New Freedom vs. New Nationalism
Our government has gone through many changes in the years since the first president and with that modernization, the presidential election of 1912 has made a significant effect on how our county is run today. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson debated a political situation that still effects government and industry in our nation to this day.
In Theodore Roosevelt's opinion, trusts are inevitable. As said in his 1910 "New Nationalism" speech, "There can be no effective control of corporation while their political activity remains. To put an end it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done". Woodrow Wilson had a somewhat different view on how trusts react in our society. He believes that trusts are natural but not inevitable. Wilson states in his speech in 1912 that trusts are manmade and believes they're intolerable. "I am not willing to be under the patronage of the trusts, no matter how providential a government presides over the process of their control of my life", Wilson exclaims during a campaign speech. He didn't care how much governmental control they were under and he would like to do anything in his power to stop them completely from taking over the industries. I believe that "New Freedom" and "New Nationalism" can be compatible because they share similar qualities but also could not be compatible for the reason that their ideas on how to run the country are different. "New Nationalism" states that putting individual needs ahead of the nations needs is wrong, which a point the two speeches have in common. Another similar point "New Nationalism" and "New Freedom" share is that both candidates show familiar judgment in without huge corporations there would less of a gap between the rich and the poor. Also without this gap of the rich and poor, our nation would be better as a whole. "New Nationalism" acknowledged that monopolies and trusts are acceptable as long as they are being of service to the people. "New Freedom"
In Theodore Roosevelt's opinion, trusts are inevitable. As said in his 1910 "New Nationalism" speech, "There can be no effective control of corporation while their political activity remains. To put an end it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done". Woodrow Wilson had a somewhat different view on how trusts react in our society. He believes that trusts are natural but not inevitable. Wilson states in his speech in 1912 that trusts are manmade and believes they're intolerable. "I am not willing to be under the patronage of the trusts, no matter how providential a government presides over the process of their control of my life", Wilson exclaims during a campaign speech. He didn't care how much governmental control they were under and he would like to do anything in his power to stop them completely from taking over the industries. I believe that "New Freedom" and "New Nationalism" can be compatible because they share similar qualities but also could not be compatible for the reason that their ideas on how to run the country are different. "New Nationalism" states that putting individual needs ahead of the nations needs is wrong, which a point the two speeches have in common. Another similar point "New Nationalism" and "New Freedom" share is that both candidates show familiar judgment in without huge corporations there would less of a gap between the rich and the poor. Also without this gap of the rich and poor, our nation would be better as a whole. "New Nationalism" acknowledged that monopolies and trusts are acceptable as long as they are being of service to the people. "New Freedom"