THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK ONE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One - The Bolt - (pages 1 - 30) - No Spoilers, please

[Ann D]

Bentley,
You asked me to clarify some comments. I made about the super wealthy Ricketts family in Nebraska politics. For me, they are an example of the hard- working rich who have become incredibly wealthy , yet fail to show any sympathy for those at the opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum

Father Joe Ricketts founded the company that became TD Ameritrade in Omaha, Nebraska. He has spent over $25 million of his own money to finance a Super-Pac called “Ending Spending,” which is targeted at the federal government. Mother Marilyn was the main donor of the campaign to stop Trump in January of this year. The family donates heavily to conservative Republicans

Son Pete Ricketts, formerly worked for his father’s company and is currently governor of Nebraska. Pete spent over $11 million of his own money on a failed 2006 attempt to become Nebraska’s U. S. Senator. In 2014, he won the race for governor.

As governor of Nebraska, Pete’s main focus has been on tax relief. He wants to reduce government spending and opposes higher taxes on the wealthy. (Surprise!)

In 2015, he vetoed a bill that would have used federal funds to raise welfare benefits for the first time in nearly 30 years. He is completely against the Affordable Care Act and has strongly opposed any expansion of the Medicaid system to take advantage of federal funds.

Last year, our unicameral legislature voted to end the death penalty in Nebraska. The legislature overrode Pete’s veto. The governor then played the leading role in financing and organizing a successful petition campaign to put the death penalty revocation on the ballot. He contributed $200,000 of his own money to this successful petition campaign. His wealthy father contributed a similar amount.

In 2015, the legislature overrode Ricketts veto of a bill that ended Nebraska’s status as the last state to grant drivers’ licenses to so-called DREAMer immigrant children who now have legal status. The legislature also overrode his veto of an increase in the state gas tax to provide more money for roads.

Nebraska is a conservative state, but our unicameral legislature is much more open to “progressive” reforms than our governor. The Ricketts seem to think they can buy whatever they want.

[Savannah]

Hi Helga, Could not help but respond since your background seems so similar to mine. I have a masters in organic chemistry and a minor in mathematics, but have had a life-long love of history and philosophy. My brother read me Plato and Aristotle before I even started kindergarten. Like you I am from the South - Tennessee, but unlike you I am retired. I have 4 granddaughters.

[Ann D]

Christopher,
Excellent points about the primary system. In Nebraska, our primary is in May - when the whole thing is generally wrapped up (but not this year). Only with the institution of the Democratic March caucus in 2008 did I really feel I had an opportunity to participate in the presidential electoral process. The Republicans would not agree to an earlier general primary, so we are stuck with a caucus for the time being.

Many feel that caucuses are less democratic than primaries. In general, I agree. I thought it was ironic that La Follette saw the primaries as such a step forward. Compared to the past, it certainly was,. However, the erratic time schedule for the primaries and the different rules regarding participation have ended up creating a pretty chaotic system which doesn't seem very democratic or "fair" today.

I agree with you that the parties have the right to make their own rules about choosing their candidates. I only wish they would create a more uniform system from state to state.

[Robin]

Great questions. We sometimes have progressive candidates with respect to some issues today, but I do feel that the Progressive Era is over. The same kind of urgency is not apparent among politicians or ordinary people who feel they need to clean up the rampant abuses of capitalism that emerged during the Gilded Age.

I would love to see more progressive elements in our parties' platforms and in campaign promises. If we clamor for candidates who seek these kinds of goals or aspirations for our country we could be more confident that politicians are acting for the PEOPLE, not for special interests.

I feel that Progressivism was primarily good, good for our country. Muckraking journalism is still around, but not everybody is getting the kind of "Square Deal" Theodore Roosevelt promised.

[Robin]

Bentley wrote: "All, I am opening this thread as a way for all recipients of the free book offer to post a brief intro here for your fellow readers of Unreasonable Men - introduce yourself and indicate why you are..."
Thank you, Bentley!
I am a recipient. I teach U.S. History at Troy University in Alabama, so I get to talk to my students about T. Roosevelt and the Progressive Era a bit, but I am always hoping to gain more insights. Michael Wolraich's book is written well and provides fascinating details and anecdotes.

[Christopher]

Ann wrote: "Christopher,
Excellent points about the primary system. In Nebraska, our primary is in May - when the whole thing is generally wrapped up (but not this year). Only with the institution of the Democ..."

I know how you feel Ann. I live in CA and our primary is in June. Even in this election our vote probably won't have much of an effect on who wins the primaries.

As I've thought about our primary and caucus system in the past, I can't help but think that we have a de facto two-stage election similar to what Brazil and other South American countries have.

If people were truly fed up with the two-party system in this country, then we should be advocating for a constitutional amendment where all elected members at the federal level would have to go through a two-stage election. Anyone could run in the first stage, but only the top two candidates get to move on to the second stage of the election. However, if a candidate garners a majority of the vote in the first election, then s/he is automatically declared the winner of that contest and there is no need for a second stage election. I think you would see truly weak political parties if you had an election system like that.

[Vincent]

This first chapter was a good start to this learning adventure.

pg 5 talks about Republican control and I am curious as to how much residue of the Republican dominance after the Civil War still remained during this era. The last paragraph on page 8 refers to the ten year Republican congressional dominance as a means to stifle progressive legislation

Pg 11 brings up the names Steffins (a friend? of TR) - Tarbell's coverage of railroad made me think of Frank Norris's the Octopus published in 1901 just three years earlier - and an interesting read. - also see page 23 paragraph 3 about railroads

We will maybe see a devoting difference between La Follette and TR as it seems so far that La Follette lacks the fundamental threatening of the system per Steffins pg 12 page 5.

Pg 13 para 6 & 8 illustrate how even then "socialism" was a dirty word - and sincerity was suspect.

Page 15 para 5 - "college activists" is that La Follette or Sanders of McGibben - sorry for the current politics - back to 1904.

Pg 24 para 3 so La Follette is credited with "developing citizenship" - more power to him

The beginning was a bit slow and for me still is as I have to think these things thru but I am really hoping that I can learn more of the era and think I may better understand American politics for the 20th century thru to now from this book.

Frank Norris

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Folks do not forget to check out the glossary:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

There is some great ancillary information that we have placed there for you.

Also if you have any direct questions for the author - please make sure to post your question on this thread (he is here for you):

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Also check out the books and other materials that Michael Wolraich used in researching and writing this book: (Bibliography)

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

For those of you looking for the table of contents thread and syllabus thread - here it is:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Mary Ellen]

Hello, all! I am coming a little late to the discussion - apologies!

My name is Mary Ellen and I am from Connecticut. I have loved history since high school, was an undergrad history major and, for a few years, a teacher before going to law school.

I knew a little about TR - but am thinking some of the things I "knew" I am going to unlearn as I read this book! I'd heard of LaFollette but knew little about him. I am eager to read this book because of my current ignorance AND the parallels with today's politics.

I find politics alternately fascinating and appalling - sometimes go for stretches, just reading the Arts section of the paper, taking the ostrich approach. The divisions in our country at present are alarming. I am reminded of the antebellum era and find it frightening. Our Congress is nearly useless and I think the #DoYourJob hashtag quite appropriate!

I have been disappointed in a number of things Obama has done, and, more, in what he did not do, but in light of the multiple crises he faced coming into office and the bull-headed obstructionism of the Republican Congress, he is to be admired.

I think of progressives as working to provide civil rights and civil liberties, improve the lot of the vulnerable, ensure access to voting and the political process and diminish the power of oligarchies.

I am distressed by the attraction Trump holds for many. I can understand why many who find themselves on the losing end of economic shifts are angry. I cannot believe that their anger would make them blind to his xenophobism and racism and deaf to his inconsistent bluster.

Our primary is coming up and I am still not sure which (Democratic) candidate I will vote for!

As to the first chapter: very interesting about LaFollette's dogged campaigns in Wisconsin and his "half a loaf is worse than none" philosophy. On reflection, I can understand his point. I wondered why he and TR identified themselves as Republicans, given the Republican party's protection of the very interests both were fighting against.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Mary Ellen welcome to the conversation. It is obvious that the Republican party was a very different party than it is has become today. It used to be quite moderate and now it is quite far to the right.

Take some time to go through and read the thread of comments and jump in and post your responses or opinions on a variety of topics.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Vincent wrote: "This first chapter was a good start to this learning adventure.

pg 5 talks about Republican control and I am curious as to how much residue of the Republican dominance after the Civil War still re..."

Vincent welcome again and thank you for your wonderful notes.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Robin wrote: "Great questions. We sometimes have progressive candidates with respect to some issues today, but I do feel that the Progressive Era is over. The same kind of urgency is not apparent among politician..."

Welcome Robin to the conversation - try to go back to message 5 and respond to all of the preliminary questions. It is always a lot of fun to do that.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Christopher wrote: "Michael wrote: "Question for the group. Do you see connections between La Follette's campaign for direct primaries and Donald Trump's accusation that the Republican primary is "rigged?""

I definit..."

Christopher - an excellent article and link - thank you

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Ann wrote: "Bentley,
You asked me to clarify some comments. I made about the super wealthy Ricketts family in Nebraska politics. For me, they are an example of the hard- working rich who have become incredibly..."

Ann - thank you for giving us the explanation that I asked for - very troubling isn't it.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes I do Michael - in fact I know people are going to be upset but I think Donald has some similar characteristics to LaFollette although LaFollette had many more "good upstanding qualities".

Sanders is obviously trying to be like La Follette but in some areas he comes up short.

[Jill]

Bentley, I'm glad you pointed out that the Republican Party is not what it used to be or what it is still perceived to be by hard-liners. It has grown more conservative, more downscale economically, older and more Southern in character. That change in the demographics has affected the identity of the "party of Lincoln" to a large extent and it makes one wonder if Lincoln or TR would recognize it.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Not sure. There does not appear to be a moderate faction any longer. I am not sure if it is more Southern in character though than it was before (but your are probably correct) or more downscale economically - there are a lot of bankers and money managers in NYC who are all staunch Republicans in a democratic city and a democratic state aside from the Northern part. Lincoln might recognize it a little but not TR. It just has changed tremendously.


WASHINGTON
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; six out of 10 House representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
MINNESOTA
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; five out of eight House representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been one Reform Party member, one Republican and one Democrat; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
OREGON
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; four out of five House representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
CALIFORNIA
Voted for Democratic president in last six elections; two Democratic senators; 38 out of 53 House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
RHODE ISLAND
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; two out of two House representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been Republicans (current governor is Independent from 2007 to 2013); Democratic-controlled Legislature.
NEW YORK
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; 21 out of 27 House representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
MASSACHUSETTS
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; nine out of nine House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
MARYLAND
Voted for Democratic president in last six elections; two Democratic senators; seven out of eight House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
MICHIGAN
Voted for Democratic president in six out of last seven elections; two Democratic senators; five out of 14 House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Republican; Republican-controlled Legislatures.
WISCONSIN
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; three out of eight House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
MAINE
Voted for Democratic president in last six elections; one Republican senator and one Independent senator; two out of two House representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been one Independent, one Democrat and one Republican; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
ILLINOIS
Voted for Democratic president in last six elections; one Democratic senator and one Republican senator; 12 out of 18 House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
HAWAII
Voted for Democratic president in last seven elections; two Democratic senators; two out of two House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
CONNECTICUT
Voted for Democratic president in six of last seven elections; two Democratic senators; five out of five House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Republican; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
VERMONT
Voted for Democratic president in six of last seven elections; one Democratic senator and one Independent; one and only House representative is Democrat; two of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
NEW JERSEY
Voted for Democratic president in six out of seven last elections; two Democratic senators; five out of 11 House representatives are Democrats, with one vacancy; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
DELAWARE
Voted for Democratic president in six out of seven last elections; two Democratic senators; one and only House representatives is a Democrat; three out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
IOWA
Voted for Democratic president in six out of last seven elections; one Republican and one Democratic senator; two out of four House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; split control of Legislature.
PENNSYLVANIA
Voted for Democratic president in six out of seven last elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; 13 out of 18 House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
NEW MEXICO
Voted for Democratic president in five of last seven elections; two Democrat senators; two out of three House representatives are Democrats; two out past three governors have been Republicans; split control of Legislature.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Voted for Democratic president in five of last seven elections; one Democrat senator and one Republican senator; two out of two House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; split control of Legislature.
NEVADA
Voted for Democratic president in four of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; two out of four House Representatives are Democrats; past three governors have been Republicans; Democrats control Legislature.
OHIO
Voted for Democratic president in four of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; 12 out of 16 House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
WEST VIRGINIA
Voted for Republican president in four of last seven elections; two Democratic senators; two out of three House representatives are Republicans; past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
COLORADO
Voted for Republican president in four of last seven elections; two Democratic senators; four out of seven House representatives are Republican; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
FLORIDA
Voted for Republican president in four of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; 17 out of 27 House representatives are Republicans; past three governors have been Republicans (one a Republican turned Independent); Republican-controlled Legislature
VIRGINIA
Voted for Republican president in five of last seven elections; two Democratic senators; seven out of 10 House representatives are Republicans, with one vacancy; past two out of three governors have been Democrats; Republican-controlled Legislature.
MISSOURI
Voted for Republican president in five of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; six of eight House representatives are Republicans; two of past three governors have been Democrats; Republican-controlled Legislature.
ARKANSAS
Voted for Republican president in five of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; four out of four House representatives are Republicans; two of past three governors have been Democrats; Republican-controlled Legislature.
KENTUCKY
Voted for Republican president in five of last seven elections; two Republican senators; five out of six House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; split control of Legislature.
LOUISIANA
Voted for Republican president in five of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; five out of six House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
TENNESSEE
Voted for Republican president in five of last seven elections; two Republican senators; seven out of nine House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
INDIANA
Voted for Republican president in six of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; seven out of nine House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
MONTANA
Voted for Republican president in six of last seven elections; two Democratic senators; one and only House representative is Republican; two out of past three governors have been Democrats; Republican-controlled Legislature.
NORTH CAROLINA
Voted for Republican president in six of last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; nine out of 12 House representatives are Republicans, with one vacancy; two of past three governors have been Democrats; Republican-controlled Legislature
GEORGIA
Voted for Republican president in six of seven last elections; two Republican senators; nine out of 14 House representatives are Republican; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
ARIZONA
Voted for Republican president in six of seven last elections; two Republican senators; five out of nine House representatives are Democrats; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; one and only House representative is Republican; past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
NORTH DAKOTA
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; one Republican senator and one Democratic senator; one and only House representative is Republican; past three governors have been Republicans; Democratic-controlled Legislature.
TEXAS
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Republican senators; 24 out of 36 House representatives are Republican; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Republican senators; six out of seven House representatives are Republican; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
WYOMING
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Republican senators; one and only House representative is Republican; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
UTAH
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Republican senators, three out of four House representatives are Republicans; past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
OKLAHOMA
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Republican senators; five out of five House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
NEBRASKA
Voted for Republican president the last seven elections; two Republican senators; three out of three House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; nonpartisan Legislature.
MISSISSIPPI
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Republican senators; three out of four House representatives are Republicans; two out of past three governors have been Republicans; Republican-controlled Legislature.
KANSAS
Voted for Republican president in last seven elections; two Re

[John]

Bentley - let me just take a moment to say thank you for the amount of time and energy you are investing in research, posting and guiding the discussion. I well know research takes time, and doing it for free? Forgetaboutit! as they say in NJ! So thank you! It has enriched the discussion and reading!

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

John, you are making me laugh - being a staunch New Englander who has been transplanted to NYC - I know what you mean. I think we got off to a good start and that is what is important.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I would like to go back to the Preface and pull out some quotes and ideas that we should bring with us and that we should remember while reading this book and moving into next week's discussion. Please feel free to discuss the pros or cons of any of these. At the History Book Club we can discuss both sides of an argument or position with civil discourse.

1. During the time period discussed - at the dawn of the twentieth century - "Despite widespread discontent, congressional paralysis prevented the government from meeting the nation's challenges. Republican obstructionists maintained a chokehold on the House and Senate, blocking all but the most meager reform bills. The Democrats, weak and divided, had no hope of breaking their grip. Both parties catered to large corporations that lavished them with funding.

a) Do you think that this quote represents how things are today in Congress? Did it take "unreasonable men" to break up the log jam?
Are corporations too powerful today? Should more be done about campaign financing (although the Supreme Court gutted the McCain/Feingold bill) - and campaign finance reform.

b) The case was Citizens United v FEC and the only provision that the case did not involve was the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remains illegal in races for federal office. However, it did do damage to other safeguards in place. In fact, it might explain the ugliness of this primary season to a certain extent. Of course not all of it.

Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.

Effects of Citizens United
An explosion in independent political spending ensued in the decision’s aftermath, as this chart from the Center for Responsive Politics illustrates:



"Spending was on the rise even before Citizens United, but the post-decision increase was dramatic. The 2012 presidential election was the first following Citizens United, with more than twice the political spending as any previous election. Independent political spending of the kind Citizens United allows accounted for all of that increase.
Is this new spending determining the winners of elections? Most analysis suggests it’s not (at least not much), but by no means is the spending benign,....... (see http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-c...)

Read more about Citizens United here:

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/...
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/who-are-c...
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/...
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2...
https://youtu.be/CykwVD_f2sc (Sanders)
https://youtu.be/68wHngd9nYc (Oliver - humorous)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6FA8...)
https://youtu.be/kcnkgDHU9I8 - not bad for basic info fast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp_b4... - Brown University
https://youtu.be/4Aqp2s27kXg - NYU School of Law
https://youtu.be/wmjPLTz5RV8 - Duke
https://youtu.be/gjCQXRDiuN0 - University of California
https://youtu.be/fiWJAdFTIxQ - University of Chicago Law School

[Vincent]

Jill wrote: "Bentley, I'm glad you pointed out that the Republican Party is not what it used to be or what it is still perceived to be by hard-liners. It has grown more conservative, more downscale economically..."

I think the bigger question is not if they would recognize it but rather if they would participate with it and I do think not.

[Vincent]

Bentley wrote: "I would like to go back to the Preface and pull out some quotes and ideas that we should bring with us and that we should remember while reading this book and moving into next week's discussion:

1..."

comment on a) - maybe "unreasonable" or maybe at least "less reasonable" is what we need. Maybe we can get Washington to be BERNING up next year.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Next set of quotes to take with us as we move through the book is the comparison of President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Robert Marion La Follette.

Please feel free to discuss both President Theodore Roosevelt and La Follette as presented. Roosevelt it appears at first practiced "incrementalism" while LaFollette "never settled" and "refused to compromise".



Here is the segment to remember:

Michale Wolraich wrote in the Preface - "President Theodore Roosevelt was the pragmatist. He pushed for change one small step at a time. When congressional leaders wouldn't give him the legislation he wanted, he negotiated and compromised to get the best he could, operating under the premise that half a loaf is better than no loaf. "Nothing of value is to be expected from ceaseless agitation for radical and extreme legislation," he insisted.

Senator Robert Marion La Follette was the insurgent. "Fighting Bob" from Wisconsin never settled for half a loaf. He championed ambitious reforms that stood no chance of passing and refused to compromise with his Republican colleagues. When they voted down his bills, he went to their districts and campaigned against them in Republican primaries. Real progress would not be possible, he believed, until voters threw the obstructionists out of office.

Though Roosevelt and LaFollette shared the same goals, they were never able to work together. Politically, their tactics were incompatible. Personally, they held each other in contempt. Their ferocious battle against the Republican establishment - and ultimately each other - traumatized the country and nearly destroyed the party, but it finally broke down the barricades that had immobilized Congress. A new political movement rose from the flames and triggered one of the greatest explosions of change in US history: income taxes, labor law, women's suffrage, campaign finance reform. environmentalism, industrial regulation, the Federal Reserve, and other reforms that define modern America."

Discussion Questions:

1. Is Theodore Roosevelt's initial approach better? Is it better to get half of what you want or 10% of what you want versus "nothing"?

2. Was Bob LaFollette the harbinger of the "all or nothing" approach in Congress that we see today or did he stand for something entirely different?

3. Do you think that because of the progressive ideology and conflict that many needed "explosive changes" came about out of these confrontations? Did this conflict end up being good for the country? Do you worry about the conflict and confrontations that are occurring now? Do you think they are different than at the time of TR and LaFollette or similar? Explain.

4. Why do you think TR and LaFollette could never work together? Why did they hold each other in contempt? They both were battling the Republican establishment - couldn't they see a path towards joining forces. Why or why not?

5. The author indicates that the old "North-South" rivalry gave way to new battle lines - progressives versus conservatives. What do you think are the battle lines today and how do you think Theodore Roosevelt and LaFollette are still influencing the country and oddly enough this upcoming election?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Next set of quotes to take with us as we move through the book are the author's own words about why he wrote this book.

Michael Wolraich wrote:

"I wrote this book to explain how it all began. By returning to the moment when America broke into two ideological factions, we can see more clearly the we're fighting about and better appreciate the stakes.

But clarity is not my only objective. History offers a solution to our modern political dysfunction. The first progressives bequeathed us a case study in how to reform a broken system. Theodore Roosevelt exemplified conciliation and incremental change. Under the right circumstances, his pragmatic approach has obvious advantages, but it failed to achieve much progress in the face of entrenched opposition. Eventually even Roosevelt abandoned incrementalism. Three years after his presidency, he reinvented himself as the bellicose "Bull Moose," embraced Lafollettfe's radical proposals and assailed the conservative politicians who whom he had once cooperated.

By then, the progressive movement was in full swing, driven forward by La Follette and his little band of Republican insurgents, Their defiant, quixotic, "unreasonable" insurgency against their own party inspired voters nationwide and catalyzed a historic political realignment that decimated the obstructionists in Congress and opened the floodgates to reform. A century later, La Follette and his allies have left us a rich legislative legacy and a timeless lesson in practical politics: to build momentum, it is often necessary to lose in order to win."

Discussion Questions:

1. In order not to lead folks into one direction or another - please comment on the above and what insights you take away from the author's own words. About Theodore Roosevelt's approach? About La Follette's? About solutions for political dysfunction? About what "unreasonableness" means to the author? About the country's current situation?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Here is the syllabus

Week One - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One: The Bolt - pages ix - 30 - Nearing Completion

Next Week's Reading Assignment and Discussion
Week Two - April 18th - April 24th - Chapter Two: The Railroad - pages 31 - 52

Upcoming in Future Weeks - Not Yet Assigned - everything below
Week Three - April 25th - May 1st - Chapter Three: The Muck Rake - pages 53 - 78

Week Four - May 2nd - May 8th - Chapter Four: The Panic - pages 79 - 106

Week Five - May 9th - May 15th - Chapter Five: The Money Power - pages 107 - 122

Week Six - May 16th - May 22nd - Chapter Six: The Smile - pages 123 - 142

Week Seven - May 23rd - May 29th - Chapter Seven: The Tariff - pages 143 - 174

Week Eight - May 30th - June 5th - Chapter Eight: The Insurgency - pages 175 - 202

Week Nine - June 6th - June 12th - Chapter Nine: The Progressive - pages 203 - 224

Week Ten - June 13th - June 19th - Chapter Ten: The Bull Moose - pages 225 - 258

Week Eleven - June 20th - June 26th - Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts (This is the thread where all recipients of the free book offer post their brief review of the book)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Vincent wrote: "Jill wrote: "Bentley, I'm glad you pointed out that the Republican Party is not what it used to be or what it is still perceived to be by hard-liners. It has grown more conservative, more downscale..."

Yes, I believe that even for TR and La Follette the differences would not be to their liking Vincent. Vincent I hear you but we are not campaigning for anybody here or any party (smile). We do have the primary thread available though for any discussions of what is going on currently in this primary cycle which is a lot but not a lot of "good".

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Folks please feel free to jump in and respond to any set of discussion questions as we wind down and get ready on Monday to head to the "railroads" or better still from the reading - discuss what you would like - be careful of spoilers. Everybody else - you are welcome to pop in and post and join us for the discussion - these threads are here for all group members and if you want to participate - everybody is welcome.

Right now we are straddling the gilded age and heading into the progressive era which has not yet started in 1828 where Chapter Two will pick up.

Chapter One went back and forth between the two.

[Steve D]

Hi everyone. I'm a bit late to the game here, but will take my shot at the discussion questions.

1) I'm Steve from NJ. I have a close friend who is a history teacher, so within the past several years, I found myself reading more and more about history and becoming more interested. I wanted to get my hands on this book because, to be honest, I have not read a lot about this particular era in US History and was interested in learning more. To this point, I've mostly read about the founding fathers.

2) and 3) Before reading this book (or at least Chapter 1), I associated Theodore Roosevelt with progressivism, but I'm not sure I had a very good understanding of exactly what progressivism was. I am very much a beginner here.

4) Like many others, I'm not pleased with the performance of congress and government in general, as it seems virtually impossible to get important work done with people on opposite sides of the aisle who are so unwilling to even slightly break away from their party on any issue.

5) and 6) I have been loosely following the primary season. I'm not sure how the contested conventions work, but I'm pretty interested to see what will happen on the Republican side.

7) No, I don't think that this primary season has a more acrimonious nature than others. This has been going on since 1800. I think it probably just seems worse now because the candidates are under more of a microscope with social media and 24 hour news networks.

8) Finishing up Chapter 1 tonight!

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Welcome Steve. We have some good info on this thread so when you have time read the posts and get to know your fellow readers and members who are participating in this discussion. Glad to have you aboard.

[Robyn]

I just finished reading through the comments in this thread. We're in for some good discussions! So, to finish answering the discussion questions:

Progressive Politics: If the definition is to reform corruption and regulate corporations, I don't think a single candidate has the whole idea. Before participating in this discussion, I'm not sure that I had a clear definition. I agree with others that the candidates seem to have their own definitions of the term, and those on the democratic side of the aisle believe that it's a good thing, no matter what their definition is. I'm interested to see how it develops in the book.

State of congress and the government: Again, I have to agree with others that it's a mess. It seems like the politicians are focused on re-election, the majority of people aren't paying attention, and the representatives are doing what their party wants versus what their constituents want. I don't think either party is behaving better than the other. I haven't made any voting decisions yet.

Primary Season: In New Mexico, our party is so late that we don't really feel we have say in what's going on. However, this year I think will be different. I'm not directly involved, but I am listening to the messages and looking at records. I'm looking for a candidate that works for smaller government, more personal responsibility, more caring for each other (compassion is on a downhill trend), and less (hopefully no) corporate and super pac money in our elections. I feel like it's easier to opt out of taking care of each other if we're paying the government to do it for us.

Contested Conventions: I'm not sure what's going to occur. It won't be dull.

Acrimonious primaries: As a techie, I don't understand why, if we can pull off a general election, we can't do all of the primaries at the same time. I'm not impressed with the behavior of this set of candidates. There's been a lot of talking over each other and a lot of entitlement. I'm not a fan of super delegates because, especially with this election, it seems like this is putting the desires of the party above those of the people.

Biggest surprise so far: I can't believe that the Democratic candidate for president just hung out at home for most of the campaign period. The behavioral rules were definitely different back then - it was considered rude to know you were nominated prior to the official notification and it was unseemly for TR to defend himself against accusations. Can you imagine this election under that rule set? The media would be bored out of their minds.

Can't wait for more discussion! Everyone have a good weekend.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Thank you Robyn for your insightful comments and for taking the time to circle back and answer the preliminary questions. It helps all of us get to know where you are coming from.

We look forward to reading more of your posts so just jump right in and post your opinions about what you are reading.

[Jan]

Hi, my name is Jan, and I am from Southern California.
I graduated from Whittier College with a degree in Comparative Cultures and Anthropology. I also worked for 25 years in their fund raising department. I am no longer working, but spend a lot of time advocating for the victims of violent crime. I have always been a history buff. All history. All cultures.

I knew about TR of course, but not the nitty-gritty of his politics. Mainly the Panama Canal, the Big Stick, trust-busting, national parks, his big personality, and his Amazon trip. I knew nothing of La Follette. I found it interesting that after I read this week's assignment, Anderson Cooper mentioned "Fighting Bob La Follette".

Progressives have always meant to me those who wan to move forward, and conservatives those who look backwards or want to maintain the status quo. My dad was a staunch Republican, being for limited government and pro business, although my mother used to whisper in secret that she voted for FDR. When I was in high school, my world view was given a big shake up, when my dad had a conference in Rio de Janiero, and decided we should travel down through Central and South America. I found the world was a very different place than I had assumed. A few years later I married a service man and went to live in West Germany. That's when I discovered that most Europeans knew more about American politics than I did, and that what happens here sends out ripples that touch the entire world.

I am not happy with the government of recent years. Everything is at a standstill, and it seems to be more important to hold party lines than do any work. Running a government means working together and making compromises. They were sent to Washington to represent us. They should remember that they represent ALL the constituents in their district or state...or country.

I am a news junky. I think it's important to know what is happening in the world, the country and your neighborhood. I think Bernie Sanders is a Progressive. Trump and Cruz are conservatives. Not decided about Clinton and Kasich.

I think the Republicans are headed for a contested convention. That's how it works. But I am worried that there is a lot of rhetoric about it, some extremely hostile. I'm afraid that many don't understand the process, and that trouble will come of it.

I hate the acrimonious part of politics. It makes me uncomfortable. However, that has always been a part of our system. We don't agree on everything, and we air our differences right out in public for everyone to see. That's us. But, I expect our government to use the fight to thrash out the answers to our problems!

I was surprised by how closely the state of things then seems to parallel now. Not surprised that there was such a time, just that I didn't know much about the politics of the early 1900s. I always think there are parallels in history. I have often wished I could shut people in a room and MAKE them read a little history. We shouldn't have to make the same mistakes over and over. But, except in places like this, honest discussion doesn't really take place much. Too bad.

[Cosmic]

Hi i am from the South but have moved all over the America. I presently live in California.

I was raised to think conservatively.

I think it is interesting to read this book in light of the different finacial crisis that happened around the same time. If anyone is interested the YouTube video/documentary The Secrets of Oz is a good overview leading up to 1900. I am interested in reading about Teddy's take on this issue of greenbacks vs gold vs silver.

Sorry but i have been a little busy but paln to get caught up.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

You see even Anderson Cooper is familiar with the "progressives" - (smile)

Jan, thank you for answering the preliminary questions - make sure to read the thread and jump into any of the conversations that are on going.

We will always respond. Remember too that the author is with us and there is an author's thread where you can ask Michael Wolraich questions about anything in his book. This is s great opportunity.

Make sure that you are ready to start posting on Monday when we open the next thread. And by all means participate in any of the discussions that are on going here.

[Jason]

My name is Jason Page. Theodore Roosevelt is my second favorite US president to study. His larger than life personality, love of the outdoors, and his early struggles to overcome ill health. Bob Lafollette is less familiar to me other than the role of rival that he played in other books I have read about Roosevelt. I believe the best of these is Theodore Rex, the second book book in Edmund Morris's trilogy of Teddy.

Like others have stated reading books such as these really helps to put in perspective the state of US politics today. It's interesting that the origins of much of progressive politics lie with Teddy and the Republican Party.

[Gary]

I'm Gary whose goal is to read at least two biographies on every president. My main objective is to learn how each president handled the issues of his times and how they ultimately affected his predecessors. At this point, after having had read some 50+ books, I have now decided to read about each president in chronological order. I just finished His Excellency about Washington and now I'm on to John Adams by McCullough.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Jason wrote: "My name is Jason Page. Theodore Roosevelt is my second favorite US president to study. His larger than life personality, love of the outdoors, and his early struggles to overcome ill health. Bob La..."

Jason Page - welcome - we have asked all recipients of the book offer to respond to message 5 on this thread - these are the preliminary discussion questions - please take a look at them and respond.

Also please read the thread and see what other segments you would like to discuss and post your questions or comments.

After that - please be ready for Monday when I open up the Week Two thread - this Week One thread will also stay open and you can also comment on anything discussed here at any time.

But please respond to message 5 - these questions can be a lot of fun and it helps the group members participating in the offer to be able to know where you are coming from and to get to know you a little bit before interacting with you.

Additionally, the author is on board and there is a thread called the Q&A thread where you personally can ask the author any questions you have about the book we are discussing together.

Also become part of the conversation about the book and interact with the group during their reading and discussing of each segment. It makes the experience that much more enjoyable for you and for all of them. Reading and discussing the book together is part of the t's and c's. It doesn't take much time and you will get a lot out of it we hope.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Gary wrote: "I'm Gary whose goal is to read at least two biographies on every president. My main objective is to learn how each president handled the issues of his times and how they ultimately affected his pre..."

Gary please respond to the preliminary discussion questions which were posted in message 5 of this thread. I have already discussed all of this in the PM that I sent you. Also please check out the citation thread - we have standards which we follow for books that are not the ones we are discussing on this thread. You have to cite the book cover, author's photo and author's link. If you check out the white space to the right on any of our threads - you will see a list of all books mentioned on any thread with links to those books and a list of authors with links and a counter which shows how often either the book or author was mentioned on the thread - there is also another category called Other - which will take you to all of the other threads where the book or author was discussed. We make special use of the goodreads software so that our site is populated and cross referenced. When you cite a book - then your post is not lost and is searchable (folks will be able to see what you said about a book or about an author) - Very powerful.

If you need help with citations - go to the Help Desk folder and link to the thread called the Mechanics of the Board thread. All links are always on message one of the threads if you can't find it.

by David McCullough

by Joseph J. Ellis

[Mike]

Hi, I'm Mike M. from Pickerington, Ohio (just outside of Columbus). My love of history goes back to when I first began to read as a child. Ever since then, no matter what the topic is (Asian, European, economic, political, etc.) I find it fascinating. Growing up, I was a staunch conservative. As I've aged (or progressed) I've found myself becoming more liberal.

Theodore Roosevelt always intrigued me as on one hand you had an expansionist, militaristic leader while one the other hand you had a lover of nature who at times seemed downright liberal. The dichotomy between the label of progressive in the early 1900s to today does not seem to have changed much. But what has changed in my opinion is the vitriol in public discourse.

Prior to reading this book, my idea of progressive politics was the idea of government helping the common man move forward in life, whether it is through education, work conditions, helping to lift those on the lowest rung of economic or social ladders, or making sure current generations leave the nation better off than when they began. I had also never heard of Marion La Follette prior to beginning this book.

As for the state of government and politics in today's world, the system is broke. In my opinion, we have never experienced such a thorough breakdown/obstruction of Congress as we have today. The level at which partisanship in Congress has affected the ability of the Executive and Judiciary branches of government to perform even the most basic functions is appalling.

While I consider myself involved in the current election cycle, I am saddened at the level of discourse (particularly on the Republican side). We seem to have lost the ability to discuss issues in anything other than a 10 second sound bite.

Reading the first chapter, I was struck by how similar the events were to today. Replace Roosevelt and La Follette and you could very well be in 2016. Mr. Wolraich's opening paragraph in the preface felt like deja vu.

It made me think of the following question. Have we as a nation really not evolved politically since 1904?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Mike M - welcome - glad to have you with us.

It is interesting that you were a staunch conservative and then have become more liberal - usually it is the other way around for some folks.

A lot of that has to to with 24x7 entertainment news cycles on cable television - it has changed the quality and the seriousness of the news reporting; and whereas before you had neutral reporters who were told that they had to remain neutral to be good journalists - you now have biased reporting going on and some folks sadly enough do not recognize it.

I agree with you about the preface and that is why I quoted it here so folks will remember those themes as we read the book together.

In many ways we did - through the wars and with FDR and the New Deal - and there were many progressive pieces of legislation that LBJ was able to get through and those took both sides of the aisle. However, what we are seeing now is only the result of the "smallness" of the men and women we have in Congress today who feel it is better to just take their salaries and not find any common ground. They feel they are doing their job that way even though the American people are exasperated. Oddly enough some of these folks get re-elected over and over again. So the electorate has to take some of the blame for the inertia. If these folks felt that they would not be re-elected - they would change.

Read through the posts on this thread and be ready to post and interact when we move to the Week Two thread tomorrow.

Glad to be able to read your posts.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

The Declaration of Independence was referenced here - this is the complete text:

U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
www.archives.gov April 17, 2016

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

[Helga]

In response to the week 1 thread, I found reading the first chapter on how parallel things were to today. Except I was surprised how the candidates, i.e. Democrats were not campaigning during the campaign period. I also see a parallel between. TR/Hillary and La Follette/Sanders. I really don't see much that is progressive in the Republican Party. Only obstructionism like stopping ObamaCare and shutting down the government.

When I was younger I tended to be a little more Conservative but today am more liberal or Progressive. I think when I was younger I was swayed by how the voters in my state voted and not wasting my vote. That has no influence on me any longer. I am more concerned about equality and helping mankind. It is the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, notions of social action and social justice and it means world repair.

I don't see many Republicans concerned about this. But we as voters do tend to re-elect the same people into office over and over. So we do have an inertia problem and change is hard to accomplish.

[Ann D]

I deplore the corrosive influence of big money in politics and the changes in the media - which now concentrates so much on entertainment than impartial reporting.

However, I also think that the electorate is to blame for the mess we are in. So many voters only know the sound bites of their favorite newscasters or the accusatory, but fake emails that circulate all over the internet.

All of us may not agree in this discussion of Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics, but we strive to be well-informed and civil. I wish the public as a whole would make more of an effort to learn about the candidates and their positions.

Yesterday I heard a young woman on the radio who said that many of her friends were trying to decide who they should vote for - Trump or Sanders. You can make a case for either candidate, but for me their positions are so diametrically opposed to each other I don't see how you could waffle between the two.

I am very interested to read the rest of this book to find out how progressive policies won out in the end - or did they? :-)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Helga wrote: "In response to the week 1 thread, I found reading the first chapter on how parallel things were to today. Except I was surprised how the candidates, i.e. Democrats were not campaigning during the c..."

Helga - excellent post - it is true we are creatures of habit and I think some people think about their politicians - that the "devil you know is better than the devil you don't know". How can anybody explain Mitch McConnell any other way.

I guess that is true - you are swayed by your environment and then you strike out on your own and find your own path.

No, unfortunately the Republicans nowadays are on the far right - preach Christian family values and are the most Un Christian of all in their actions and words. Hard to fathom. In TR's time - being a Republican or then being a progressive did not indicate stinginess, greed, insensitivity to people suffering or denying poor people health care. I am not sure where the party lost its way but it has. I have no idea how the Tea Partiers and other fringe power groups and individuals took over the Republican establishment and are holding the Republican platform hostage - but unfortunately that appears to be the case.

The TR/Clinton and LaFollette/Sanders is the comparison that I think Sanders wants you to make but I think that given the jobs that Hillary had - that she had to use incrementalism (like being Secretary of State) - she nor anybody else can effectively use the La Follette approach with foreign powers. Honestly, I see Trump as being more LaFollette like than Sanders at times. I know everybody is going to shout - "NO, NO - but that is what I see.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Ann wrote: "I deplore the corrosive influence of big money in politics and the changes in the media - which now concentrates so much on entertainment than impartial reporting.

However, I also think that the e..."

Ann D - I do too. I think "real debates" should be the order of the day not entertainment television. A real debate would allow you to compare and contrast the candidates on the same issues and you would see right away - who knew what they were talking about and which candidates did not have a clue.

I think the key in what you said was "young woman" - the very young (college age) seem to gravitate to Trump or Sanders - maybe with the sound bytes and promise of free education excites them about Sanders - or maybe they like Trump's energy and confidence that he can make things better. I do not see it but then again I am not 18 (smile).

And you are right - one is a socialist basically and I do not mean that in a bad sense at all - but that means he is on the far left - the other was a Democrat turned Republican - who used to be moderate and seems ready to dump his previous beliefs and grab ahold of the far right's platform. You cannot be for both if you even know one iota about either's positions - they are totally uninformed. It makes you wonder whether the founding fathers had it right when they picked the leader from one party and the vice president from the other.

I think Pope Francis is a progressive (smile) and Mother Teresa and all of the foundations to help the needy around the world are "progressive" or in other words - they have a kind and generous and understanding spirit and care for their fellow man. That to me represents the progressive ideology - root out corruption and take care of your fellow man.

I am not sure where taking care of "all" of the people became unAmerican or unpatriotic. I think the American people are much more genteel and kind and giving and generous than the people they are electing to public office.

It is a sad state of affairs. Ann as you pointed out - you even have a wealthy leader in Nebraska spending millions for ads rather than feeding the poor with that money. To me these ads are like spam.

Now let us get back to the book as we move forward tomorrow and begin discussing the railroads, the gilded age, etc. and TR and LaFollette.

[Laura]

Hello. My name is Laura and I'm from the Seattle, Washington area. I'm a web developer and digital marketing strategist. I love photography, history, art history, ecology, and chickens. I often stick with Greek and Roman era history, but I know there's so much more I'm missing. That's why I joined this group.

I'm married, and my husband is from Wisconsin. I've been to Wisconsin several times, and to Madison twice (I loved the capitol building tour!)

What led me to this book in particular was a recommendation from my husband. My husband works at our library and he picked up Unreasonable Men when it first came out. We've both always been interested in Gilded Age politics. This was a great opportunity to read and discuss the book with others!

2. Tell us what you know about Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Marion La Follette before reading this book.
I knew very little about Theodore Roosevelt outside of his presidency, the National Parks system, his military history, and his foreign policy experience in the Phillipines. I knew nothing of La Follette, but I am familiar with Wisconsin's progressive history. I knew Wisconsin was the birthplace of both the Republican party and the Socialist party.

3. What does progressive politics mean to you? Prior to reading this book?
My husband is a union steward - progressive politics mean a lot! Especially the Gilded Age era, and immediately after, when the union fighting was bad. If it weren't for the progressive politics at the time, we wouldn't have the worker's rights and safety rights we have today. That's worth fighting for.

4. What do you think of the state of congress and government today? Are you pleased with the performance of both bodies of government? Why or why not? How do you feel about politics in general? Are you pleased with the executive branch and the judiciary? Be civil and respectful but share your perspective if you can. This is not a thread to discuss the primaries in depth or your favorite candidate. In the Presidential Series folder - we do have threads where you can discuss that topic in depth. However, this thread is not that place.
It appears as if history is repeating itself. That's one of the issues that drew me to this book. Congress is full of factions that are fighting eachother and not working for the average American citizen. I sense a big change in the political landscape.


5. How involved are you in the primary season this election cycle? Are there "progressive candidates" running this time? Who do you think the progressive candidates are in your viewpoint and who are the conservatives? Or are there other labels or categories that current candidates fall into?
My husband is a Democratic delegate this year, my sister is a Democratic delegate, but I have stayed out of the fray for the time being. In my eyes, Bernie Sanders is certainly the progressive candidate, Hillary Clinton is the moderate conservative, and the current republican front-runners are far-right conservatives.

6. What are the chances of "contested conventions"? How successful do you think these conventions will be?
I think there's a fair chance to say that the Republican convention is going to be heavily contested, and may even split. It will be fun and interesting to watch. I don't think they will be successful.

7. Do you think that politics and primaries in general are too acrimonious? Do you believe that these primaries and this election cycle are unique or do you think that it is more acrimonious today than in the past? Or is this more of the same or do you feel that politics has always had acrimonious cycles? Why or why not?
I think it's about the same. The election cycle always brings out fanatics and extremists, and this one is no different. It may be louder because of the candidate's extreme polarization this year, but not much different from incidents in the past.

8. What surprised you the most about Theodore Roosevelt and La Follette in Chapter One?
The most surprising and interesting tidbit is how La Follette is almost a spitting image of Bernie Sanders, and the election cycle is almost a mirror image of today. At least this far in the book. Brutally honest and sincere, challenging the establishment, and actually getting somewhere! And the caucuses are hotly contested, almost to a violent level.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Ah Wisconsin - a great state Laura and welcome.

Well you are in the right place for a book about the gilded age and progressive politics.

I am surprised that you are not more familiar with LaFollette but then again you moved there from Seattle.

Yes, the progressives helped out the unions, etc and the rights of workers.

I think the average American in some cases feels powerless and wonders how the people they voted for changed so dramatically - I doubt that many Americans want their candidates and representatives or Senators to just sit back for a year and do nothing.

I think I see Sanders as a socialist who has some progressive ideas; I think I see Hillary as a moderate with some progressive ideas - she has always been focused on helping children; I see Trump who is a moderate and a former Democrat now trying to court the far right and Ted Cruz is as far right as they come. Katich I think is a moderate Republican if there are any and he seems to have struck a moderate chord in his state as Governor. But everybody sees these candidates differently and everybody is entitled to their own viewpoints for sure. Two of Trump's children are Democrats and that is why they will not be able to vote for their father in the New York primary - they did not change their affiliation in time in order to vote in the primary itself.

I think Sanders is trying to "channel LaFollette" (smile) but he is very different from LaFollette (smile). I never attended a caucus - have you - I know nothing of the violent level but it would not surprise me. Religion and politics are always the "hot topics".

We are delighted to have you with us and as you read the book with us - I think you will have more information and data in order to decide what kind of individual LaFollette really was and what TR was made of. You might change your mind about both.

[Alice]

"Unreasonable Men" is a highly well researched and presented novel. Author Michael Wolraich has done a brilliant job in writing, so, as he says in the Preface, "we can see what we're fighting about and better appreciate the stakes". Back then, beginning in 1904, the United States faced the same problems that we face today...a political system that was slow to change and the incredible influence of very wealthy men. Wisconsin's firebrand Bob La Follette and his Stalwarts challenged Republican party bosses but where did this leave Theodore Roosevelt who was just elected President on his own? Roosevelt had to work with Joe Cannon and other Republican party leaders. As the author writes on page 29 with a quote back then from the Chicago Daily Tribune, "The political warfare of the future in the United States will be between conservatives banded together and radicals banded together. The two kinds of minds will not much longer be found in the same party."

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Hello Alice - we welcome you to the discussion. Before you will get much reaction from the group - we ask that you introduce yourself - it can be very brief - your name or avatar name in this case Alice and what state you are from.

Then please go to message 5 and respond to the preliminary discussion questions that we have asked all recipients to respond to.

They are easy, they are fast and they are fun. It is a way that folks can get to know you and understand where you are coming from.

Also it gives you an opportunity to reread your ideas and positions on things as you read and complete the book and see if your positions stayed the same or changed over time. Always fun.

I am glad that you do not have any spoilers in your post above since this thread is a non spoiler thread and only goes up to page 30. Tomorrow we will open up the Week Two thread but you can reread everything that everyone has posted and still post because we do not close the threads.

However, we ask that everybody who did receive the free book offer keep up with the group and follow the syllabus.

Do you think Alice that things are the same as in 1904 or do you think they are slightly better or slightly worse or a lot worse?

It is true LaFollette and the other firebrands "torched" every conciliatory idea and that left TR in a tough spot although TR did modify his positions.

You pointed out a great quote and it is interesting that they termed the progressives as radicals - probably due to Lafollette's rhetoric and hard stance on everything. TR as a progressive would not from my viewpoint be termed a "radical". It is very interesting how journalists and media like to put a label on everything.

Not that long ago moderate Republicans and conservatives could co-exist together in the Republican party and get along and see each other's point of view - now it appears that the Republican party platform is being held hostage. But then again everything is in the eyes of the beholder and you might feel entirely different.

Again welcome Alice and please do the brief intro and answer the preliminary discussion questions found in message 5 on this thread.

Delighted to have you and I look forward to reading your responses to the preliminary discussion questions and other posts.

[Laura]

Thanks for the comments, Bentley! My husband and I still reside in the Seattle area, not Wisconsin. We just visit Wisconsin and family.

I've attended a few Republican caucuses in the past for Ron Paul. I was a delegate up to the legislative district level in 2008, and I didn't progress further in the 2012 caucus. As far as my husband and sister tell me, the Republican and Democratic caucuses in Washington state are very different from each other. The Republican caucus has a lot more rules and adhere to them strictly.

I think I'll be enjoying this book!