Obama's executive governance: more 'fabian' than 'napoleonic'?

Obama wants to channel Theodore Roosevelt does he? Makes sense to me that we should talk about this in terms that progressives themselves would have. In an opinion article titled "The Authority of the Executive", the following observations are made: (The Outlook, Volume 93, page 486)

An important difference between the Roosevelt and the Taft Administration has been thus stated by a shrewd observer of public life at Washington: "When a desirable course of action was proposed to the Roosevelt Administration, the proposal was met with the question, 'Is there any law against it?' 'No I' 'Then go ahead and do it.' If it is proposed to the Taft Administration, the proposal is met by the question, 'Is there any law for it?' 'No!' 'Then we must ask Congress for a law.'"

That this somewhat dramatically interprets a real difference between the two Administrations we do not doubt—a difference partly in temperament, partly in principle. In so far as it is temperamental, it is incapable of definition. It can only be said that one Administration is more eager, the other more cautious; one puts greater emphasis on results, the other on methods; one is impatient to achieve, the other waits to consider; one assumes authority if it has not been denied, the other assumes no authority until it has been granted; one is Napoleonic, the other Fabian; one is militant, the other legal; both seek the same end, both are progressive, both approve the proverb, "Make haste slowly," but one lays the emphasis on" haste," the other on " slowly;" the danger in the one temperament is too great expedition, the danger in the other disastrous delay. When the question is, Shall the public welfare or private interests take precedence? the dangers in delay are not inconsiderable.

The Outlook was a New York magazine, to which Roosevelt himself regularly contributed. What an incredible way to discuss the way things are being done, no? I could launch into a week long rant because of this and other things I've already posted.

But I'll keep this short and simple. If you believe as Sean Hannity does(and God love him, I have all the respect in the world for him) that journalism died in 2008, then I really hope that my project here can expose you to new concepts, key words, and ideas. Because journalism died well over a century ago. There's a certain order to things like this. Before progressives can become a huge force in government, they need to subvert the media and turn the entire thing into a mouthpiece for bigger government. And if you read the writings of Lippmann, Creel, Bernays, and others, you will see that that's exactly what they sought out to do, and did.