We are currently making improvements to the Audible site. In an effort to enhance the accessibility experience for our customers, we have created a page to more easily navigate the new experience, available at the web address www.audible.com/access.
 >   > 
Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom | [Andrew Napolitano]

Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

A harsh and revealing political exposé of two beloved presidents. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano reveals how Teddy Roosevelt, a bully, and Woodrow Wilson, a constitutional scholar, each pushed aside the Constitution’s restrictions on the federal government and used it as an instrument to redistribute wealth, regulate personal behavior, and enrich the government. Theodore and Woodrow exposes two of our nation’s most beloved presidents and how they helped speed the Progressive cause on its merry way.
Regular Price:$23.62
  • Membership Details:
    • First book free with 30-day trial
    • $14.95/month thereafter for your choice of 1 new book each month
    • Cancel easily anytime
    • Exchange books you don't like
    • All selected books are yours to keep, even if you cancel
  • - or -

Your Likes make Audible better!

'Likes' are shared on Facebook and Audible.com. We use your 'likes' to improve Audible.com for all our listeners.

You can turn off Audible.com sharing from your Account Details page.

OK

Publisher's Summary

A harsh and revealing political exposé of two beloved presidents.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano reveals how Teddy Roosevelt, a bully, and Woodrow Wilson, a constitutional scholar, each pushed aside the Constitution’s restrictions on the federal government and used it as an instrument to redistribute wealth, regulate personal behavior, and enrich the government. These two men and the Progressives who supported them have brought us, among other things:

  • The income tax
  • The Federal Reserve
  • Compulsory, state-prescribed education
  • The destruction of state sovereignty
  • The rise of Jim Crow and military conscription
  • Prohibition and war

The Progressive Era witnessed the most dramatic peaceful shift of power from persons and from the states to a new and permanent federal bureaucracy in all of American history. Theodore and Woodrow exposes two of our nation’s most beloved presidents and how they helped speed the Progressive cause on its merry way.

©2012 Thomas Nelson, Inc. (P)2012 Thomas Nelson, Inc.

What Members Say

Average Customer Rating

4.3 (128 )
5 star
 (71)
4 star
 (30)
3 star
 (21)
2 star
 (5)
1 star
 (1)
Overall
4.4 (114 )
5 star
 (69)
4 star
 (24)
3 star
 (14)
2 star
 (6)
1 star
 (1)
Story
4.3 (113 )
5 star
 (59)
4 star
 (31)
3 star
 (19)
2 star
 (3)
1 star
 (1)
Performance
Sort by:
  •  
    Joseph D. Klotz Hodgkins, Illinois 03-12-13
    Joseph D. Klotz Hodgkins, Illinois 03-12-13 Member Since 2010

    Verbum Domini Manet In Aeternum. Jesus Christus Dominus Est. I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to others, and I require the same from them.

    HELPFUL VOTES
    29
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    16
    5
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    0
    0
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "The Case Against Theodore and Woodrow..."

    This was a fascinating and insightful look at the social/political philosophy of progressivism, and how it drove America's first progressive presidents - Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson - to fundamentally change the US Constitution. Andrew Napolitano cuts right to what he sees as the heart of the issue: Roosevelt and Wilson worked to destroy the federalism built into the US Constitution by the founders primarily through the means of: 1) progressive taxation (the income tax), 2) the expansion of the regulatory state and the scope of the federal government into state and local jurisdictions, 3) the wielding of US military power to influence political events around the globe, 4) federally directed social engineering to "improve" society, 5) the manipulation of US currency and orchestration of monetary policy through a central bank (Federal Reserve System), 6) the direct election of US Senators by popular vote.

    Napolitano, a staunch, energetic, and well-spoken libertarian, makes the case that the pressing of these items from the turn-of-the century progressive's agenda by Roosevelt and Wilson sent the US on a path away from the one envisioned by the founders. Instead of limited government power, state's rights, and frugal monetary policy and budgeting, with Roosevelt and Wilson the US started a journey toward a strong and oppressive federal government, weakened state jurisdictions which have increasingly become little more than sub-jurisdictional units of the federal burocracy, an imperial executive, bloated budgets, and reckless fiscal policy. Napolitano makes no bones that his book is not a history of the two progressive administrations or a biography of the men who lead them. It is, instead his brief with which he indicts them in the court of Constitutional Originalism.

    Napolitano is well researched and makes his points clearly. Liberals who worship these two giants of early 20th century American politics may be surprised to read many of the things they said and did, and what their reasoning was for pursuing a progressive agenda. Conservatives will be surprised just how much they have also strayed from ideals and mindset of the founding fathers when they compare some of the so-called "conservative" planks in their platforms with progressive ideas that found their beginning in the Roosevelt and/or Wilson administrations. A must read for all those who think they are familiar with Theodore Roosevelt and his character, or those who think they understand what caused America's entrance into The Great War (WWI).

    13 of 14 people found this review helpful
  •  
    Jerry United States 04-15-13
    Jerry United States 04-15-13
    HELPFUL VOTES
    16
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    41
    14
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    0
    0
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "Not being a libertarian!"

    Not being a libertarian, but more an independent conservative, I found Napolitano's book the most enlightening listen in a very long time. Get it; progressive history they didn't teach you through our progressive educational establishment-bureaucracy.

    As an old-school Roman Catholic, Napolitano brings up both Roosevelt's and Wilson's Protestantism. However their Preterism is really a bigger and bolder attempt to create America's historic religious narrative and that is, mankind should attempt to create God's eternal "Shining City on a Hill," on this continent. It doesn't seem that is working out too well at the present time.

    Perhaps, contrary to our wishful thinking, maybe we really are not God, nor gods!

    8 of 9 people found this review helpful
  •  
    Lance Maryland, United States 07-23-13
    Lance Maryland, United States 07-23-13 Member Since 2002
    HELPFUL VOTES
    168
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    127
    35
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    10
    3
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "Something for everyone...."

    Libertarian? Conservative? Democrat? Democracies are failing all around the world and the US is not too far behind. Why? Napolitano does a very good job of teeing up a litany of potential suspects. I believe the author is a libertarian, so if you can't deal with a libertarian viewpoint then this book might not be for you. Indeed, I consider myself a libertarian but have a hard time with the logical extensions that seem to be endemic in the libertarian community. Probably no different than the republican or democrat communities, but I get the sense that the libertarians keep to themselves more than the others and thus make a number of what seem to be logical extensions that for most people just leave them saying, "Huh? Are these people crazy?". Even if you're a libertarian I think you'll have a few of these moments reading this book. You almost want to distance yourself from the author at times. But take a look at some of the key issues that are discussed. I think the author has many good points. You'll get some good history if you don't close your mind to it. Our country clearly has serious deeply rooted issues. The author's deep knowledge of both history and the workings of our court and legislative system make him someone that should at least be listened to with an open mind.

    For me I found some of the explanations incredibly thought provoking including the impact of the Seventeenth Amendment (went from Senators from states to Senators from the people, thereby elevating the Federal over the State and legislative). The federal reserve section seems incredibly interesting given the increasing power of this quasi-governmental agency. The increasingly interventionist nature of our federal government into foreign affairs I found interesting, though I usually dislike libertarian foreign policy immensely. Educational influence through the state school systems was also interesting. The book in general highlights that the progressive era really changed many things in America and put us on a slippery slope where increasingly government is doing more things for more people and in typical governmental fashion not doing them well. Despite many acknowledgements of the pitfalls in progressive thinking this philosophy pervades much of the republican and democratic platforms and indeed much of our political dialogue in this country. I did not enjoy learning about the racial analyses underpinning some of our presidential decision making, and found it unfair to charge folks from earlier eras as being somehow less than perfect because they held these ideas. I don't know what it was like to live in those days. If all politicians believed those things back then it is fair to hold them to today's standards? In an ideal world, they would not have been like that, but the world is never ideal.

    Sorry for the rambling. I found my initial reaction to this book was to draw me away from libertarianism. The more the ideas sit with me, the more they are finding resonance. Interesting times we live in. If you want a book to challenge how you think about the times, this is a pretty good, though at times challenging book. Stay with it and keep an open mind, whether you're democrat or conservative there is something fundamental and deep here for you.

    2 of 2 people found this review helpful
  •  
    Sarah Sidell Mesa, AZ 01-02-13
    Sarah Sidell Mesa, AZ 01-02-13 Member Since 2012
    HELPFUL VOTES
    20
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    41
    15
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    2
    0
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "A very enlightening history lesson."
    Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

    The time was very well spent. A good history lesson most people are not fully aware of.


    What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

    I enjoyed the comparisons made between the two Presidents.


    What about Scott Moore’s performance did you like?

    Scott has an easy voice to listen to as well as good cadence to his voice.


    Did Theodore and Woodrow inspire you to do anything?

    Pay more attention to what is really being done by people in office as opposed to what they say.


    9 of 12 people found this review helpful
  •  
    spiron 12-18-13
    spiron 12-18-13

    spiron

    HELPFUL VOTES
    2
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    19
    1
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    0
    19
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "Please Do It Again and Do It Right"
    Would you consider the audio edition of Theodore and Woodrow to be better than the print version?

    no.


    What was one of the most memorable moments of Theodore and Woodrow?

    historical facts revealed and the way in which they affected the law.


    Would you be willing to try another one of Scott Moore’s performances?

    No.


    Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

    In the first chapter, as one of the million of so lawyers in the U.S., Mr. Moore's lack of experience with the law as he tried reading a book about the most complex of issues in the Constitution, forcing me to mentally translate his irrelevant points of stress in a sentence in to what Judge Napolitano was trying to convey.


    Any additional comments?

    IF you could get Judge Napolitano, or at least someone familiar with constitutional law to read this book, I would buy it again. It is truly a great book. Judge Napolitano is trying to explain the most complex of legal concepts to the layperson. Ironically, my guess is that reader Moore as a layperson is the worst type to do this.

    Ian A Schneider, counselor at law

    2 of 3 people found this review helpful
  •  
    Lou Middletown, Ohio, United States 12-04-13
    Lou Middletown, Ohio, United States 12-04-13 Member Since 2012

    Lou

    HELPFUL VOTES
    5
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    4
    3
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    0
    0
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "Unfortunately Napolitano misunderstands pragmatism"
    What made the experience of listening to Theodore and Woodrow the most enjoyable?

    Exposing these men for the destroyers they were.


    Any additional comments?

    Unfortunately Judge Napolitano does not understand that pragmatism is a tool of the left He incorrectly states that the founders were pragmatic. Pragmatism was not developed until nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written. The founders were intellectuals. Pragmatism is an anti intellectal method of problem solving, so called. Intellectuals investigate, debate, and exhaustively explore a given problem in an attempt to find the most viable solution possible in order to avoid unintended consequences.

    Pragmatic approach is quite different. The pragmatist throws a solution, or even multiple solutions at a problem. They understand that there well be unintended consequences, but are more concerned with immediate response than they are with finding eloquent solutions which spin off minimal unintended consequences. Rather they expect unintended consequences and intend to pragmatically deal with them as they arrise.

    Obviously those solutions will often result in their own unintended consequences. As can readily be grasped, this is a very sloppy method for dealing with problems. It is anti intillectual in it's nature and would have been completely reprehensible to our deep thinking intellectual founders.

    I was disappointed that Judge Napolitano so misunderstood our founders and suggests that they would ebrace such an intellectually bankrupt philosophy which has been so central in the destructive legislation which has been enacted in this and the better part of the 20th century.

    Intellectuals, for instance, understand human nature and account for it in their politics. Thus they understand that government welfare necessarily revolves around the lowest common denominator. That being the case it is immediately obvious that many who are not deserving will receive it.

    Furthermore, one of the stated missions of the Church tis care for the poor. That caring for the poor by the Church will tend to result in less abuse as those just wanting a free ride will generally be weeded out, where as the government being restricted to operating with out the benefit of local discrimination is forced to squander precious resources on the freeloaders.

    Furthermore, that the governments intervention in the Church's work is a blurring of the separation of the Church and the State. While State governments are not necessarily so restricted, the Federal Government has no businesse in this arena for that reason as well. Of course there are myriads of examples, that is merely one such example.

    As long as the reader is aware of this flaw, he can expect to learn quite a bit from this book which is good and correct technically and historically. I highly recommend it with the exception of my stated carve out.

    1 of 2 people found this review helpful
  •  
    C. ONeill Levittown, Pa. 04-07-13
    C. ONeill Levittown, Pa. 04-07-13 Member Since 2009
    HELPFUL VOTES
    4
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    3
    2
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    0
    0
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "Subjective"
    Would you try another book from Andrew Napolitano and/or Scott Moore?

    Depends on the subject. The performance is great


    Would you ever listen to anything by Andrew Napolitano again?

    Again, it depends, I've liked some of his past work


    What about Scott Moore’s performance did you like?

    I like the performance


    What character would you cut from Theodore and Woodrow?

    George Bush, Hillary Clinton,


    Any additional comments?

    This writer is obviously very subjective in his observations. He starts out by saying Wilson believes, Roosevelt believes, but doesn't provide the evidence. He ties in George W Bush and Hillary Clinton for his own subjective purposes. He makes a point to say that almost all US wars were illegal..where is the proof of that? He ties lynching to public education which made me scratch my head. While I am fully aware of the Progressives and the progressive era as I took the online course offered by Hillsdale college. They do not add their own personal politcal rants and complaints to the historical facts as the judge does in this book..Very disappointed.

    4 of 11 people found this review helpful
  •  
    S. Chapin Minnesota 01-09-14
    S. Chapin Minnesota 01-09-14 Member Since 2005
    HELPFUL VOTES
    13
    ratings
    REVIEWS
    26
    15
    FOLLOWERS
    FOLLOWING
    0
    0
    Overall
    Performance
    Story
    "one sided monologue ad nauseam"

    The one sided monalogue got old and the personal attacks were at times sickening. The logic the author uses is at times comical. Using one reason at one time as bad and at another time as good. Example, he states the people should not have politicians tell them what to do but he speaks over and over how direct election of senators by the people is bad. Anyone can take a person and report just negative things, that is not hard to do. Every founding father had his good and bad. To report a one sided history. not giving both sides of the circumstances and facts to let the readers decide on there own, is exactly what he critisized over and over in the book. Wait the logic got worse, the author blames every world woe on progressivism when the same issues have been happening since written history. I will have to admit even though there were political points I agreed with, the book was a total waste of time and really is a one sided political rant.

    2 of 7 people found this review helpful
  • Showing: 1-8 of 8 results

    There are no listener reviews for this title yet.

Report Inappropriate Content

If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.

Cancel

Thank You

Your report has been received. It will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.