Theodore and Woodrow

How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom

De: Andrew Napolitano

Narrado por: Scott Moore

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.

The influence of these two men sadly permeates today

I knew a bit about Wilson, his racism, etc., but was totally unaware of the destruction caused by Theodore Roosevelt. This book is forthright and an easy listen. There are many things to learn. Thank you, Judge Napolitano.

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.

Enlightening and Frightening

Learn the valuable lessons of history our state run schools refuse to teach. Judge Napolitano explains how our nation (The United States) strays from the constitution and the dangers the straying poses to state sovereignty and individual liberty.

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.

Good

It’s very insightful. Well researched. In fact it’s hard to believe that one guy could do that much research. Makes me feel stupid.

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

Judge is the man!

read all of his books. more must become knowledgeable of our history and law.

ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!

A fascinating lesson of history. Great depth, encompassing the most relevant issues. A story well told.

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!

Recommended audiobook

Would you listen to Theodore and Woodrow again? Why?

Well-narrated expose of the beginnings of the Progressive Movement that retained my interest from start to finish. Napolitano has a Reaganesque communication style that I really appreciate and enjoy.

What about Scott Moore’s performance did you like?

Just a well-narrated audiobook.

Any additional comments?

Constitutional conservatives (such as me) will certainly enjoy this book. So will Libertarians and Reagan Democrats.