Does studying leaders help us understand who was good and who was bad?  The adage goes, “If we don’t learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.”  Studying our leaders from the past gives us insight and understanding from a perspective of some distance. 

I have a favorite leader in American history and have read many books about him, his family, and his leadership, President Theodore Roosevelt.  He is known for the adage “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”  It was his background from childhood.  He grew up privileged in New York City.  His grandfather made the money for the family to carry forward in the mid-1800s, so his father became a philanthropist giving money to the poor and establishing groups to care for others.  Teedy, as his family called him, admired his father immensely and all during his adulthood he felt he must continue in the business of helping others.  But Teedy was a sickly child with debilitating asthma, which forced him to train his body in physical exertion.  He did many things like a daredevil, and when he joined the war in Cuba with his Rough Riders, he returned as a hero.  He loved the people, and he was willing to go with them into danger, and they loved him for it.  He was a writer spending hours writing letters and journal articles on all kinds of topics.  He saw the robber barons running the country, making money hand over fist by using cheap immigrant labor. During this period, immigration to New York was rampant, and Teddy saw these immigrants living in squalor in the tenement houses of the city.  I can’t go into what he saw here.  He also knew those robber barons were using these new Americans to get richer. 

Roosevelt’s task, he felt, was to level the playing field between the rich and the poor and to make sure our resources were managed for the good of all Americans.  He aggressively pushed for regulations that would improve life.  As president he led the fight to regulate the big industries for the good of the workers.  He led the effort to save our forests, now national forests.  He led the effort in saving pristine areas and creating national parks open to all.  He successfully led in the peace talks to end a war affecting the world, the Russo-Japanese War.  He learned to use his bully pulpit for mostly good, but he was not perfect.  He didn’t understand the watershed issues and began some efforts that are now draining the west’s waters.  After he built it, he essentially took the Panama Canal and ran it.  He hunted big game in Africa for a year after his term as president and brought most of the animals back for the Smithsonian Museum.  Like many of the time, he didn’t completely understand the big picture of actions that affected the people, the lands, and the animals he loved.

This ramble was brought about by the death of Jimmy Carter.  His one short term was during a time I remember as the energy crisis in the 1970s.  I live in an earth sheltered house because of that period in our history.  We were told we were running out of oil.  We were convinced that oil prices would continue to skyrocket; so we must do something to cut expenses.  But now as I look back, I read that Carter recognized that the ozone hole was a big problem, and he led a 1970s movement that Teddy had helped start, Ecology.  (Going back to Easter Island, did you know that the effort to create the Moai stone statues helped cause the decline of that culture?  They cut down all the trees on the island which forced everyone to immigrate.  Many other cultures failed for similar reasons; exploitation of resources.)  Carter took on starting an education department, which has worked for the good of many students over the years, but he fought unsuccessfully for an economic plan that would turn down inflation.  Many of his other efforts failed as well leaving a bad taste in the mouths of most Americans. 

So, Carter, the peanut farmer, realized that he was a better ex-president than he was a president.  We all know of his continued work for human rights, his efforts for world peace in the Camp David Accords, for health issues across the globe, and for his deep faith.  In 2002 he was recognized for his life’s work with a Nobel Peace Prize.  Teedy also reached that plateau; In 1906 he was the first American to win the Peace Prize for facilitating the end of the Russo-Japanese War. 

I think that Teddy would have been against Carter giving the canal away, very against; he probably turned over in his grave. (I’m not sure that Carter wasn’t right on this one.)  But he would have approved of Jimmy’s work on the ozone issue. Roosevelt carried a big stick regarding world diplomacy and was loved by most, while Carter tended to be more of a quiet negotiator and lost favor.  They were both great Americans, though.  And they both deserve respect as patriots, soldiers, presidents, and ex-presidents.  These two men were part of our leadership in hard times, but they were also willing to get their hands dirty and do the work others wouldn’t.  Their focus was on making life better for all Americans, a legacy I would love to have.  Even the best presidents fail often. They were both good men who did good for others.  

Anne Peden, PhD 
Greenville County Historic Preservation Commission
Fork Shoals Historical Society
Piedmont Historical Preservation Society●