In the article Theodore Roosevelt: The Conservative as Progressive, Hofstadter portrays the complex man that is Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt always favored social reform, as he wanted light government regulation of the American economy because he believed that some of the monopolies established at that time were an impediment to society, while also being corrupted through trusts. Although outwardly he was aggressive and a strong advocate of progressivism through his established laws and acts, inwardly he was conservative and simply wanted things to stay the same. Roosevelt was strongly opposed to organized power. Hofstadter asserts that through Roosevelt's regulation of the American economy, his antipathy toward organized power and the rich, and his relationship between the rich and the working class as arbiter, Roosevelt believed in conservatism, but his many actions of progressivism dictate otherwise. Say no to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayHofstadter in his article states that Theodore Roosevelt, throughout his presidency and before, was known to be a relatively aggressive person, because he always wanted to impose himself. on others. This, according to Hofstadter, is largely linked to his approach to regulating the American economy. Theodore Roosevelt wanted there to be "some" government regulation of the American economy, but mainly to eliminate corruption in specific areas. As Hofstadter puts it: "Between 1904 and 1906, Bryan campaigned for state ownership of the railroads, and Roosevelt responded by supporting the Hepburn bill, which made possible the beginnings of railroad rate control by the Interstate Commerce Commission” (289). Hofstadter shows how Roosevelt was against the mostly corrupt and trust-filled monopolistic corporations, rather than the less corrupt and trust-filled corporations. Roosevelt earned his nickname "trustbuster" through his actions and regulation of corrupt trusts in America, but Roosevelt was also not entirely against trusts, but simply against corruption among some. Hofstadter shows another important aspect of his regulation through Roosevelt's submission of Tammany Hall. “There he proved troublesome to the Platt machine; the bosses rejoiced at the opportunity to send him upstairs, and a combination of friends and enemies gave him the vice-presidential spot on the McKinley list in 1900” (279). As Roosevelt rose through the political ranks on his way to his presidency, there was a time when he noticed the corruption evident in the political machine known as Tammany Hall. Theodore Roosevelt became aware of corrupt favoritism and was able to suppress and control it, angering Platt and the other bosses. Using these prominent examples, Hofstadter is able to describe Roosevelt's progressive style through his partial government regulation of the then-corrupt American economy. Although Theodore Roosevelt acted as a strong progressive, his inner beliefs, sometimes expressed, were largely conservative. Roosevelt, according to Hofstadter, was truly a conservative at heart, despite his progressive attitude. Hofstadter shows this through Roosevelt's fear of the power of organized people and the extremely rich. Roosevelt felt intimidated by the masses of workers because they posed a threat to Roosevelt and the stability of America. As Hofstadter says: “Every signof organized power among the people frightened him; and for many years he showed toward the labor movement an attitude as bitter as that expressed in John Hay's anonymously published novel, The Breadwinners” (270). Roosevelt actually expressed his hatred of organized power, because not only did it scare him, but he was also against the radicalism of the people who formed these mobs (until he later ran for president again), because it seeks to change/modify. the situation of the company, particularly relating to its disdain for strikes. Besides organized power, Hofstadter shows Roosevelt's disgust and fear of the extremely wealthy, as their power in society threatened Roosevelt's power as president and the influence they had over the economy and American society. Hofstadter shows Roosevelt's distrust through his statement: "While the grandeur of business frightened the typical middle-class citizen for economic reasons, it frightened Roosevelt for political reasons. He was not a small businessman worried about being ousted, nor a simple customer concerned about rising prices, but a great politician facing a powerful rival in the conquest of power” (291). Roosevelt did not like exceptionally wealthy people because their power, although different, clashed over who would be more powerful, and Roosevelt did not want these monopolistic giants to take over America through material interests. This is why Roosevelt was very much in favor of “breaking trust.” Roosevelt wanted to reduce the power of these monopolies, especially corrupt monopolies, and his biggest example of this was the Northern Securities affair. Hofstadter uses the Northern Securities affair to illustrate Roosevelt's distrust of monopolies, and through this affair Roosevelt and Bryan were able to reduce the power of the Northern Securities company through the Hepburn bill, thereby eliminating a competitor major for power in America. Roosevelt was able to stop this huge enterprise from changing and monopolizing America because of the way Roosevelt worked for improvement. Hofstadter uses many examples in his article on Roosevelt to show that in many cases he is in fact a conservative and that although much of his actions were progressive, Roosevelt's conservative side shined through on several occasions. Theodore Roosevelt in Hofstadter's article is presented as an intermediary, an "impartial arbiter" between the rich and the poor. Roosevelt had his likes and dislikes on both sides, which is why he was generally trusted to settle conflicts between capital and labor, because he had no bias on one side or the other. As Hofstadter puts it: “Because he feared big business as well as organized labor and farmers, Roosevelt came to see himself as representing a middle ground” (285). Roosevelt knew he represented the middle ground, because he disliked strikes and organized power, but he also disliked the arrogance and stubbornness of wealthy business owners, so his place in resolving a strike was right in the middle. When it came to organized strikes, Roosevelt, as best he could, avoided letting them get out of control and was quick to intervene and offer compromises for both capital and workers. This is particularly true in the case of the anthracite strike of 1902. As Hofstadter explains: "His attitudes toward many public issues were in reality identical to those of the most astute capitalists." This was..