Motus Mentis

President Obama gave a rousing speech for his base yesterday in Osawatomie, Kansas: a collectivist stem-winder in which he invoked the rough-riding spirit of Teddy Roosevelt to call for more leveling, more government regulation of everything, and more central planning — in general, more “tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.”

The base liked it. The New York Times, for example, has been spoiling for Mr. Obama to put up a real fight against the evil Right for some time now, and seemed pleased to imagine that their man seems finally to be getting his Irish up:

In demanding “a new nationalism,’ Roosevelt supported strong government oversight of business, a “graduated income tax on big fortunes,’ an inheritance tax and the primacy of labor over capital. For that, he was called a socialist and worse, as Mr. Obama observed, having endured the same.

Mr. Obama was late to Roosevelt’s level of passion and action on behalf of the middle class and the poor, having missed several opportunities to make the tax burden more fair and demand real action on the housing crisis from the big banks that he excoriated so effectively in his speech.

But he has fought energetically for a realistic plan to put Americans back to work and has been stymied at every step by Republicans. That seems to have burned away his old urge to conciliate and compromise, and he is now fully engaged against the philosophy of his opponents.

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out today, however, the Times didn’t always feel this way about Mr. Roosevelt’s view of things. In a September 30th, 1913 editorial, which was entitled “ROOSEVELT’S SUPER-SOCIALISM”, the Grey Lady’s editorial board wrote (.pdf here, if you can’t get past the paywall):

Theodore Roosevelt has now thought out and matured his doctrine of Socialism. It is not the Marxian socialism. Much that Karl Marx taught is rejected by present-day Socialists. Mr. Roosevelt achieves the redistribution of wealth in a simpler and easier way. He leaves the land, the mines, the factories, the railroads, the banks — all the instruments of production and exchange — in the hands of their individual owners, but of the profits of their operation he takes whatever share the people at any given time may chose to appropriate to the common use. The people are going to say, We care not who owns and milks the cow, as long as we get our fill of the milk and cream.

… Mr. Roosevelt’s reconstruction of society would leave it inert by destroying individual initiative, hope, and ambition, which are the foundations of progress. It is a sterile system, yet being sterile, why has constructed it? Because he knew that with his great skill he could make this Utopian dream attractive to that very considerable part of society which is the material with which agitators work: the discontented, the unsuccessful, the envious.

Well, some things do change, I guess. Others don’t.