Why the backlash against Theodore Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson in recent years?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

I don't see how this global disparity (in what?) was any better a few centuries ago or a millennia before.

That's exactly the point. People are pointing out that things are better now, but that's not true. They could be moreso, but that requires us to at least question some Western-centric beliefs, the most evident of which being the enthronement of economic liberalism as a cure-all for economic progress.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

For his time period, I personally admire TR greatly. His zeal and strength in terms of both economic and foreign policy I feel are things that progressives today should aspire to. (Granted, much less on the foreign policy front, as it did perpetuate imperialism, however, intervention to invoke Wilson's self-determination under democratic constructs, I feel are more than justified.)

That said, times have changed and we often have the privilege of looking back and judging people by our present standards, without taking into account the historical circumstances that surrounded said figures. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years, people like us are also looked upon as bigoted and horrible.

Teddy Roosevelt and his brand of Progressivism is something I admire however. Their support of technological solutions, nationalism, thinking in large-scale terms, interventionism, and firm grounding in the values of Western Civilization contrasts greatly with the luddite, small-minded, neo-isolationist, and anti-Western "progressive" left [1] who resemble leftist versions of reactionary High Tories more than anything else (indeed the non Christian elements of the far right also reject the universal applicability of moral values).

I feel as though this brand of progressivism is simply an evolution of the one from 100 years ago. I think globalized society and the advancements in communication and transparency through technology has shown us Western ideals are not dogma, particularly if said ideals continue to lead to the global disparity we have today.

I don't see how this global disparity (in what?) was any better a few centuries ago or a millennia before.

That's exactly the point. People are pointing out that things are better now, but that's not true. They could be moreso, but that requires us to at least question some Western-centric beliefs, the most evident of which being the enthronement of economic liberalism as a cure-all for economic progress.

The thing is, things are better even if very marginally. For example most of the Third World has access to vaccines not available even a century ago. And socialism is also essentially a Western-centric philosophy (at least as much as capitalism is).

Yes, and said vaccines are produced and distributed usually for the profit of the foreign pharmaceutical than for the sake of vaccination. The former is a much more slower and reductive process than the latter. The point is, Western ideals aren't necessarily bad, its just that often times they are implemented (the more proper term should be 'abused') without first compensating for localized factors.