In the piece Theodore Roosevelt: The Conservative as Progressive, Hofstadter portrays the complex man that is Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was always interested in social reform, as he wanted light government regulation of the American economy because he believed that some of the monopolies established at that time were a hindrance to society, as well as being corrupt through trusts. Although outwardly he was aggressive and a firm believer in progressivism through his established laws and acts, inwardly he was a conservative and really just wanted things to stay the same. Roosevelt was strongly against organized power, Hofstadter states that through Roosevelt's regulation of the American economy, his antipathy towards organized power and the rich, and his relationship between the rich and the working classes as an arbiter, Roosevelt believes in conservatism , but his many Progressivism actions dictate otherwise. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayHofstadter in his article states that Theodore Roosevelt during his presidency and before was known to be a relatively aggressive person, as he always wanted to impose himself on others. This, Hofstadter refers largely to his approach to regulating the American economy. Theodore Roosevelt wanted there to be “some” government regulation of the American economy, but mostly to eliminate corruption in specific areas. As Hofstadter states, “Between 1904 and 1906 Bryan fought for state ownership of the railroads, and Roosevelt responded by supporting the Hepburn bill, which made possible the beginning of control of railroad rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission” ( 289). Hofstadter shows how Roosevelt was opposed to predominantly corrupt monopolistic corporations with trusts, rather than less corrupt corporations with trusts. Roosevelt earned the nickname “trustbuster” through his acts and regulations on corrupt trusts in America, but Roosevelt was not entirely against trusts, just corruption within some. Hofstadter shows another great aspect of his rulemaking through Roosevelt's subjugation of Tammany Hall. “It proved troublesome for the Platt machine there; the leaders welcomed the chance to kick him upstairs, and a combination of friend and foe gave him the vice president seat on the McKinley ticket in 1900” (279). As Roosevelt advanced through the ranks of politics on his way to his presidency, there was a period of time when he noticed the obvious corruption in the political machine known as Tammany Hall. Theodore Roosevelt learned of the corrupt cronyism and was able to suppress and control it, angering Platt and the other leaders. Using these prominent examples, Hofstadter is able to describe Roosevelt's progressive style through his partial government regulation of the then corrupt American economy. Although Theodore Roosevelt acted as a strong progressive, his inner beliefs, occasionally expressed, were largely conservative. Roosevelt according to Hofstadter was truly a conservative at heart, despite his progressive attitude. Hofstadter demonstrates this through Roosevelt's fear of the power of organized people and the extremely wealthy. Roosevelt felt intimidated by the masses of workers as they posed a threat to Roosevelt and the stability of America. As Hofstadter says, “Every sign of organized power among the people frightened him; and for many years he showed towards thelabor movement an attitude every bit as bitter as that expressed in John Hay's anonymously published novel The Breadwinners” (270). Roosevelt expressed his hatred for organized power, as it not only scared him, but he was also against the radicalism of the people who formed these crowds (that is, until he runs for president again later), because he seeks to change/modify the company's ranking, especially in relation to its contempt for strikes. In addition to organized power, Hofstadter shows Roosevelt's disgust and fear of the extremely wealthy, as their power in society threatened Roosevelt's power as president and the influence they had on the American economy and society. Hofstadter shows Roosevelt's distrust through his statement: “While the size of business scared the typical middle-class citizen for economic reasons, it scared Roosevelt for political reasons. He was not a small businessman, worried about being excluded, nor an ordinary customer worried about rising prices, but a great politician who found himself facing a strong rival in the quest to achieve power” (291). Roosevelt didn't like the exceptionally wealthy because their power, while different, clashed with each other over who would be the most powerful, and Roosevelt didn't want these monopolistic giants to take over America through material interest. This is why Roosevelt was in favor of “dismantling trust.” Roosevelt wanted to reduce the power of these monopolies, especially the corrupt ones, and his greatest example is the case of Northern Securities. Hofstadter uses the Northern Securities case to exemplify Roosevelt's distrust of monopolies, and through this case, Roosevelt and Bryan were able to reduce the power of the Northern Securities company through the Hepburn bill, eliminating a major competitor for power in America. Roosevelt was able to not allow this huge corporation to change and monopolize America from the way Roosevelt was working to improve. Hofstadter uses many examples in his article on Roosevelt to show that in many cases he is actually a conservative and that, although much of his actions were progressive, Roosevelt's conservative side shone through on several occasions. Theodore Roosevelt in Hofstadter's article is portrayed as an intermediary, an “impartial arbiter” between rich and poor. Roosevelt had his likes and dislikes for both sides, so he was commonly given the task of resolving disputes between capital and labor, as he had no prejudices on either side. As Hofstadter says, “Because he feared large corporations as well as organized workers and farmers, Roosevelt came to think of himself as a golden middle ground” (285). Roosevelt knew that he represented the average opinion, since he did not like strikes and organized power, but he also did not like the arrogance and obstinacy of wealthy corporate owners, therefore his place in the issue of resolving a strike, it was right in the middle. When it came to organized strikes, Roosevelt, as best he could, avoided letting them get out of hand and was quick to intervene and offer compromises on both the capital and workers' sides. This is especially true in the case of the anthracite strike, in 1902. As Hofstadter explains, “His attitude toward many public issues was actually identical to that of the shrewdest capitalists. This was especially true where workers were concerned, and was illustrated by Roosevelt's compromise on the formidable anthracite strike of 1902” (288). Hofstadter uses it..