Man Power

Moral justification was rampant at the turn of the twentieth century. From muckrakers to government officials, public writers attempted to validate their position and ideas by employing vague yet up-lifting rhetoric. The context of the morals stressed was largely dependent on the author. This was clearly seen in the speeches of two United States presidents: Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Both these men were constantly using moral justification, but the tones of their respective messages were strikingly different. Teddy Roosevelt, the big game hunting Rough Rider, focused on powerful masculine morals. Woodrow Wilson, however, stressed honorable and religious morals that lacked the manliness of Roosevelt, but never the less indicated a higher ground; proper ways to act, think, and feel. Both these legendary men, despite the differences in moral tone, used this technique to push their respective agendas and win over the American people.

One of the most important features of moral justification was the overabundance of vague statements. Giving detailed complaints, or harassing a particular name or company, might leave some voters aggravated. This was especially relevant if someone had knowledge on the subject, or a relation to the party being criticized. To avoid this disconnection public writers used inclusionary phrases, metaphorical agents, and a number of other techniques used to draw in the reader and convince them that a particular position was the only “right” position. Teddy Roosevelt employed this throughout his career. Addressing the ideas of nationalism he stated, “In our day it appears as the struggle of free men to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will.” Notice that Roosevelt failed to mention any particular individual or organization that fits the description of “special interest.” This non-identified agent easily became a sponge for negative signifiers like “defeating the popular will.” He also used the inclusionary phrase “free men” who were for “self-government” to relate to as many individuals as possible. These techniques allowed the reader to recall any particular grievance, and made it seem as if Roosevelt knew their troubles and wanted to fight for the average man.

Woodrow Wilson employed the same techniques as Roosevelt and other public writers of this era. In his first inaugural address Wilson described the “moral force” of America. “Nowhere else in the world have noble men and women exhibited in more striking forms the beauty and the energy of sympathy and helpfulness and counsel in their efforts to rectify wrong, alleviate suffering, and set the weak in the way of strength and hope.” Who would not want to be a part of this group? Would any individual want to side against sympathy and helpfulness? Of course not, and that was the precise reason for using this rhetoric. It gave the speaker a direct connection with the audience, and a monopoly over moral righteousness. Wilson continued on stating that, “Justice, and only justice, shall always be our motto.” , which further elevated his moral position. By the end of his speech one feels that to be an American was to support Wilson’s policies. This public support, however, seemed to have formed primarily from general ideals of good conquering evil, and not from particular political policies on conservation, tariffs, and big business.

In addition to containing vague statements, moral justification often had a particular tone based upon the speaker. Roosevelt illustrated his morals through masculinity. This consistent allusion was probably derived from his life experiences. Roosevelt was, for lack of a better term, a man’s man. He signed up for the war against Spain despite being over the age requirement, and performed heroic feats with his regiment nicknamed the Rough Riders. He went on big game hunts often, and was seen proudly displaying his athletic skill whenever the opportunity arose. This lifestyle was often illustrated in his speeches. Addressing his party at the Republican Convention in 1900 he stated, “The young giant of the West stands on a continent and clasps the crest of an ocean in either hand. Our nation, glorious in youth and strength, looks into the future with fearless and eager eyes, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.” This description of the United States brought forth a powerful image. He mentioned that the nation “clasps the crest of an ocean” as if the body of water would have ceased to exist without America’s support. This power was then compared to a man “glorious in youth and strength” who was about to run a race. These masculine metaphors alluded to the idea that the nation could feel confident about the future because it was a vibrant imperial force. He further stated that the righteous thing to do would be to act upon this strong position. “We do not stand in craven mood, asking to be spared the task, cringing as we gaze on the contest.” The all male voters of America would probably agree with Roosevelt’s allusions especially after the recent military victory over Spain. By highlighting masculine morals throughout his speech, in addition to other vague rhetoric, Roosevelt could appeal to the voting populace. He would appear as a vibrant and powerful individual with an eye for a strong and prosperous future.

The tone of Woodrow Wilson’s speeches was dissimilar to Roosevelt’s and lacked a masculine influence. This was primarily because of differences in Wilson’s personal life. He grew up in Staunton, Virginia, and was the son of a Presbyterian minister. He did not regularly seek adventures, sports, and other “manly” activities like Roosevelt. Wilson had an extensive educational career, and was the president of Princeton before entering politics in 1910. His life experiences produced moralistic rhetoric laced with religious overtones that included specific notions of honor. In his second inaugural address he stated, “We are being forged into a new unity amidst the fires that now blaze throughout the world. In their ardent heat we shall, in God’s Providence, let us hope, be purged of faction and division, purified of the errant humors of party and of private interest, and shall stand forth in the days to come with a new dignity of national pride and spirit.” At this time America had already been involved with World War I for almost a year, and Wilson needed to assure the people that America would persevere. Roosevelt at a time of war would have employed masculine morals to unify the populace. Wilson, however, justified the sacrifices necessary by indicating a higher purpose. He accomplished this through combining religious rhetoric with nationalistic ideals, and indicating that these were necessary tools in order to succeed against the enemy. Religion and national pride were two concepts common to all Americans at this time, and were easily absorbed into the mass populace. Wilson used these instated morals from his life experiences to connect and motivate the people during a time of war.

Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson used moral justification to strengthen their bond with the American people, and further their respective agendas. They employed the same techniques as muckrakers and other public writers of the early twentieth century. General phrases, non-identifiable agents, inclusionary phrases, and more were used to enhance a particular position. The tone of their rhetoric, however, differed immensely. Roosevelt was fond of masculine allusions, and used them to connect to the voting male populace. Wilson, conversely, used religion and nationalism to instill a higher purpose in his policies that related with the masses on a different level. Despite the dissimilar tones, both these presidents were able to successful use moral justification for their policies and connected with the American people.