William Howard Taft

William Howard Taft was the final president to serve before what I believe to be one of the most tragic transformations in US history: The Republican Party's shift from the progressive party of industrial workers and former slaves into a right-wing vehicle for the policies of wealthy industrialists and social conservatives. Between Taft and the next Republican occupant of the White House was Woodrow Wilson, who was succeeded by Warren G. Harding. While Harding was still progressive on social issues and foreign policy, he was conservative on economics. Calvin Coolidge, who secured the presidency following Harding's 1923 death, was similar, but slightly more conservative on social topics, particularly immigration. With the arguable exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the next few Republican presidents - Herbert Hoover, Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, etc. - continued the gradual descent into conservatism, culminating in the imperialist adventurism of George W. Bush and the far-right authoritarianism of Donald Trump. However, Taft's presidency, while sitting on the bank of an awful abyss, actually proved to be very beneficial and, while flawed, good overall.

Taft was the hand-picked successor of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who initiated a period in US history known as the Progressive Era (which saw unprecedented support for women's suffrage, child labor laws, free trade, industrial regulations, environmentalism, and other such causes), knew that Taft was similarly forward-thinking and so ensured his success in pursuing the Republican nomination in 1908. Even before 1908, Roosevelt gave Taft important positions such as secretary of war and member of the Supreme Court. Riding Roosevelt's legacy, Taft easily defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan during the generals. On March 4, 1909, he took the oath of office, formally replacing Roosevelt as president. Roosevelt spent the next ~2 years visiting Africa and Europe. Upon his return, however, the friendship he had fostered with Taft began to fray.

A number of factors contributed to the growing tensions between Taft and Roosevelt. One of these was their differences of opinion on the judicial branch. Roosevelt supported an idea known as judicial recall. In essence, judicial recall asserts that when a court issues a controversial ruling, an election would be held regarding the fate of that decision. If a majority of the citizenry disagrees with the ruling, it would be repealed. Taft, on the other hand, disliked judicial recall. In fact, he refused to admit Arizona and New Mexico into the Union as states with Congressional and Electoral College representation until they stopped using judicial recall. As Americans who rightly value democracy, our immediate impulse is to side with Roosevelt. Judicial recall sounds wonderful. However, I disagree. I think that judicial recall would be very damaging to human rights and the Constitution if it was implemented.

Democracy is a crucial pillar of American governance, but it is not the only pillar of American governance. The Bill of Rights and other such Constitutional protections exist to ensure that basic freedoms are not quashed, either by a callous government or by a passionate mob. Many unpopular ideas and liberties are protected by the Constitution. There was a time when desegregation and even abolitionism were disliked, but we had the Constitutional freedom to support them. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and atheists all receive unacceptable amounts of prejudice and disdain for their religion (or, in the case of atheists, lack thereof), but the Constitution still protects our right to worship Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu figures, or to worship no one at all. Imagine if the Supreme Court - or any court - ruled in favor of one of these beliefs. If the people were upset enough, judicial recall could destroy the minority's freedoms. Taft was right to oppose judicial recall.

Roosevelt had other, more rational grievances with Taft. While both presidents expanded conservation, Roosevelt was far more determined in this regard. Taft's secretary of the interior - a businessman named Richard Ballinger - was accused of illegally allowing oil drilling in conserved parts of Alaska, though these allegations were never proven. Taft actually appointed many wealthy businessmen to his administration, which understandably made Roosevelt uncomfortable. Eventually, Ballinger accused Roosevelt of closing off the US from a lot of economic development through his conservation policies. It was much harder to fully utilize an area's resources if it was under conservation. I hold these statements against Taft, as I do view presidents as responsible for what their lower officials do. Gifford Pinchot, an environmentalist Roosevelt had appointed to care for American forests, was so upset with Taft and Ballinger that he launched a smear campaign against the latter. Taft then fired Pinchot, outraging Roosevelt.

With the dismissal of Pinchot, Roosevelt believed that Taft had gone too far. It was the last straw. In 1912, when Taft was running for reelection, Roosevelt challenged him for the Republican nomination. When he lost, Roosevelt became so irate that he left the Republican Party and established his own political party: The Progressive Party. Often nicknamed the "Bull Moose Party" due to Roosevelt declaring himself "as strong as a bull moose!", the Progressive Party nominated Roosevelt at the end of the summer of 1912. Ironically, by running as a third-party candidate, Roosevelt caused many votes that otherwise would have gone to Taft to go to him, reducing both his and Taft's votes and technically making Democrat Woodrow Wilson the winner. He split the vote and caused his and Taft's mutual opponent (Wilson) president.

Repeatedly across 1911 and 1912, Roosevelt charged Taft with being too moderate in his progressive reforms. For reasons already outlined (Ballinger's opposition to conservation, Taft's dislike for judicial recall, etc.), this was partially true. However, there were other ways in which Taft was actually more left-wing. On the campaign trail in 1908, for instance, Taft was much less comfortable receiving corporate donations than Roosevelt was. Although, since that was before Taft's inauguration, I don't add points to Taft's score because of that fact. As president, Taft was more determined to fight monopolies. Roosevelt believed that there were "good monopolies" and "bad monopolies". A monopoly was only considered bad if it got that status through corrupt and immoral suppression of competition. Taft disagreed. He knew that all monopolies were bad. While Roosevelt sued 40 monopolies, Taft sued 80!

Other positive economic reforms stem from the Taft Administration. For instance, Taft had Congress draft the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to create income taxes. I consider this a positive. As I've explained in other articles, the income tax is a reliable source of revenue as people always want to garner more wealth. It also allows the tax burden to shift away from the poor and middle class and more toward the rich and incentivizes the government to care for a healthy economy. If the economy sputters out, people will be poorer and so the government can't collect more tax revenue from them. The 16th Amendment took effect on February 3, 1913, with Taft implementing the very first income tax a few weeks later. Under Taft, the income tax applied solely to corporations, while Woodrow Wilson extended it to private citizens.

Taft also signed the Mann-Elkins Act, which extended the Interstate Commerce Commission - a government agency founded by Grover Cleveland - to encompass the telephone and other communications businesses. While I disagree with Taft's decision to reduce tariffs (tariffs reduce overreliance on international trade networks, discourage the exploitation of loose labor laws in the developing world, and maintain domestic employment numbers), I support his decision to split the Department of Labor and Commerce into separate departments tending to labor issues and commercial policy respectively. This reduced the burden on individual employees of the DLC and allowed them to focus more on what they would be best at. Taft also supported the 17th Amendment - which made Senators directly elected by the American people - and issued an executive order lowering the workday for government employees to 8 hours. Martin Van Buren had already lowered it to 10 hours, and Taft expanded upon his work.

Regarding foreign policy, Taft had a mixed record. In terms of negative impact, Taft supported a dictator in Nicaragua. When Mexico allowed Japanese companies to start buying land in a Mexican state known as Baja California. Taft became terrified that Baja California would soon become a base for Japanese naval ports. So, he urged Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to draft the Lodge Corollary. The Lodge Corollary was an amendment to the Monroe Doctrine. Instituted by the titular James Monroe, the Monroe Doctrine declared that the world existed in two geopolitical hemispheres: The Western Hemisphere (composed of the Americas) and the Eastern Hemisphere, composed of Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. (John Tyler expanded the Monroe Doctrine to include Hawaii in the Western Hemisphere.) From there, Monroe pledged that the US would refrain from intervening in the affairs of the Eastern Hemisphere. In exchange, he expected the Eastern Hemisphere to do the same for all of the Western Hemisphere. Any violation of the Monroe Doctrine by the Eastern Hemisphere would be met with a declaration of war from the US.

Under the Lodge Corollary, the US was permitted to use military force in order to prevent a country in the Western Hemisphere from selling land to a country in the Eastern Hemisphere. The Lodge Corollary was a terrible idea. If a country - regardless of whatever hemisphere it existed in - wanted to sell some land to a country in the opposite hemisphere, it is its right as a sovereign nation to do that. Taft failed to understand this when sponsoring the Lodge Corollary. Other aspects of the Taft Administration's foreign policy were more beneficial. Taft showed immense generosity and kindness when he gave economic aid to Honduras so that the country could pay off its national debt. Theodore Roosevelt had made an agreement with the Dominican Republic in which his government provided the Dominican Republic with loans in exchange for getting to select who would enforce the Dominican Republic's tariff laws. Taft was inspired by this policy and created Dollar Diplomacy: The US would promote its economic interests by aiding developing markets through American investment. Dollar Diplomacy failed but could have made life much more enjoyable for hundreds of thousands of people across the globe.

Overall, I think Taft was a good president. His foreign policy was flawed and, to an extent, imperialistic, but also fought for the prosperity of economies unfamiliar with growth or health. Domestically, he did everything he could to respect the Constitutional and human rights of working Americans. He made the Senate much more democratic but knew that democracy would poison the Supreme Court and judicial branch, so he rightfully fought against it. He expanded upon the progressive economic policies instituted by Theodore Roosevelt, even going further than Roosevelt did. Roosevelt sued 40 monopolies, Taft twice that. Roosevelt created a new government agency to enforce labor and commercial regulations. Taft twice that. Although I consider Roosevelt's domestic policy better than Taft's for having launched the Progressive Era and I consider Wilson's foreign policy better for its passion for the freedom of the colonized, Taft's presidency was a brilliant mixture of these two goals.