BnB, your quotes badly mischaracterized TR and his beliefs. You must read the entire original speech and place that in the context of his life. Then and only then may you may begin your refutation.
In the future I'd advise you to go to the source. The "scholar" you cite is woefully inadequate in his treatment of TR. Mr. Pestritto's analysis is superficial and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Founder's intent, TR's life, and erroneously equates conservatism with Republicanism. His words from a WSJ article:
The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange because, if we want to understand where in the American political tradition the idea of unlimited, redistributive government came from, we need look no further than to Roosevelt and others who shared his outlook.
The notion that TR wanted an unlimited, redistributive government is absurd. What he wanted was a powerful regulatory government that allowed the common to triumph over the privileged when they merited it
. That is freedom.
He differed from the Founders because he knew the power of the corporatists must be rivaled if the hope that is America was to prevail.
Frankly, I think Republicans have been suckered by liberals into casting aside one of their own ideological heros. JKF unceremoniously signed the authorization of the Sagamore Hill site with a cheap ball point pen and was unenthusiastic according to park rangers--the pen is on display at the site. The distancing of TR by Republicans and conservatives is a phenomenon courtesy of the manipulative media. You have been duped so that TR, like Lincoln can be co-opted by the Dems as one of their ideological heroes.http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... cument=501
In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.
At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen 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. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new. All I ask in civil life is what you fought for in the Civil War. I ask that civil life be carried on according to the spirit in which the army was carried on. You never get perfect justice, but the effort in handling the army was to bring to the front the men who could do the job. Nobody grudged promotion to Grant, or Sherman, or Thomas, or Sheridan, because they earned it. The only complaint was when a man got promotion which he did not earn. -T.R.
If you think the above quote is somehow socialistic because it is progressive in dealing with national issues, you don't understand your country's roots nor do you understand Republicanism. I believe Teddy left his party because it became too conservative and inflexible and was in danger of becoming the party of the privileged. The need to battle corporatism and the beginning of the end of the nuclear family was of primary concern for TR. His moral compass was true to God. http://www.conservapedia.com/Teddy_roosevelt
It wasn't until the Bull Moose party was formed that the split you refer to began; one that even resembled the "progressives" of today. Unfortunately TR's short lived Bull Moose party helped the New Deal democrats more than the convservatives. The split gave them the election. Afterward Teddy returned to the Republican party and the rest to the New Deal Democrats.
Sorry but I cannot fault the man for his mildly left leaning viewpoints on a few subjects. They were rooted in his spiritual morality. Similarly, I do not support the death penalty. It adds nothing to justice, nor contributes to safety, nor aids budget considerations. It merely sanctions an immoral act that is clearly avoidable via the power of government..
Real Republicans know where TR stood.