"Americans have not been energized"

Historian James Chace talks about the presidential campaign of 1912 and how its spirit of progressive reform could energize the 2004 election.

By Mark Lytle

May 5, 2004 | James Chace's "1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs -- The Election That Changed the Country," to be published by Simon and Schuster next week, is an account of the election that defined the Progressive era, crystallized the agenda of reform that had been largely thwarted by reactionary forces for decades, and changed the political parties, especially the Republican Party, in such a way that its impact is still felt in the election of 2004.

Chace is best known for his brilliant biography "Acheson," about Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who was the ultimate "wise man" in the foreign policy of the American century. Chace is an incisive and original analyst of international affairs, author of numerous books on the subject and former managing editor of Foreign Affairs. He was also an editor at the New York Times Book Review and editor of World Policy Journal. Chace is currently professor of government and public law and administration at Bard College. In "1912," he exercises his skill as a historian to bring to life the most important campaign of the early 20th century. Salon spoke to Chace this week on the personalities and underlying currents of that contest and their continuing influence on today's politics.

There are a number of critical elections in the 20th century -- 1932, 1960, 2000 come to mind. What drew you to 1912?

Interestingly enough, what drew me to 1912 was the "what if" of history. I've spent my whole life writing articles and books on foreign policy, and yet this election had nothing whatsoever to do with foreign policy. It was almost completely on domestic issues of the Progressive period. But the implications for foreign policy were profound. Had Theodore Roosevelt been nominated by the Republican Party -- and he would have been had he not been cheated out of the votes he had gained in the primaries -- he would have been president in 1912 and Woodrow Wilson would have lost. This would have meant that Roosevelt would have continued to make the Republican Party a party of reform, which is what he stood for at the time, indeed, almost radical reform. In terms of foreign policy he might very well have brought the United States into the First World War after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, in which case the war might have ended far sooner and certainly with a less drastic peace than the one imposed on Germany. This might well have changed the course of the 20th century.

I gather from your comments that you have a somewhat more charitable view of Roosevelt than historians had once upon a time. By and large it seems that you take a more jaundiced view of Wilson and a more charitable view of Roosevelt. What brought you to that kind of favorable opinion?

I think that Roosevelt was a man who really grew in office. When he was president from 1901 to 1909, he changed in many respects. He came in as president after the assassination of President McKinley, whose vice president he had been. At that time he was what I would call a patrician reformer; that is to say, he'd been police commissioner of New York City, he'd been governor of New York State and he'd always been for certain kinds of reforms because of the greedy behavior of the great trusts and the very bad state that most workers found themselves in. Roosevelt wanted to make things better. He also wanted people to rise above their own sort of sectarian interests.

Next Page: "Roosevelt wanted the United States, above all, to play the role of a great power in the world"

• View blog reactions