Progressive reform or constitutional restraint?
Between 1906 and 1912 the party divided between progressive “insurgents” and the conservative “Old Guard” over tariffs, regulation, the power of party leaders and proposals for more direct democracy.
Progressives and insurgents
Insurgents such as La Follette and Norris, and increasingly Roosevelt, argued that concentrated corporate wealth threatened self-government and equal opportunity and that a stronger national government was needed to restore popular control. They pressed for downward tariff revision, direct primaries and the initiative, referendum and recall; in 1912 Roosevelt proposed letting voters override certain state court rulings.
The Old Guard and Taft
Aldrich, Cannon and, by 1912, Taft argued that the Constitution’s limits, an independent judiciary and the security of property were the foundations of liberty and prosperity, that the protective tariff sustained American wages, and that proposals such as the recall of judicial decisions threatened the rule of law.
Historians
Historians note that both factions claimed the party’s heritage—the progressives its activist nationalism, the conservatives its defense of property and constitutional order—and that the 1912 split helped give Democrats the presidency and both houses of Congress.
Sources
- Theodore Roosevelt: Campaigns and Elections · Miller Center, University of Virginia

