116 Chapter 5
incapableof feelingthe mightylife thatthrills,‘sternmenwithempiresin theirbrains’—
all these,of course,shrinkfromseeingthe nationundertakeits newduties.... I preachto
you,then,my countrymen,thatour countrycallsnot for the life of easebut the life of
strenuousendeavor.Thetwentiethcenturyloomsbeforeus big withthe fateof many
nations.If we standidlyby, if we seekmerelyswollen,slothfuleaseand ignoblepeace,if
we shrinkfromthe hardcontestswheremenmustwin at hazardof theirlivesand at the
risk of all theyholddear,thenthe bolderandstrongerpeopleswillpassus by, andwill
win for themselvesthe dominationof the world.” In a shockingmovefor him,Hofstadter
hintsthat,in the areaof foreignpolicy,TR wasa far biggersocialDarwinistthanWilliam
GrahamSumner.AmericanThought, for once,commendsSumner’s pleasfor worldpeace
in the faceof the famoustrustbuster’s saber-rattling.^116 Yet,havingcategorizedSumner
as, in the finalestimate,a conservativestooge,Hofstadterprovesunableto providea
plausibleexplanationfor the reasoningbehindSumner’s numerousclashesagainstcon-
servativesandthen-mainstreamRepublicans.Hofstadtermerelyoffersthisquip—“we
maywonderwhetherin the entirehistoryof thought,thereeverwasa conservativeso
utterlyprogressiveas this.”^117
Whatis not so shockingis that,as it excoriatesTR for beinga socialDarwinist,SDAT
leavesthe progressivismof TR’s domesticpoliciesalmostcompletelyunexplored.Nor,
conveniently,doesSDATobservethatTR adduceddecidedlyprogressivetalkingpoints
whencallingfor moreimperialism.As TexasA&M UniversityhistorianH. W. Brands
illuminatesin his PulitzerPrize-winningbiographyof the man,TR’s 1906Oxfordspeech
“put a Rooseveltianspinon SocialDarwinism,drawinganalogiesbetweenthe biological
andhistoricalspheres.Thegreatnations... wouldremaingreatonlyas longas they
servedthe interestsnot merelyof themselvesbut of less advancednationsandpeoples.
Rooseveltcalledfor imperialismwitha conscience.”^118 In Teddy’s ownwords,“In the
longrun therecan be no justificationfor one racemanagingor controllinganotherunless
the managementand controlare exercisedin the interestand for the benefitof thatother
race.”^119 In its hagiographyof TR, the CAPprovesguiltyof the sameomission—TR is
vauntedas terrificand no wordis utteredabouthis expliciteugenics.^120
To my vexation,Université de Québec à Montréal historianGregRobinson(b. 1966)
namesparticularfree-marketideologuesas thosehe deemsworthyof blamein transmit-
tingeugenicistideasto TeddyRoosevelt.“LikemosteducatedAmericansof the period,”
Robinsonproclaims,“TR’s viewson societywereheavilymarkedby the workof Herbert
Spencer,WilliamGrahamSumner,andotherSocialDarwinists,whoadaptedCharles
Darwin’s biologicaltheoriesof evolutionandnaturalselectionto the studyof human
society.” Robinsonthenimplicatestheseverysameevolutionistsof having“usedthe
Darwinianprincipleof ‘survivalof the fittest’ to justifynotionsof whitesupremacy.. .”
The insinuationis that it was Spencerianwhitesupremacythat persuadedTR that anyone
of Japaneseancestrywas inherentlyviolent.^121 Ekirchsimilarlyventures,“An offspringof
the Darwiniangeneration,RooseveltacceptedbothSocialDarwinism’s conceptof compe-
titionand struggleand ReformDarwinism’s beliefin man’s abilityto controlhis environ-
mentand effectbeneficialchanges.”^122 AndTeddy’s youngercousin,FranklinD. Roose-
velt—whomthe CAPclassifiesas a “full-throatedprogressive”^123 —himselfassimilated
eugenicistpremises.^124 FDRabidedby a eugenicistrationalefor opposingintermarriage
betweenwhitesandthoseof Asianancestry.FDRbasedhis internmentof Japanese-
Americanson the presumptionthateverylast one of themwaslikelytreasonous.Greg
RobinsonconsidersFDR’s internmentorderto be contradictoryto the man’s otherwise
philanthropicNewDeal.To Robinson,it is “perplexing” thatan actionas inhumaneas
internmentcouldhavebeenimposedby “a Presidentjustlycelebratedfor... his dedica-
tionto creatinggovernmentprogramsto servethe needsof ordinaryAmericans.”^125
Actually,thereis philosophicalconsistencyin boththe internmentandthe NewDeal’s