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.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

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.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

9 people found this helpful

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.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

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.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

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.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

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!

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

12 people found this helpful

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.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Revolutionary Discovery

more reason to get rid of Political party organizations and restore the Constitutional Republic. This guy should be on the Supreme Court if he would accept that

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

a Libertarian dissent from conventional views

Well argued Libertarian view of the origins of progressive big government in the United States

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

The Case Against Theodore and Woodrow...

This was a fascinating and insightful look at the social/political philosophy of progressivism, and how it drove America's first progressive presidents - Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson - to fundamentally change the US Constitution. Andrew Napolitano cuts right to what he sees as the heart of the issue: Roosevelt and Wilson worked to destroy the federalism built into the US Constitution by the founders primarily through the means of: 1) progressive taxation (the income tax), 2) the expansion of the regulatory state and the scope of the federal government into state and local jurisdictions, 3) the wielding of US military power to influence political events around the globe, 4) federally directed social engineering to "improve" society, 5) the manipulation of US currency and orchestration of monetary policy through a central bank (Federal Reserve System), 6) the direct election of US Senators by popular vote.

Napolitano, a staunch, energetic, and well-spoken libertarian, makes the case that the pressing of these items from the turn-of-the century progressive's agenda by Roosevelt and Wilson sent the US on a path away from the one envisioned by the founders. Instead of limited government power, state's rights, and frugal monetary policy and budgeting, with Roosevelt and Wilson the US started a journey toward a strong and oppressive federal government, weakened state jurisdictions which have increasingly become little more than sub-jurisdictional units of the federal burocracy, an imperial executive, bloated budgets, and reckless fiscal policy. Napolitano makes no bones that his book is not a history of the two progressive administrations or a biography of the men who lead them. It is, instead his brief with which he indicts them in the court of Constitutional Originalism.

Napolitano is well researched and makes his points clearly. Liberals who worship these two giants of early 20th century American politics may be surprised to read many of the things they said and did, and what their reasoning was for pursuing a progressive agenda. Conservatives will be surprised just how much they have also strayed from ideals and mindset of the founding fathers when they compare some of the so-called "conservative" planks in their platforms with progressive ideas that found their beginning in the Roosevelt and/or Wilson administrations. A must read for all those who think they are familiar with Theodore Roosevelt and his character, or those who think they understand what caused America's entrance into The Great War (WWI).

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

14 people found this helpful