back in time. And where biographers are often hesitant to stray far from observable facts, Cooper is seldom reluctant to offer conjecture about why history unfolded a certain way or what might have happened under different circumstances.

Despite Roosevelt and Wilson receiving nearly equal time in the spotlight, Wilson seems slightly closer to the book’s epicenter. He is also cast in a somewhat more positive light. But Cooper is generally sympathetic toward both of his subjects.

This book generally does an excellent job examining the similarities, differences, accomplishments, failures and resulting legacies of these former presidents. But it occasionally assumes the reader is familiar with facts or events that are never described in any real detail.

In addition, there are numerous instructive moments in each man’s life that are covered very quickly (or are not covered at all) because they are not critical to the book’s primary focus. Readers already familiar with TR and Wilson will find this unimportant. But for readers new to either man, important background and color is never fully revealed.

Overall, John Milton Cooper, Jr.’s “The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt” is an easy, articulate and thought-provoking comparative review of two interesting presidents. While insufficient as a comprehensive biography of either Wilson or Roosevelt, it can serve as a great springboard for further exploration…or as an excellent review of detailed biographies previously encountered. While not the perfect vehicle for fully understanding either man, it definitely offers a scenic and instructive journey.

Overall rating: 4 stars

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Warrior and the Priest by John Milton Cooper, Jr. is an examination of the lives of “Tommy” Woodrow Wilson and Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt. Cooper’s introduction starts by explaining his title as Friedrich Nietzche’s philosophical embodiments of the “Will-to Power,” the Warrior and the Priest. He later explains this in much greater detail through his findings and conclusions of the book. His examination of these two men begins in 1856 with each of the politicians’ childhoods. He begins by examining them individually and then compares and contrasts them. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt he describes the transformation of Roosevelt from sickly boy, with asthma, to man after his father died, which Cooper explains completed the transformation. He then describes Roosevelt’s studies, early political views, and Roosevelt’s reasoning behind joining the political scene. Roosevelt once said, “My whole career in politics is due to the fact that I was firmly resolved to belong to the governing class, not to the governed.” Cooper focuses greatly on Roosevelt Sr., the life that he led and how it affected his son. As an example Roosevelt Sr. never joined the Civil War and Theodore Roosevelt fought with that his entire life, he mentions it frequently when his sons join World War I.
Wilson on the other hand came from a religious background because his father was a successful minister and Cooper believes that, his greatest influence in childhood was from religion. Wilson was the son, grandson, and nephew of Presbyterian ministers. As with Roosevelt Cooper brings to the forefront Wilson’s handicap, which Cooper believes is much less heroic than Roosevelt’s. Wilson’s handicap was that he was slow reader, “always a slow fellow in mental development – long a child, longer a diffident youth.” The biggest problem was that this handicap, which some believe was dyslexia, went almost unnoticed in a healthy boy so he had to fight it on his own. Cooper then begins to do as he did with Roosevelt and discuss his education, political thought, and aspirations towards education and later politics.
As the book moves forward Cooper does an excellent job describing Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson’s behavior, political ideologies and sometimes ideological changes, tragedy, career, allies and/or friends, personality, and all around life before, during, and after politics. Cooper likens the National political debate between Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to the debate between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.. Cooper’s main argument is that, “The two men’s foreign policy argument persisted even more strikingly, as their attitude dominated the long-running conflict over American world leadership. The ideological legacies left by Wilson and Roosevelt have yet to be exhausted in 20th century American politics.” Cooper leaves his readers with an in-depth look into the presidencies of Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to show that the political affect Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had can be measured in the presidencies that follow them and well into the 20th century and beyond.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

The catchy title is from Nietzsche, even though Cooper argues throughout his book that it does not accurately captures the reality of either president, even if it does reflect what became in the decades since a condensed and distorted representation of them.

Rather, Cooper stresses how in so many ways Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were alike: in their place in the upper reaches of American society, in their education, in their early interest in politics as a vocation, and in their actual behavior when in office. Of course, no one is alive today who remembers either of them or their times from personal memory. Inevitably, as once living people and vibrant events fade into the fuzzy permanency of “the past” complexities and real nuances lose their three dimensionality and become two-dimensional, fixed points marked by beginning and ending dates on a calendar.

Which is really too bad as I am one who continues to learn much from that past which still lives on in today, especially because human nature changes not one whit over time!

Here is one of Cooper’s succinct comparisons:
“Both men were not only political intellectuals but also variations on the same type of intellectual. Both men were artists of power. The difference between them as political intellectuals resembled the Apollonian and Dionysian syntheses of emotional and rational elements in art. Roosevelt, the Dionysian artist, favored the primacy of emotion. Wilson was the Apollonian, favoring the primacy of reason. It was an important difference, but essentially one of emphasis within a common framework.

“Their divergence over ideals and self-interest in politics did not make them opposites, either. Roosevelt recognized that people usually follow their interests, and he repeatedly acknowledged that men must provide for their families’ material welfare before they can pursue higher aims. For his part, Wilson did not stress material interests to the exclusion of ideas. ‘This is one country which has founded its polity upon dreams,’ he declared in November 1907….” (P. 134)

Observers – then and now – have of course noted that in appearance the two men seemed in many ways dissimilar. Teddy – and I refer to him thusly because, as Wilson remarked wonderingly after the two men had met in one of their very few face-to-face encounters, you couldn’t help but like him as he is just a big boy at heart – loved being the center of attention. He enjoyed mingling with crowds and was famous for his repartee with reporters who had standing invitation to wonder into the White House to speak with him. He was also clearly more voluble than Wilson, as his many speeches make so very clear.

Wilson, on the other hand, was more reserved. A personality factor, certainly, but he also struggled with reading easily, something I had not previously known, and which seems striking given his reputation for being such a scholar. This led him to keep much closer counsel than did Teddy and tended to rely upon certain key figures whom he regarded as trustworthy and knowledgeable. Despite his reputation for solitude, though, he did want to know what regular folks thought. This is one of the reasons he so often went on the hustings to explain his policy initiatives and to garner public support for them. Ironically, despite his reserve he really sought to shape public opinion to rally the citizens behind his programs, while TR expected the people – and especially those in the know – to follow his initiatives because they were the obviously right things to do.

Cooper makes the fascinating observation that in actual governing both men were more alike than different. They were both cautious about embracing ideas too far outfield that lacked sufficiently broad support within their respective parties; they both sought to navigate between warring parties to achieve negotiated settlements (Wilson in WW I and TR in mediating between Japan and Tsarist Russia that brought their war to an end in 1904), and both believed that the time had come for the United States to play a role in the world more commensurate with its commercial and military power.

Historians have often contrasted the two programmatic formulations of each man found in their views expressed during the election race of 1912, when Wilson was the Democratic nominee, Taft the Republican running for re-election, and Teddy as a discontented Republican running on the new Progressive Party ticket. TR called his ideas The New Nationalism and Wilson’s The New Freedom.

Here is Cooper’s take on how they compared in fact:
“…despite Roosevelt’s denunciations of the Democratic platform, the only differences between it and the Progressive platform were in the Progressives’ endorsement of tariff protection and woman suffrage, silence on the trusts, and slightly stronger advocacy of aid to labor, as contrasted with the Democrats’ friendlier posture toward farmers. In the course of the campaign Wilson endorsed virtually every specific reform measure Roosevelt favored, with the principal exception of woman suffrage, and he frequently reasserted his partial sympathy for tariff protection. During his first term as president…Wilson enacted most of the 1912 Progressive platform, including abolition of child labor and legislation favoring organized labor, and he switched to support of woman suffrage in 1915 and 1916.” (P. 209)

Although Wilson’s stance at the outbreak of WW I was tilted toward the Allied Powers – principally Britain and France – he genuinely sought to play a key negotiating role to bring that bloody conflict to an end without either side achieving “victory.” TR, on the other hand, was openly much more anti-German and regarded Wilson’s efforts to stay out of the war a sign of “weakness.” Teddy still entertained the old-fashioned aristocratic and decidedly not realistic view that war, once and awhile, was “necessary” for a people to retain their martial spirit without which citizens would lose their mettle. His showy – and dangerous – exploits in Cuba during the Spanish-American war demonstrated how “glorious” he thought such little wars could be.

Wilson, on the other hand, was aghast at the bloody toil taking place in the scarcely moving lines of trench warfare that consumed tens of thousands of human lives daily. For him, there was nothing faintly glorious or admirable about war. He also feared the consequences of war upon the American people. “Once lead this people into war, and they’ll forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance. To fight you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of our national life, infecting Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street.” He also warned that “if this country goes into war you and I will live to see the day when the big interests will be in the saddle,” and “that the nation would be distracted from reform and that conservatives and big business would gain political advantage.” (P. 320)

While applauding the fact that Wilson clearly aimed large in his efforts to achieve a just peace, including the establishment of a new League of Nations, Cooper also dispassionately critiques Wilson’s weaknesses and failures in diplomacy.

“Wilson failed to lead the United States to greater international commitment for two major reasons. One was that during the war he had not sufficiently awakened Americans to their involvement in world affairs. When he finally did take his case to the people in September 1919, he gave another brilliant display of his persuasive powers, but unfortunately his educational campaign came too late and did too little to instill sufficient popular awareness. The second reason for Wilson’s failure was that he had permitted unrealistic and conflicting expectations to arise about the purposes and prospects of his diplomacy. During 1917 and 1918 he had neglected to counteract expressions of excessively militant idealism, like Roosevelt’s, or fantastic hopes for a universal reign of peace, freedom and justice. The activities of his own administration, particularly propaganda by the Committee on Public Information, had compounded the problem. Wilson’s first failure – insufficient elucidation of his aims – led to the public and politicians becoming rapidly sick of the whole business of peacemaking and League membership, once the deadlock developed between him and the Republican senators. His second failure – permissiveness toward excessive expectations – fed a more slowly developing disillusionment among idealists with all international commitments.” (Pp. 342-43)

Cooper concludes his insightful book by noting that while later Democratic presidents largely fulfilled – and expanded upon – Wilson’s domestic agenda, especially with respect to channeling more power and services to the middle class and to laboring people, both Democratic and Republican presidents (until the late 1990s) tended to follow Teddy’s concept of international relations rather than Wilson. Yes, FDR worked hard to create the successor to the League – the United Nations – but he did so while believing that the success of maintaining a condition of peace depended upon the Great Powers reaching and holding to agreements that balanced their respective interests. This was why the partnership he felt he had achieved with the very different person of Josef Stalin was central to the postwar peace (and why it was such a tragedy that FDR died before the war ended and his kind of peace had a chance to even get off the ground).

This is a masterful piece of historical writing that not only provides fascinating insight into Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, but also to the times and to helping us understand how domestic and international pressures and fears – both which should be so familiar to us, too – complicated efforts by both men to achieve their goals while also setting the parameters outside of which they ventured at their political peril.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

My abiding quest to read every last book on my shelves unearthed this long-forgotten study of “the principal architects of modern American politics,” Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. I could recall little about it, other than the title and that it was assigned reading in a college course on American government over 20 years ago. To say I embarked on this reading apprehensively would be an understatement; I can gladly report that I needn’t have worried. This is intricate work—a finely nuanced investigation of leadership, deeply sourced and convincingly argued. Fair warning, though: the prose is of the meat-and-potatoes variety, unflashy and solidly, carefully built. A reader not already interested in the period or the main actors will likely find their endurance tested. Those accustomed to the snap and sweep of a David McCullough narrative, for example, should brace themselves and have a cup of coffee in hand. Vigorous storytelling and bold strokes are not really this author’s strengths.

What Cooper does have in abundance is ideas: why and how the two men succeeded, and which character flaws contributed to their major failures in public life. Above all, Cooper made me appreciate the intellectual agility of both men, who were independent, pragmatic, and willing to work with intransigent elements in their own respective parties, and each other’s, to achieve broad, well-articulated goals. If Roosevelt was the Warrior in Nietzsche’s eponymous archetype, pushing to achieve his aims through force of will and personal charisma, he also had the scholar’s love of study and solitude. That would make Wilson the Priest: devoted to securing power through diplomatic means. But just as Roosevelt’s outspokenness hid the reflective side of his personality from public view, so Wilson’s self-restraint and reserve made him seem icy and unemotional, which obscured his talents for public speaking and personal persuasion. Their conflict, in the 1912 presidential race and later in the run-up to WWI, rested as much on a mutual misreading of personality—one believed to be domineering, the other timid—than deep policy differences. Their similarities were perhaps more significant: both believed in trust regulation, both butted against an entrenched intraparty Old Guard, both sided with Hamilton’s vision* of a strong central government in his ideological rivalry with Jefferson, both sought to heal class divisions by improving conditions for workers, and both ran in their different ways as antimachine reformers.

Most interesting to me was how well both men worked with “radical” elements in their own parties. For Roosevelt, this meant charting a middle path “between Scylla and Charybdis,” or between plutocratic Republicans and W.J. Bryan’s feared social-revolutionary aspirations, thereby preventing what he believed would turn into class warfare. For Wilson, this meant keeping Bryan close at hand while pledging the “New Freedom” of a renewed representative government responsive to the people. To Wilson’s credit, he seems to have had little personal use for so-called Bourbons**, unreconstructed white southerners who favored limited government and states’ rights as a bulwark against the enfranchisement of black voters. For both, expediency and “playing the cards open to them” determined their campaign strategies. Voters apparently caught on to the similarities in their programs and prescriptions, and stayed the usual course. Cooper demonstrates that Wilson’s winning coalition was simply a consolidation of the Democratic voting bloc of the previous few elections. The belief persists that Roosevelt would have prevailed in a one-on-one contest against Wilson, given this voting reality and his greater personal popularity. (The 1912 election was a three-person race, with Roosevelt running on the Progressive ticket against his handpicked Republican successor and presidential incumbent, Taft, in addition to Wilson.)

Bottom line: These were provident and visionary statesmen, immensely capable of the position to which circumstance and their own talent led them. Read this book to understand the ideological currents and intellectual principles that drove both men. Roosevelt’s call to a sense of common purpose, his elevation of national ideals over selfish materialism, could not be more needed in our time of institutionalized greed and outrageous corruption. Cooper writes that John F. Kennedy came the closest of any of Roosevelt’s successors to emulating his example; I would guess he hasn’t changed that opinion in the 40 years since the book’s publication. In a different key, Wilson’s calm and self-control in the midst of serious illness and the thundercloud of war is also an inspiration. Modern politicians could learn much from his example of legislative patience and steadiness in foreign policy. Last words go to Cooper:

The leadership issue boiled down to inspiration versus education. With his prophetic, evangelical approach Roosevelt sought, in the root sense of the word, to inspire. He wanted to breathe into people a resolve to be better than they were, to instill in them devotion to larger goals and greater effort. With his “schoolmaster” approach to leadership, Wilson similarly sought, in the root sense, to educate. He wished to draw out of people recognition of their own best interests, to let them enlighten their ordinary pursuits. The issue between them over the purposes of government came down to one of paternalism versus representation. Roosevelt believed that in the right kind of government, leaders inspired by visions of unifying, uplifting national ideals would guide the people. For Wilson, popular interests would be genuinely represented by leaders who listened to the people. Wilson repeatedly urged audiences in the 1912 campaign not to vote for him unless he was expressing their aspirations and beliefs. “I do not wish to be your master,” he avowed at one point. “I wish to be your spokesman.” (Pages 213–214.)

---

*Surprising to me, given our modern insistence on strictly dividing Conservative and Liberal into warring factions, Edmund Burke was just as big an influence on Wilson’s political philosophy, particularly his emphasis on incremental progress and “conservative growth.” In his own words, Wilson was opposed to “remaking society based on paper theories”; this meant avoiding sweeping ex cathedra reforms, and instead promoting changes that would increase popular involvement in the political process. He believed in bottom-up social renewal.

**Later known as Dixiecrats, this congeries of “ideological nonconformists” stewed in the margins of the Democratic Party until the 1960s, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act signaling their last stand. Cooper compares them to the “insurgent Republicans,” like Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette, who eventually switched parties or who “withered away.” What I did not realize was the extent to which this realignment was already on-course during the late 1930s, in reaction to FDR’s New Deal: “The 1936 campaign witnessed a shift into the Republican camp of state-rights, limited-government Democrats…[P]arty success and Roosevelt’s popularity helped keep more conservative southerners in line for a while. But with the reemergence of racial justice as a major political issue starting in the late 1930s, southern white Democrats became a dissident faction… Every election from 1944 through 1968 occasioned either separatist southern presidential efforts or refusals by prominent white southern Democrats to support the national ticket…The South’s anomalous position within the Democratic party did not end until the 1960s and 1970s, when political realignment in the region brought newly re-enfranchised blacks into the party and pushed out the more conservative whites.” (Pages 353–354.)

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Milton Cooper, Jr.’s “The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt” is a frustratingly complex book. I ended up feeling proud of myself for finishing it while at the same time wondering how much of it I had truly comprehended.

Some have categorized this book as a comparative biography of T.R. and Woodrow Wilson. One review of the book that I read was more accurate in pointing out that it is really a comparative study of the two men, not really a biography at all. In that vein, this is not a book to tackle if you know little or nothing about Roosevelt and Wilson. I felt up to the task because I had recently read a pair of biographies of each. I should have read more. You’re not going to get a fundamental sense of their respective life experiences here. What you will get is a heavy dose of inside politics and inside policy. A lot of sausage making goes on in the course of the book’s 360 pages; lots of it isn’t pretty and the coverage is often so wonky that the nature of the ingredients being used aren’t identifiable!

The “Warrior and Priest” terminology used in the title and throughout the book comes from Friedrich Nietzsche. Theodore Roosevelt as Warrior is a relatively easy concept to understand; however the Woodrow Wilson as priest takes you on a side trip to brush up on master-slave morality to really understand. By now You’re probably getting my point that this isn’t a good “beach book!”

The strength of Cooper’s book is that it does an amazing job of showing how various strands of a variety of political movements ranging from progressivism to old guard republicanism and from socialism to the Democratic Party of the New Deal are interwoven. In my mind, the most frustrating aspect of the book is Cooper’s surety at having the best understanding of all things Roosevelt and Wilson. I lost count of the number of times that the author laid out the conclusion of a majority of historians on an issue only to point out that they didn’t quite understand what REALLY happened.

This book isn’t a good choice as a Christmas present unless the intended giftee is a serious student of the period between 1900 and 1924. Glad I read it, but I’m even more pleased to say that I’m done.

[David Dunlap · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title image is derived from the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, but, as Cooper shows in this excellent comparative biography, it is only half-accurate: while Theodore Roosevelt was every inch a warrior, fearlessly fighting for what he believed in, even to the point of splitting the Republican Party in 1912, Woodrow Wilson more closely resembled a Nietzschean Superman than a mild priest. The book lays out the early formative years for both men in alternating chapters, until they appear together on the national stage in the election campaign of 1912, which Wilson was to go on to win. The author does a superlative job of delineating the characters of each of his protagonists, with their strengths and their weaknesses. He finds many points of comparison; but the differences he underscores are perhaps the more revealing. He depicts TR, despite his ebullient and flamboyant exterior, as something of a pessimist, while the more reserved Wilson, despite his reputation for cold aloofness, was more of an optimist. TR was a more blatant racist, believing in the basic inequality of the white and black races; Wilson, although a son of the South, believed in their equality. (Neither man, however, had an exemplary record when it came to race issues while serving in the White House.) Despite his gifts, Roosevelt came to despise Wilson; Cooper suggests he was envious of the Democrat's abilities. Cooper also applauds Wilson's first term, in particular, as a startlingly successful presidency; as the issues seizing the country moved from domestic to international (with the onset of World War I), Wilson was also initially successful, but health issues (from which he had suffered for many years) began to take their toll on him. Despite a crippling stroke in October 1919, Wilson continued to keep his policies on the rails, with mixed success. -- All in all, I found this a most fascinating book, with many insights into both men. One leaves the book with a deep appreciation for these admirable men, who, the author maintains, are perhaps the most important Presidents since the Civil War...and vital to an understanding of contemporary American politics.

[Robert Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A tremendously useful comparative biography. My picture of both of these US presidents prior to reading this book was a little cartoonish and more than a little dour. Both statesmen are founding fathers of 20th century US politics and, in different ways, of US empire. After reading it, my respect for Wilson has grown somewhat, while my great disrespect for Roosevelt is preserved if not amplified.

One of the book's great revelations is how similar the two men's politics were, while managing to be completely different in temperaments and eventual accomplishments. The portraits painted go along way to explaining why Teddy Roosevelt retains a larger footprint in US culture, despite Wilson being a vastly more accomplished president. Roosevelt just loved attention. It's not that Wilson was without vanity, it's just that Teddy had it in almost Trumpian proportions. I especially enjoyed the depiction of the 1912 election, where the two men faced off against each other ( and poor Taft ). Their different personalities made for a fascinating clash, despite the fact that both of them were for largely the same things, more progressive politics, and more involvement abroad.

Cooper's, perhaps a little worshipful, portrait of Wilson challenged my conception of the man as the 20th century's great villain, messianically stepping across the Atlantic and into World War I to make the world safe for democracy, but flubbing the peace, and mostly making the world safe for Hitler. Cooper makes it clear that Wilson was at the mercy of his times. Cooper doesn't come right out and say it, but it's pretty clear to me that the world would have been in even worse shape if the truly blood-thirsty Roosevelt had been elected president in 1912 instead. It's good to be reminded that in a democracy the agency of Presidents is limited.

That said, I do think the account of both men erred a little on the side of being too respectful. Cooper seems to have a real affection for both men, and Wilson in particular. I was delighted to see that Cooper is still alive, and has composed a relatively recent biography of Wilson (2009). I wonder if that edition makes more of Wilson's well documented racism than this volume from 1983. I appreciated how tragic a figure Wilson was, but I still don't think of him as being as much of a tragic hero as Cooper portrays in this book. It remains a tremendously useful volume for anyone who wants to understand early 20th century US politics.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A. Synopsis: These presidents (the most important since the Civil War) reinvigorated the office and expanded it in three ways: public dramatization; education of the people; and party leadership. TR dramatized himself through the mass journalistic media which covered all of his exploits from reformer, rancher, and war hero. He held a strong command of power on the “bully pulpit,” and gave rise to the term “imperial presidency.” WW appeared to be far more disciplined and reserved than TR, yet WW admired and copied his practices of public persuasion. He regarded educating the public as the most important aspect of political leadership. Their most significant contributions were their shaping of the ideological dimensions of 20th century politics (TR favored international activism, WW preferred a more pacific course). By the time they ran against each other in 1912 they were strong antagonists embodying Nietzsche’s Will-to-Power, the Warrior and the Priest. The US had not witnessed such a conflict since Jefferson and Hamilton. The traditional labels placed on them are misleading (TR as a “realist” concerned with national self-interest and WW as an “idealist” concerned with transcendent ideals). Wilson did strive to reform international affairs in a peaceful manner and used rhetoric that used religious values. In domestic affairs these positions were reversed. In foreign affairs they were not merely polar opposites.
B. The Dude (TR as in dude-rancher) and the Professor (WW). The first 40 years of their lives
1. Summary: TR and WW followed different but parallel paths during the first 40 years of life. Each had a personal handicap to overcome. Their fathers each played the significant role in their overcoming this handicap. WW went into academics first (Princeton pres 1902). TR went into politics first (US pres 1901).
2. The TR legend of his youth would inspire many boys of his day. He won by effort, not privilege or birth right. He had a phenomenal mind, and a voracious appetite for learning. But, he suffered from asthma and had a nervous digestive system. Through exercise and outdoor activity he overcame his physical debility’s (the self-created character). He became the most prominent militarist in American history. Cooper argues that this drive came from his father failing to answer the battle cry of the Civil War.
3. WW’s childhood never became famous. His father was a priest and the greatest influence of his early years was religion. He was brought up as a liberal Presbyterian and was able to attain a strong academic background. Calvinist doctrines had little impact on WW, and he never undertook any theological speculation. WW’s major boyhood handicap was dyslexia.
4. TR become s a member of the NY legislature and develops a good relationship with the press. When his wife and mother died he went to his Dakota ranch and herded cattle. This period in the West would eventually endear TR to the people. In 1897 he completed his 4-volume The Winning of the West. His political views stemmed from his reading and writing. He had a deep-seated conservatism and a commitment to nationalism. The 2 biggest issues of his career were the response of government to the growth of big business and the role of the US in world affairs (an active aggressive role). His involvement in the Spanish-American War brought him great popularity. He became Gov. of NY in 1898. He became president in 1901 after an assassins bullet.
5. WW’s academic career. Began his graduate career (after his law practice for 4 years) at Johns Hopkins in 1883. He acquired a good measure of fame as both a writer and a lecturer.
C. Two Presidents (A university and of the US)
1. TR’s accomplishment: Exploited journalistic media, built a power base apart from party organizations. He doubled the size of the US navy, started construction on the Panama Canal, instituted policies for the conservation of natural resources, regulated big business, pursued a strong foreign polity.
2. WW strove to make Princeton a leading university. He introduced curriculum reform, drew much public attention for himself, and became the best known college president in America. His career faltered in 1907 when some of his reforms were rescinded.
3. The stage was set for the two men to emerge as equals and rivals.
D. The Great Campaign
1. The 1912 campaign. TR challenged Taft for Republican nominee. He won most of the primaries but fell short at the convention. He then began the Progressive party based on reform and morality. WW entered politics when he ran for New Jersey governor. Once in office he fought for state reform including laws governing public utilities, primaries, and corrupt campaign practices.
2. The race that followed was one of the great campaigns of history. A 3-way race with a major party split. Taft remained a candidate just to spoil TR’s chances. The main issue between TR and WW was the issue of how to control large corporations or trusts. TR believed that the big corporations were here to stay and that the present economic conditions represented progress. He believed that through regulation and supervision, the government could protect people from these corporations. WW disagreed on all points (the corporations were not necessarily here to stay and they did not always represent progress over the past). WW wanted to open the market for other competitors. He held a very “liberal” view in that he sought public action to promote the economic interests of the less advantaged.
3. Neither men mentioned foreign affairs in the campaign.
E. The warrior and the priest
1. The conflict between TR and WW continued from 1912 to 1919. The conflict was based on two issues (progressive reform and foreign affairs). TR was envious that it was WW who enacted a sweeping reform program and transformed his party into a vehicle for progressivism. Their disagreement in foreign affairs surfaced after the outbreak of WWI. WW began to renounce imperialism. TR remained committed to a belief in great-power hegemony.
2. The conflict continued after TR’s death in 1919. Republican leader Henry Cabot Lodge filled the role of TR’s ideological heir. The League of Nations plan failed as the Senate deadlocked over WW’s plan or Lodge’s counterproposal.
3. The ideological legacies left by TR and WW have yet to be exhausted in 20th century American politics, and they stand as principle architects of modern American politics.

[Stuart Levy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed learning about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in one book, to understand their roles in the late 19th and early 20th century.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the Warrior and the Priest, John Milton Cooper makes a cogent and interesting comparison between the lives and stances of the two great early-20th century presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. He follows them from their very different births, through their political careers, and all the way to the eventual impacts their administrations and remonstrances would have on the future course of American foreign policy. While he is treats both men fairly, it seemed to me that he sometimes was excessively overt in defending Wilson against critics, especially those who had found Wilson lacking when compared to Roosevelt. Nevertheless, I think Cooper provides a good overview of the careers and evolving political beliefs of both, with especial care paid towards comparing their stances at various times. One discovers that Wilson was not as idealistic as he is commonly portrayed, and that Roosevelt experienced several changes of opinion on foreign policy. I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to more closely examine the relationship, both personal and political, between the two.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Milton Cooper Jr.'s book, "The Warrior and the Priest," has a dual focus on the lives and presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In essence, the book functions as a dual biography that compares and contrasts Roosevelt and Wilson's respective backgrounds and how those backgrounds influenced their lives and terms in office. Having already read Edmund Morris' three-part biography of Roosevelt plus John Milton Cooper Jr.'s recently published biography of Wilson (why he felt the need to write a biography on Woodrow Wilson after having written this book is beyond me), this book offered me very little in the way of any information, but for people who are looking for broader insights or students who are looking for good secondary source material for papers on the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, Cooper's book is an excellent, accessible read.

[Homer H Blass]

an interesting comparision of Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt . Unlike simple generalizations, Cooper argues that Wilson is the realist while Roosevelt is the idealist. And the evidence he marshals seems to support his theses.

[Martha Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Milton Cooper, Jr., is Chairman of the History Department and Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin. This book illustrates the conflicts between Roosevelt and Wilson. Cooper's book is intellectually rich and provocative.

[Joey · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book sucks.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed comparing and contrasting of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It is not designed for the casual reader.

[Barron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worthwhile, perceptive, authoritative, concise.