Sunday, November 19, 2006

Journal #6 - Evaluation of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency

Teddy Roosevelt was president for almost 8 full years between 1901-1909, and he ran for a 3rd term in 1912. That election ended up with Woodrow Wilson winning with the Republican votes divided between Taft and Roosevelt. This win for Wilson seemed to signal an end to TR's career.

During his presidency, TR felt that muckraking journalists were a danger to democracy b/c they riled up anti-government or anti-American feelings when they exposed government and business corruption. People like himself (educated, informed, those with good intentions) are the ones who should be controlling reform. Reform is better than revolution, TR believed.

These muckrakers were extremely pivotal in bringing about changes in monopolistic businesses (Standard Oil), changes in the meat and medicine industries, and in poverty and local and state government corruption. Yet, TR felt that he was the best of both worlds - reform but not radical reform.

So, my question for you is: who is right, TR or the muckrakers? Should the president lead reform or should it be the journalists? Or, do you think there should be someone else being at the forefront of business and government? Congress? Consumers? Explain your answer (in a minimum of 150 words).

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

I somewhat agree with Teddy Roosevelt myself. The muckrakers did seem to only scrape for negatives and not positives. However, the muckrakers revealed the secrets big companies and the government were hiding. So, what the muckrakers did was not totally bad. Our government as well as every other one has the tendency to lie and hide things from its people. The government does this for many reasons, such as preventing fear among the people or so the government won't look bad. I don't think anyone should be in charge of revealing information. Long ago this country made ammendments giving the right to free speech and press. If we take that away we can't really call ourselves "the land of the free" now can we? However, I think that the muckrakers should also look for positives as well as negatives to give the people perspectives of both sides.

Elise Lieberman
11/20/06
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that muckrakers should be in control of reform. There are many examples of succesful reforms with the control of the muckrakers in America's hisory. For example, when Ida Tarbell broke up Standard Oil into 34 different companies, it opened up a new world for competing oil producers and deminished the idea for a one-company controller or leader. After our country's fight for a democracy, it created a constitution where it included the freedom of speech and freedom of the press to support the muckraker's opinions. Although I believe in a strong president to lead our country, I do not agree with Theodore Roosevelt's opinions towards the idea of reform. The president should not control every aspect of the country. Therefore, there is a total need for reporters to voice their opinions of corruption and reform.

Leah C.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that neither Teddy Roosevelt nor the muckrakers should be in charge of reform. It also should not be someone related to the state or federal government. It should definitely be the consumers. The consumers are not one political party and do not have one point of view. The consumers are a general group of people with different views that are not necessarily biased to one party’s views or the other. The consumers, I believe, also should be in charge of reform because the changes are going to affect them. If the union goes on strike and the government does nothing about it, they don’t care, but the consumers are being affected and suffering. The consumers need some kind of control in this country. They are told what to pay with taxes and what not, but when it has to do with what a family eats that night, then it has to be their decision.
- Steven Haddad
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that both TR and the muckrackers were wrong,the reason I think this is bc the president has information but he might not have always given it, so the public didn't really know what was going on. I think the muckrakers were wrong bc they gave the information the public didn't get but it wasn't always the right information. Bc of the fact that the president didn't give off the right information people had to feed off of the muckrackers fiction mixed in with non-fiction. You would had thought the president would had elaborated on the facts but he didn't instead he got mad and blamed the false statements on the muckrakers. I don't think it was all their fault but I do think the president and the muckrakers were both to blame. So in that case I don't think TR had a right to get mad but I don't think the muckrakers should write false statements.


Martia B.
5th hour

Ian Kohler said...

I think Theodore Roosevelt was right because one of the major roles of the president is to lead a country to an appropriate reform. The journalistic muckrakers should not be the primary element of change. They do have the right, as a public forum to inform a country’s leaders of public opinion and thought. The First Amendment says that every citizen has the right to express an opinion. The job of a president however, is to help bring about changes that will make this country a better nation. We have to work together with the president to bring about change and reform. Hopefully, this will stop many of the problems we are now facing in Iraq, as well as and many other problems that could cause this country to "disintegrate" quickly. The citizens, president and the Congress need to all work together to accomplish these goals.
In conclusion, I think that Theodore Roosevelt’s motivations, thoughts and ideas were correct in many aspects. However, some of his positions were elitist and snobbish. He needed to be more inclusive of all Americans, not just the educated and informed. He tried his best to lead this country into a better and safer place to live, but was inflexible in many of his opinions. Nonetheless, I happen to admire him as a president after learning about him in class and of his achievements and successes.

Anonymous said...

I think that both are right in their own ways. For instance, TR is right in the ways that he should be the one to be in charge of the country and reform because that is what he was elected to get done. With the exception of that, I also believe that the muckrakers are right as well because they brought attention to these issues in industries. In this era, we needed revolution because we needed a re-birth of the first stages in America. I really don’t agree with TR in the fact that the muckrakers got Americans all riled up because I think that these journalists exposed things to the public that needed to be exposed. Because of these “muckrakers”, Standard Oil was broken up, medicine cabinets were healthier and meat became sanitary. They did their research that I’m sure TR wouldn’t have time to do and to inform the public in an outrage to these conditions.
-Stephanie Nagel, 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think that Teddy Roosevelt was right because he was a good president and the muckrakers could not just write anything. They always had to find something extreme negative. I think like Elise that many people in government lie because they want to keep something from the people because they do not want them to know that they make mistakes. The reform should be lead from the president but he should also think about what the journalists write. But they should never forbid journalists to write about what they think. It is important that this right will be there forever because I think that when this would be forbidden some would not end to write their point of view. What should we do with them? So again, I think that the president should lead the reform but with a little help of the muckrakers. The muckrakers should ot only write about negative things because this makes people feel bad what others do. They should write some positive things about th US because the US is not just bad. It has also many positive things. Everybody can do something to make life better.

Simone G.
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think neither the muckrakers nor Teddy Roosevelt is correct. Some of the points they make may be sufficient, but other than that, nobody is officially correct. Personally, because we live in a democracy I think that the consumers of America should lead reform. I think this because muckrakers have one sole opinion and so does Congress. There may be a few people in Congress that don’t agree, but most of the members of Congress belong to the same political party, and pretty much have the same views on everything. On the other hand, consumers all think differently. Each person has a different outlook on things than the next person. The world would be a lot better these days if the government did let the consumers help make decisions. Also, when it comes down to it, the changes are bound to happen to the consumers, so why not be in charge of what is going to affect you in the future? If the government controls everything, then the country wouldn’t be considered a democracy, but instead a monarchy. It would be as if we are moving backwards instead of moving forward and making progress.

~Eboni Bell~
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that TR and the muckrakers should both have a play in the reforms. The muckraker’s dig up all the info on the companies and the president is the one with the power. When they come together the president gives his view from the higher-class end and the muckrakers give their view from the typical average American. Then when they morph their ideas together it comes out not to be favoring any class over the other. The muckrakers are necessary for the president because they can show him what’s really going on, instead of the superficial show they do for the president. In conclusion you need both the president and the muckraker to lead the reforms.
Emily Betts
5th

Anonymous said...

I guess I agree with Teddy Roosevelt, but the muckrakers did have good intentions. Today, it seems that journalists have to uncover everything and the government is hiding things. But, Teddy Roosevelt was one of the few Presidents to take action to these sort of things. On the other hand, muckrakers brought about changes in things like oil, the meat and medicine industries, and poverty. They might have looked at all the negatives to the situation, but it got done and worked for the better of the country. So, I don't feel the President nor the muckrakers should lead reform. Muckrakers go about there business in a very negative way, without looking at any of the positives. Most Presidents on the other hand would never attempt to get things done. Puting it into the hands of the government, including Congress, would not be right because the government can hide things.

John Ross
6th hour

Anonymous said...

I agree with Emily that Teddy Roosevelt and the muckrackers should play a part in reforms. I think that the journalists are doing good by exposing unjust businesses and making it better for smaller workplaces. But they shouldn't be in charge of everything. Roosevelt should be in charge of most of the reforms because he was the president. It's important for him to oversee things and make sure everything was looking okay. I also think he did a very good job of that anyway. The muckrackers just needed to do their job of not letting the big businesses take advantage of everyone and Roosevelt should do his job of president and reform and make America better. I guess I agree with TR in that the journalists was kind of anti-american and stuff but I still think they played an important role during that time. Maybe they were a little harsh at times, but I think they had to do what they had to do.
Teddy Roosevelt just had to help the little businesses and try to keep unity together in any way that he could.

Colleen Moran

Anonymous said...

I think both, Teddy Roosevelt and muckrakers are right about leading the reform. My understanding is that Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the muckrakers have positive and negative aspects. Teddy Roosevelt said or believed that only people like himself that are educated, informed and those with good intentions (or in other words intelligent), should lead the reform. But other people, such as the muckrakers can be intelligent too. But I think that the president should lead a country. On the other side, the muckrakers had some negative aspects such as making the economy suffer. One good example is Ida Tarbell breaking Standard Oil into 34 different oil companies. Furthermore the muckrakers brought big changes to other monopolistic businesses, big changes in the medicine and meat industries. Muckrakers also turned around the local, poverty and state governments. To conclude I think that both, Teddy Roosevelt and the muckrakers are right about leading the reform, because both had positive and negative aspects towards the reform.

KEN M.
6th

Anonymous said...

I think that Teddy Roosevelt and the Muckrakers were correct. Both Teddy Roosevelt and the Muckrakers had positive and negative aspects. Roosevelt believed that people like him were educated and had good morals in life. He also believed that they should lead the reform. The muckrakers were also correct because they broke up large companies. While breaking up these large companies they caused the economy to suffer terribly. Muckrakers turned these monopolistic companies into smaller companies to further help the economy. They were eventually stopped but while they were active, good things came out of it. I believe that they were both right because Teddy Roosevelt and Muckrakers had similar views. They both believed in positive and negative outlooks. I also believe that the president should have the most power though. I think this because he is a leader for all of America and he should have the final opinion and voice of our country.

-Evie C.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I think the president and the muckrakers should share the control of reform. The muckrakers give the opinion of the average people and the president has the opinion of the upper class people. The president needs the muckrakers to get the information. The muckrakers need the president to get the information out to the people. The muckrakers would help show the president what was actually going on in the world, instead of rich upper class world the president really sees. If the president got rid of the muckrakers they wouldn’t be able to break up monopolies like Standard Oil. It was a good thing that Ida Tarbell broke up Standard Oil because helped open competition for other oil producers. With the presidents help the muckraker could spread all their information much faster and in a more efficient way. The best idea would be for the president and the muckrakers to work together.

--Claire M.
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think that the Muckrakers were good people. They wrote about people and businesses, yes mostly about the bad things. But if they didn’t let us know these bad things then something horrible may have happened. President Teddy Roosevelt was a good president though, in my view that is. He was very noble and he did what he wanted without any hesitation. Although I don’t think that Teddy Roosevelt should have been so worried about the muckrakers. They did good. They let people know how bad the meat was and that it should be changed because it could harm you. They also let people know that the standard oil company wasn’t that good of a place either. I would agree with them both, I guess that’s what I'm mainly implying. However, i do agree with what Elise said on how the muckrakers should also look for positives in these people and business as well as looking for the negatives. She has a very good point. So, you may disagree with Teddy Roosevelt or you may disagree with the muckrakers, but really you should be agreeing with both.

-Rhema S.
11/26/06
6th

Anonymous said...

I believe that the President shouldn’t have control over the people but over the enforcements applied on the people. The media, such as journalists and Muckrakers, are allowed to have their opinion on many people and are allowed to express and publish the unknown facts, but I don’t think that they have control. Often journalists have influence on so many other people, which is different than control of reform. Also, the journalists don’t necessarily have to be on the same page as the government but it would help unify and send positive messages. Although Teddy Roosevelt seemed to think he was the most qualified person for the position many other people could have done the job. I also think that not one person should be responsible for leading reform except that everyone should try to want reform and also make the country a better place and not take it for granted.

-Mariah Van Ermen
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I agreee with Teddy the whole way because first off he is my boy and second i dont like muckrackers. First muckrackers never show the positives within something there talkin bout all ways negatives and second they are nosey. Muckracker are somewhat right because all our governments did now and then were lie so i agree with both Teddy and the Muckrackers 50/50,and the last thing i didnt like about the muckracker was that the put fear in american people much more then the Government did....


~Ralph~
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe both, Teddy Roosevelt and the Muckrakers, should be in charge of reform. There are many positive things that they did in their own way. Many people wrote that they believe the Muckrakers only looked for all the negative things in a company/person/etc… and I have to disagree with that. When they reveal all the secrets behind companies and stuff it’s helping us so we can understand what’s going on instead of being blindfolded like the government seems to like us to be. Yes it’s true that we also suffer in a way by being fearful and panic but if we don’t know these secrets and things, isn’t that scarier? Many people try to believe everything is okay when they know it isn’t. Well, it’s time that we start acting mature enough to face issues and situations- exactly like the Muckrakers did. They brought to attention many issues; not to disturb or panic us, but to have everyone informed and try to fix the problems issued. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t agree with the Muckrakers by exposing such things that they did. As a quote I remember once said -Some things are better off to be left unsaid but others are better to be said. And I like that quote because it’s true. And I think the Muckrakers exposed the truths about things we needed to hear and be informed about even though the industry suffered from this. I mean, isn’t great?! We now have sanitary meat thanks to them!!! The Muckrakers changed many things for the better -like oil, the meat and medicine industries, and poverty. Now lets talk about TR. Theodore Roosevelt’s motivations, thoughts and ideas led him to make many achievements and helped us in many ways but he kept a few things, not allowing the Public to know or be included. I also think he needed to be more loving to all Americans and not just the educated and informed. The “intelligent” aren’t the only ones with good intentions and others not as intelligent could be able to lead the reform probably just as good I think. If we could have had both, the president and the muckrakers working together to lead reforms I think we would have been able to accomplish much more.

Luciana D. 6 hour

Get like me said...

I think that Teddy Roosevelt was right because muckrakers just ruined the image of a lot of people and things. Muckrakers made many people lose money like John D. Rockefeller. Muckrakers wrote about the bad stuff people did and made other people see them in a whole new perspective. Muckrakers did good, but they also did bad at the same time, not many rich people liked muckrakers.
Teddy Roosevelt should lead the reform the journalist because teddy Roosevelt had more power and is widely known by many people when journalists would do anything for a story. Teddy Roosevelt should be the only one at the forefront. Teddy Roosevelt was a very good president and I think he would have won when he ran for his third term, if it wasn’t for the muckrakers. The muckrakers gave Teddy Roosevelt many troubles and he didn’t like them much neither did a lot of other people.

Joseph Elia
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that the Muckrakers were right. Teddy believed that the Muckrakers were wrong and that he should lead reform, but not radical reform. What does that mean? Reform should be in the hands of the people and not the president. The Muckrakers were trying to achieve a positive change by exposing all of the dirt on some of the big companies. They showed ordinary people what was really happening. If it were in the President's hands, I do not think that he would have told the whole truth because he would be trying so hard to give his people that false perception in which everything was fine. He does not want his government to look bad because they know what is going on and are not doing anything about it. The Muckrakers stand up for the common person and the do not try to butter up the truth in any form or fashion. If there were no Muckrakers durring Teddy Roosevelt's term to help to establish reform, I do not know if we would have gotten this far today in the industrial and economic world and in the White House.

Brittany C.
6TH Hour

Anonymous said...

I disagree with Teddy Roosevelts ideas about the muckrakers. Just like today, the muckrakers seemed to only uncover the negative things not the positive. The negative things were sometimes only negative to some people. For example big company and government secrets were negative to goevernment officials and companies but to everyday people they were like wake-up call about the country.
So, whats negative to some may be positive to others. There have been successful mukrakers such as Ida Tarbell who broke up standard oil, and tore apart the idea of one leader or single control of an industry. Our country believes in freedom of speech, so the mukrakers are just doing their job and expressing their opinions.Even though i believe in strong presidency i disagree with TR, I think that in order for this country to be successful we need more then one opinion, and thats just what the mukrakers are doing.

Shayna Stillman
6th hour

Anonymous said...

I think that muckrackers should also be in control. they have helped the United States get through a lot of problems. They notice a problem and they talk about it. They could break up Big companies and monopolies by just speaking their mind, can it get any easier? Then again their should be only so far that the muckrackers can go until Roosevelt could chime in. I think that they should work off one another because if they compete nothing will happen. So if the two worked together a lot could happen. We could change the problems that the small buisness are having by trying to compete with companies like Walmart and other problems like how trust are forming in the large companies. I guess all that i am saying that it would be good if they both did something about it and worked together to end it.
-Michael McDonald
6th Period

Anonymous said...

I believe they should work together and solving the problem and neither is right or wrong. This big responsibility should not be put onto only 1 person so I believe they should work together to find a fair and equal conclusion. Teddy Roosevelt thought he was good because he wasn’t crazy he just wanted reform not radical reform. But he himself can not make all the decision for everyone. The journalists, Congress, House or Representatives, etc should also help and decide on all parts. The muckrakers took action and delivered on what they said they would do. They have proven that they will get done what needs to get done and with Teddy being a lets go do it kind of guy the two might work things out and get change. Consumers should also have some say because they are the ones that are keeping the businesses alive and buying things. So I think they should get to decide what to do to some extent.

Jeff Kohl
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that both Theodore Roosevelt and the Muckrakers were correct. They both had good reasoning. They both should have leaded a reform. The Muckrakers and Teddy Roosevelt had positive ideas. They also both wanted the reform and had opinions that would have worked and made the reform useful. The Muckrakers would also be able to help do research. Then Teddy Roosevelt could give his opinions and fulfill his job as the president also. Also if the Muckrakers should have leaded the reform they could uncover lots of information people needed to know. Teddy Roosevelt also wanted to help people with good intentions. This is why I think both were correct.

~Brandi B.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I agree with the opinions of Teddy Roosevelt about muckrackers. From what I have read about muckrackers, it seems that they would only look for the negatives of the monopolies and not the positives. By revealing only the negatives of the companies, this would probably make the public angry. At least, the muckrackers revealed the injustice of many monopolies so their work is not completely bad. I just think that they should also talk about the positive aspects of the monopolies. The country’s country might have to hide things for many reasons. The most obvious one is so they don’t look bad but also they might hide things that could cause fear or anger in the country. Muckrackers obviously have the right to write what the want about any monopoly, that’s what freedom of speech allows them to do but I think that muckrackets should look at the positives as well as the negatives and then, compare them together. If they would do that, I don’t think that anyone would have any problems with what they write.

Bruno Rodriguez, 5th hour

ian l said...

i don't know which is right or wrong i guess both kind of feel wrong to me they both have advantage and disavantages though if i had to hose i'd saiedrosevet bese he did something

Anonymous said...

I think muckrakers are the gateway to truth. Journalists like Micheal Moore are meant to open up the public's eyes to corruption and problems in the government. If muckrakers are disposed of, who will expose the truth? Most likely, the president will be part of the corruption, so noone can represent the public. In America we are allowed certain freedoms, one being freedom of press. However, with these rights, we also take on responsibilities. I believe muckrakers should know their boundaries. Certain things like anti-american beliefs should be considered "off limits." Overall I believe muckrakers are beneficial to the citizens of this country. They deserve the right to expose what is wrong, to make it right.

~Chelsea R.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I think both TR and the muckrakers are neither right or wrong. They both have their reasons to make people aware of these issues. TR was right because his job was to run the country and make sure everything he could do, to make the country better was done. I also believe that the muckrakers were right because they had the freedom of speech and they made people more aware of the issues in the U.S. I disagree with TR’s feeling towards the muckrakers by saying they got America riled up. I think all the muckrakers did was bring focus to the wrong in America. Overall the muckrakers changed the U.S. for the best, by changing monopolistic businesses, the meat and medicine industries, poverty, local, and state government corruption. In a way the muckrakers helped TR because sometimes one person doesn’t see what everyone else sees.

-Kellie H.

Anonymous said...

The muckrakers should be in control of reform. These are some examples of succesful reforms with the control of the muckrakers, Ida Tarbell broke up Standard Oil into 34 different companies, opened up a new world for competing oil producers and deminished the idea for a one-company controller or leader. After our country's fight for a democracy, it created a constitution where freedom of speech and freedom of the press came to support the muckraker's thoughts. I believe in a strong president to lead a country but I don't agree with Theodore Roosevelt's opinions about a reform. Rhe president shouldn't be able to control everything. So people (reporters) should voice out their oppinions about a reform.

Gil Clark 6th hour

Anonymous said...

i agree with TR partly. The muckrakers really only focused on his negatives, as they are suposed to, but there was some positives to him. However, the muckrakers revealed the secrets big companies and the government were hiding. So, what the muckrakers did was not totally bad. our government does hide things from the poeple that should no be hidden. But, then again, if we took away free speech and press, we wouldent be the free country that we have strived to be for so long.

Ryan Day
5th Hour

Anonymous said...

I have the same opinion about muckrakers as Teddy Roosevelt. I think that they tear people down to get information that they want. But I also think that muckrakers are somewhat good if they are getting information about things that the government does, because the government tends to hid alot of information from the public and when people find out about it, its normally because of the devistating effects it puts on us. One bad side of muckrakers that horrible is that they feed on the negativity of everything. One good thing about them is that they let the people know things that they need to know in order to be happy. I also think that muckrakers are people that are so hungry for attention, that they will ruin lives for it. So needless to say, i do agree with Roosevelt.

Anonymous said...

I agree more with the muckrakers more then TR for a few reasons. The first reason is if it werent for the muckrakers, then there would be a possibility that the meat and food industrie would still be terrible and nasty like it did back then. Another reason that I lean to the side of the muckrakers is becase of the Standrad Oil problem. If it werent for them breaking that company up, then today the worlds money would not be as divided, but one main person would have a lot of money because only one main person owns the company.
-Jordan

Anonymous said...

i agree with Teddy Roosevelt. I agree with teddy Roosevelt because since he was running the united states for about eight years. i think that he deserves some credit. i dont think that the muckrakers were entirely bad. the muckrakers just uncovered what the government was hiding from us. i think that the muckrakers should try to seek and help the government realize what they are doing is wrong instead of trying to create chaos and destroy our government. But instead they revealed it to everyone and tried to destroy our goventment. so in the end i think that i would most deffinately agree with teddy roosevelt and say that the muckrakers were only negatives.

Chris H.
6th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that the muckrakers should be in charge of the reform. History shoe that the muckrakers have had success when leading a reform, for example when Ida Tarbell broke up the Standard Oil into 34 different companies. Muckrakers would be a lot more dedicated and commited to the reform then Teddy Roosevelt would be.
Mike A. 6th hour

Anonymous said...

I for one will choose the fact of agreeing with both sides of this question. i believe that TR himself had a good perspective view on this subject of not having revolt be the better cause. i believe in the fact that if revolt gets the best of us, then this country could split apart again but not in the case of slavery but in economical. however the Muckrackers opinion is not all wrong either. sometimes in the world where corruption has become avid to society, the Declaration of Independence states "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security." this means that when the government or any power becomes corrupt within the society, the people that have the ability to throw off such government, have the obligation and right to do it.
In this way, I believe that both sides of this question are right. It is true of course that Reform is alot better then revolution. the thing is that sometimes revolution inevitably, is the right thing to do. If revolution never was done, then this country would never be what it is today...

August Orlow
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think both, Teddy Roosevelt and muckrakers are right about leading the reform.I think that Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the muckrakers have positive and negative aspects. Teddy Roosevelt said or believed that only people like himself that are educated, informed and those with good intentions (or in other words intelligent), should lead the reform. But other people, such as the muckrakers can be intelligent too. But I think that the president should lead a country. On the other side, the muckrakers had some negative aspects such as making the economy suffer. One good example is Ida Tarbell breaking Standard Oil into 34 different oil companies. while the muckrakers brought big changes to other monopolistic businesses, big changes in the medicine and meat industries.

~Eric Wynns~ 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think both, Teddy Roosevelt and muckrakers are right about leading the reform.I think that Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the muckrakers have positive and negative aspects. Teddy Roosevelt said or believed that only people like himself that are educated, informed and those with good intentions (or in other words intelligent), should lead the reform. But other people, such as the muckrakers can be intelligent too. But I think that the president should lead a country. On the other side, the muckrakers had some negative aspects such as making the economy suffer. One good example is Ida Tarbell breaking Standard Oil into 34 different oil companies. while the muckrakers brought big changes to other monopolistic businesses, big changes in the medicine and meat industries.

~Eric Wynns~ 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I'd say this is a pretty tough choose. Though T.R. was a good guy, allowing the presedent to take care of reforms can sometimes leave the him with too much power. If just the presedent was dealing with reforms and the muckrakers were not around to investigate themselves than the presedent could pick and choose which companies to attack. In other words if a company offered enough money to a certain presedents campaige then he just might over look what that business is doing. I beleive the presedents and the muckrakers should work hand in hand to solve issues such as these. It probably result in a lot more arguments at first but once things got put into motion it problems between groups would flatten out. Then real progess would be made.

Jon C.
5th hour