- Elizabeth Emlen Roosevelt: A Personal Reminiscence by Howard Ehrlich - pages 8-9
- THEODORE ROOSEVELT BIBLIOGRAPHY PROJECT - An Introduction to Our Theodore Roosevelt Bibliography by Gregory A. Wynn - pages 10-41
- Assembling a Theodore Roosevelt Bibliography by Michael Patrick Cullinane - pages 13-15
- Theodore Roosevelt: A Bibliography compiled by Michael Patrick Cullinane and Gregory A. Wynn - pages 16-41
- Very Likely the Last Expert Sighting: Theodore Roosevelt and the Passenger Pigeon by Michael J. Sacopulos - pages 42-50
|
|
- A Successful, Enjoyable, and Memorable TRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis by Fritz Gordner and Sandy Gordner - pages 51-70
- The Connection Between Theodore Roosevelt’s Carriage Accident in 1902 and His Death in 1919 by Richard D. Feldman and William H. Dick - pages 71-79
- Roosevelt in Indiana, 1900-1918: A Detailed Chronicle by Robert Bowling - pages 80-100
- Presidential Snapshot #50 - page 102
- Index for Volumes XLIV-XLV compiled by Carol Gualtieri - pages 103-111
|
Notes from the Editor
On twenty-two occasions during my twenty-six years as a full-time history professor at Boston University, I taught Social Science 201, a one-semester sophomore course on modern Russian and Chinese history. The first half of this course surveyed Russian history from the nineteenth century to the present.
Russia has been beset by many truly awful leaders during this period. This list includes all of the tsars, excepting Alexander II, from Alexander I through Nicholas II and all of the post tsarism rulers from Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin, with the notable exceptions of the remarkable Mikhail Gorbachev (1985-1991) and the decent but largely unsuccessful first post-Soviet leader, Boris Yeltsin (1992-1999).
Over the past century the two worst rulers have held power for the longest periods: Joseph Stalin (1929-1953) and Putin(2000-present). Stalin, a bloodthirsty mass murderer on an unimaginably enormous scale, was determined to glorify himself and to establish and then hold absolute power by intimidating the entire population and by ruthlessly eliminating all individuals and groups perceived by him to be actual or potential opponents. Putin, a great admirer of Stalin, shares many qualities with the World War II-era Soviet leader, among them extreme cruelty, extreme self-absorption, an uncontrolled lust for personal power and personal glorification, and a well-developed capacity to identify and to exploit the weaknesses of other people.
In recent months I have been thinking a lot about Putin’s Russia. In twenty-first-century Russia, craven loyalty to the ruler and corruptibility are essential for those seeking supportive roles and personal privileges (competence is valued far less), whereas integrity and character are disqualifying. What is objectively good is bad, and what is objectively bad is good. Lies are official truths, while truths are deemed lies. The leader’s failures are either not failures at all or, when failures are necessary to recognize, somebody else’s fault. Upstanding public figures are criminals, while thugs, operating as the reliable vanguard of the regime, are encouraged and praised and protected. The cowardly, fearful, careerist legislators from the leader’s political party are not principled independent governing officials but rather are engaged in the project of sustaining a cult of personality. The well-being of the population is of little concern to the President, who prioritizes his own power and wealth far above everything else. Indeed, thievery by the President and certain individuals favored by him is rampant and massive. Rules established previously in an effort to create and to sustain a thriving representative government are perceived as irritating nuisances and are routinely and flagrantly disregarded. Barbaric large-scale unprovoked aggression perpetrated by powerful authoritarian states is self-defense, while heroic self-defense by the victims is labeled aggression. The world’s most brutal tyrants, including Kim Jong Un of North Korea, are embraced, whereas the leaders of functioning democracies are disdained and often ridiculed. Meanwhile, public criticism of the wreckage being inflicted on Russia and its citizens by Putin requires uncommon courage, for it is invariably risky.
During his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt, an exemplar of enlightened leadership, viewed the Russia of Nicholas II as “utterly insincere and treacherous, [having] no conception of truth [its ‘mendacity’ was ‘appalling’], . . . [and] no regard for others of any sort or kind.” In the present era, TR undoubtedly would be just as critical of Russia’s government—as well as the regimes in all other countries operating, or striving to operate, in a similar manner.
William Tilchin
|