Kicking off our new series highlighting the trailblazers of the Bull Moose movement, we’re starting with none other than Jane Addams—a true icon of progress and justice.

Jane Addams wasn’t just a social reformer and the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. She was also a driving force in the Progressive Party (aka the Bull Moose Party), standing shoulder to shoulder with Theodore Roosevelt to push for groundbreaking reforms. In 1912, she made history as the first woman to second the nomination of a major party presidential candidate at the Progressive Party convention. Let that sink in—years before women even had the right to vote nationally, Addams was shaking up the political system.

Addams’s advocacy went beyond words. She championed workers’ rights, women’s suffrage, child labor laws, and social justice initiatives, believing the Bull Moose platform was the best way to achieve these goals. Her leadership at Hull House in Chicago, a settlement house that provided services and education to immigrants and the poor, showed her commitment to progressive values in action, not just theory.

Her involvement with the Bull Moose Party wasn’t a one-off—it was a bold declaration that progress needed a voice, and women belonged in the conversation. Addams’s courage and conviction helped shape the party’s stance on critical issues like social welfare and gender equality.

Jane Addams is proof that the Bull Moose movement wasn’t just about big speeches and larger-than-life personalities—it was also about badass reformers fighting for a better America.

What do you think about Jane Addams? And who should be next week’s "Badass Bull Mooser"?

Let’s celebrate some wins! What good news have you seen this week that aligns with the Bull Moose spirit? Whether it’s a local progressive victory, a national policy shift, or an inspiring story, share it here and let’s keep the momentum going!

As we sit down this Thanksgiving, sharing meals and reflecting on what we’re grateful for, I can’t help but think about Theodore Roosevelt’s vision of gratitude. For TR, Thanksgiving wasn’t just about appreciating the blessings we already had—it was about taking responsibility for ensuring those blessings endured for future generations.

In 1903, Roosevelt received a Thanksgiving turkey from a Rhode Island farmer named Horace Vose. It was a grand tradition of the time for Vose to gift the president the finest bird he could raise. But what strikes me most about Roosevelt’s Thanksgiving traditions isn’t the turkey—it’s the heart of his message.

Roosevelt didn’t just give thanks for the bounties of the earth; he reminded Americans that the gifts of nature were fleeting if we didn’t protect them. His belief in conservation as a sacred duty wasn’t abstract. It was personal. It was patriotic. It was about leaving this country better than we found it—not just in its lands and waters, but in the lives of the people who called it home.

Roosevelt once said, “There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country.” At a time when deforestation was rampant, wildlife was being hunted to extinction, and industrialization was rapidly reshaping the landscape, TR saw clearly what was at stake. The Thanksgiving table, piled high with food, wasn’t just a celebration of abundance—it was a call to action to preserve that abundance for those who would follow us.

This Thanksgiving, I think about what it means to honor that legacy in a modern world. What will future generations inherit from us? Will we leave them a democracy that’s still vibrant? Public lands that are still protected? Schools that are better equipped to serve every child, regardless of background? These are the questions Roosevelt would have asked.

It’s easy to enjoy the feast and move on. But Roosevelt’s Thanksgiving message challenges us to do more. To be grateful, yes—but also to ask what we are doing to protect the blessings we’ve been given. Whether it’s the environment, the rights of our fellow citizens, or the institutions that hold us together, the true spirit of Thanksgiving is about stewardship.

So, as you celebrate today, take a moment to think about Roosevelt’s legacy—not just in the forests he saved or the parks he preserved, but in the sense of responsibility he instilled in all of us. As Bull Moose advocates, let’s carry that forward. Let’s be thankful—and then let’s act.

Call to Action:

• Reflect: What are you most grateful for this year, and how can you protect it?
• Act: Support conservation efforts, engage in your community, and advocate for policies that secure a better future.
• Share: Let’s use this thread to share what we’re fighting for in honor of Roosevelt’s legacy—what are you working to protect for the next generation?

Let’s make TR proud. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

TL;DR: Theodore Roosevelt saw Thanksgiving as a reminder of our duty to protect what we’re grateful for. This year, let’s reflect on what we’ll leave behind for future generations and honor TR’s legacy by taking action.

I’ve always been a strong advocate for building more housing. We need more options to keep costs down, reduce traffic, and ensure our communities are places where people can afford to live, work, and thrive. But Senate Bill 382 is not the way to do it.

This bill, buried in a disaster relief package, does nothing to address the real issues facing communities. Instead, it takes power away from local governments, hands it to individual property owners, and ties the hands of towns trying to plan for their futures.

What’s wrong with Senate Bill 382?

• It requires unanimous written consent from property owners for zoning changes that reduce density or permitted uses. This effectively freezes local governments’ ability to make proactive decisions about growth or infrastructure.
• It doesn’t solve the housing crisis or traffic issues. Instead, it makes it harder for towns to build the housing and infrastructure we need to manage growth responsibly.

But this bill isn’t just about zoning—it’s part of a much larger power grab. The NCGA is also using this legislation to strip powers from the Governor and other state leaders. After losing their supermajority in the legislature, they’re rushing to consolidate power before they lose even more control.

This is about more than just bad policy—it’s about undermining democracy itself. Bills like Senate Bill 382 are designed to weaken local and state institutions, prioritize special interests, and silence the voices of working families.

I’ll continue to advocate for more housing and stronger communities, but I’ll also fight against laws like this that harm both. Our towns and state deserve better than last-minute power grabs and policies that serve narrow interests at the expense of everyone else.

Teddy Roosevelt fought for a Square Deal that worked for all Americans, not just the powerful. It’s a vision we must continue to push for—especially when faced with efforts like this to consolidate power and undermine the people.

TL;DR: I support building more housing, but Senate Bill 382 is a bad bill that freezes local governments’ ability to manage growth and solve real issues like housing and traffic. It’s part of a larger NCGA power grab to strip authority from local communities and state leaders after losing their supermajority. This isn’t about helping people—it’s about consolidating power for a select few.

For some years now when I get asked what my political identity is I always say that I'm a 'Bull moose progressive'. Meaning that I advocate for the strong political tactics used by TR and to enact bold, progressive policies. Now that this subreddit is working on getting a name for itself we should try and differentiate our progressive identity to the false identity that MAGA and other conservative ideologies try to stick on the left. What do you guys think of the name? Would it be applicable for the wider progressive movement we're trying to kickstart? Is it enough of a difference to 'regular' progressivism to circumvent the stereotypes made by the right?

Theodore Roosevelt stood against corporate greed and exploitation, championing fairness and accountability in business practices. But what would he do about planned obsolescence—the design of products to fail or become outdated, forcing consumers to buy replacements?

Take Apple’s decision to remove the headphone jack from iPhones, effectively pushing users to buy wireless AirPods. These earbuds came with batteries that couldn’t be replaced, meaning when the batteries died, you had to buy a whole new pair. It’s a textbook example of planned obsolescence—maximizing profits at the expense of consumers and the environment.

TR’s Likely Approach:

Roosevelt believed in protecting the public from exploitation. His actions against monopolies and corporate overreach suggest he would take bold steps to address planned obsolescence, possibly through:

1. Right to Repair Laws: Require companies to make products repairable by consumers, such as providing replaceable batteries and spare parts.
2. Transparency Standards: Mandate that companies disclose product lifespans so consumers can make informed choices.
3. Environmental Accountability: Penalize corporations that create excessive waste and fail to offer recycling options.
4. Incentives for Durable Design: Encourage innovation by rewarding companies that create long-lasting, sustainable products.

Counterarguments to Consider:

• Some argue that making products repairable could stifle innovation by limiting design choices. For example, requiring replaceable batteries might make devices bulkier or less sleek.
• Others point out that these changes could increase production costs, leading to higher prices for consumers.
• Some believe market forces are already driving companies to adopt sustainable practices, and additional regulations might slow that natural progress.
• There’s also the risk of companies outsourcing production to avoid environmental penalties, potentially worsening global impacts.

Are These Solutions Worth It?

Despite these challenges, the benefits outweigh the risks. Repairable products can reduce waste, save consumers money, and promote sustainability without halting innovation—companies like Fairphone prove it’s possible. Increased transparency would hold corporations accountable while empowering consumers to make better choices.

TR would likely embrace these solutions, balancing innovation with fairness and accountability. His focus on the public good reminds us that bold action is necessary when corporate practices harm consumers and the environment.

Let’s Discuss:

Would TR take on companies like Apple for practices like irreplaceable AirPods? Are these solutions the best way to tackle planned obsolescence, or is there a better approach? Share your thoughts below!

TL;DR:

Planned obsolescence, like Apple’s irreplaceable AirPods, exploits consumers and harms the environment. Solutions like right to repair, transparency standards, and penalties for waste align with TR’s values of fairness and accountability. Do these ideas hold up?

Theodore Roosevelt wasn’t a man bound by party loyalty. His entire career was marked by a willingness to go against the grain when it served the public good. He famously challenged his own Republican Party when it became too aligned with corporate interests, eventually forming the Progressive—or Bull Moose—Party to push for reforms that neither major party was willing to tackle.

This independence suggests that TR might have approached today’s hyperpolarized politics with the same bold pragmatism. He wasn’t afraid to work with opponents—or fight them—if it meant getting things done for the American people.

TR’s Pragmatic Leadership Style:

Roosevelt believed that results mattered more than party loyalty, saying:

“The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”

This wasn’t just rhetoric—he proved it by working with progressive Democrats on key reforms like the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Hepburn Act to regulate railroads. TR was willing to compromise when it meant advancing the public interest.

Would Bipartisanship Work Today?

The challenges TR faced in his time—entrenched corporate power, corruption, and social inequality—echo many of our current struggles. But could his style of leadership work in an era of:

• Hyperpolarization: Today, political identity often feels like a core part of who we are, making compromise seem impossible.
• Corporate Influence: TR took on the trusts of his day. Would he view modern lobbying and campaign financing as obstacles to bipartisanship?
• Media Fragmentation: Roosevelt mastered communication, giving fiery speeches and leveraging the press. Could he cut through today’s partisan media landscape to rally Americans around shared goals?

What Would TR Do?

1. Focus on Results: TR was a man of action. He’d likely prioritize issues that have broad public support, such as campaign finance reform, infrastructure, or worker protections, and pressure Congress to act.
2. Build Public Pressure: Roosevelt wasn’t shy about appealing directly to the people to force lawmakers’ hands. He might leverage modern tools like social media to bypass partisan media and build grassroots support.
3. Challenge Corruption: TR wouldn’t tolerate today’s level of corporate influence in politics. He might make reducing money in politics a cornerstone of his strategy to restore trust in government.

Roosevelt’s legacy reminds us that bipartisanship isn’t about watering down principles; it’s about forging alliances to achieve meaningful progress. While the modern political climate is challenging, the spirit of TR’s bold and pragmatic leadership could offer a path forward.

Let’s Discuss:

Do you think TR’s approach could work today? Would he focus on building bridges across the aisle, or would he double down on bold action regardless of opposition? Share your thoughts below!

TL;DR:

Theodore Roosevelt’s bold pragmatism allowed him to work across party lines to achieve major reforms. In today’s era of gridlock, he might focus on building public pressure, fighting corruption, and forging unlikely coalitions. Could TR’s leadership style break today’s partisan divide, or is bipartisanship dead?

Theodore Roosevelt believed education was essential to the strength of democracy and the success of every individual. He once said:

“A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”

This quip highlights TR’s understanding of the power and responsibility that comes with education. He saw it as a tool not only for personal betterment but also for building a fairer society.

How would Roosevelt address the educational challenges of today, like the student debt crisis and underfunded public schools?

TR’s Vision for Education:

Roosevelt valued fairness and opportunity for all Americans. He might view today’s struggles—like skyrocketing tuition and inequities in public school funding—as threats to the ideals he championed. Would he advocate for free college, reform the student loan system, or champion public school improvements?

The Student Debt Crisis:

With 43 million Americans owing a collective $1.6 trillion in student loans, higher education is out of reach for many.

• Would TR push for free public college, ensuring everyone has access to higher education without financial barriers?
• Or would he reform the system by regulating tuition rates, capping loan interest, or tying college funding to performance and access for lower-income students?
• Could TR’s “Square Deal” inspire a new model for affordable education, balancing government intervention with institutional accountability?

Public School Challenges:

K-12 education faces hurdles like inequitable funding, teacher shortages, and outdated infrastructure.

• TR believed in fairness and opportunity. Would he advocate for increased federal funding to close gaps between wealthy and underfunded districts?
• Could he lead a push for stronger vocational training programs, aligning education with workforce needs?
• Roosevelt often championed bold, systemic reforms—might he call for a national overhaul of public education funding to ensure every child receives a quality education?

What Should the Modern Bull Moose Party Do?

Building on TR’s legacy, the modern BMP can tackle today’s education issues head-on:

• Student Debt Relief: Support loan forgiveness, tuition-free community college, or work-study programs.
• Public School Funding: Advocate for equitable funding, higher teacher pay, and improved resources in underfunded schools.
• Alternative Pathways: Promote apprenticeships, technical education, and career readiness programs to give students more options.

Roosevelt’s belief in fairness, opportunity, and the power of education as a democratic cornerstone challenges us to act boldly.

Call to Action:

What do you think? How would Theodore Roosevelt approach student debt and public education reform? Should the modern Bull Moose Party prioritize free public college, K-12 equity, or something else entirely? Let’s discuss below!

TL;DR:

A discussion on how TR’s belief in education as essential to democracy would inform solutions to student debt and public school challenges today. What should the modern Bull Moose Party prioritize?

Theodore Roosevelt was a trailblazer in conservation, establishing national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges to protect America’s natural resources. He believed in using science and bold action to solve the challenges of his time. But if TR were alive today, how would he tackle the climate crisis?

Could nuclear energy be the modern equivalent of his conservation ethos?

TR’s Conservation Philosophy:

Roosevelt once said:

“The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.”

TR understood the need for long-term solutions and wasn’t afraid to adopt cutting-edge ideas. Would he view nuclear energy as a clean, scalable alternative to fossil fuels that aligns with this vision?

Why TR Might Support Nuclear Energy:

• Pragmatism: Nuclear energy is one of the most efficient and reliable sources of carbon-free power, capable of meeting America’s growing energy demands. TR’s focus on practicality might lead him to embrace it.
• Bold Leadership: TR wasn’t afraid to champion controversial ideas, like taking on the monopolies of his day. Could nuclear energy be the 21st-century equivalent—a necessary but misunderstood solution?
• Conservation through Innovation: Nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels, helping to preserve natural habitats and reduce emissions, aligning with TR’s conservationist ideals.

What Should the Modern Bull Moose Party Do?

If TR would support nuclear energy, how should the modern BMP lead on this issue?

• Promote Investment in Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Advocate for new, safer technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) and fusion energy.
• Push for Energy Independence: Nuclear can play a key role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources.
• Emphasize Climate Justice: Ensure nuclear energy projects benefit all communities, especially those most impacted by climate change.

Call to Action:

What do you think? Would Theodore Roosevelt view nuclear energy as the bold solution we need to fight climate change? And how should the modern Bull Moose Party advocate for nuclear alongside other clean energy sources? Let’s debate below!

TL;DR:

Would TR support nuclear energy as a bold, innovative solution to the climate crisis? Let’s discuss how his conservation legacy could guide the modern BMP’s energy policies.

The Gilded Age of the late 19th century was marked by staggering wealth inequality, corporate monopolies, and political corruption—all while average Americans struggled to make ends meet. Theodore Roosevelt rose as a leader in response to these challenges, using his presidency to tackle monopolistic trusts, regulate industry, and champion the common man through the Square Deal.

But here’s the question: Are we living in a new Gilded Age today?

Similarities to the Past:

• Wealth Inequality: The wealthiest 1% of Americans control more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, echoing the disparity of the Gilded Age.
• Corporate Power: Tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Meta wield influence comparable to the monopolistic trusts TR sought to bust.
• Political Corruption: The influence of money in politics through lobbying and super PACs raises questions about whether democracy truly works for the people.

What Would TR Say About Today?

Roosevelt believed that unchecked power was dangerous, whether in the hands of a corporation or a corrupt government. He famously said:

“Too much cannot be said against the men of great wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. But... as a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised at death to the next generation.”

Would TR advocate for stronger antitrust laws to break up today’s monopolies? Would he push for higher taxes on billionaires to redistribute wealth and fund public goods?

What Does This Mean for Us?

If we are in a new Gilded Age, it raises urgent questions:

• Economic Reform: How do we ensure fair opportunities for all Americans while reining in corporate excess?
• Democracy: How do we reduce the influence of money in politics to restore trust in government?
• Labor Rights: How do we empower workers in an era of gig economies and stagnant wages?

Call to Action for the Modern Bull Moose Party:

Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy challenges us to take bold, progressive action when power becomes too concentrated.

• Should the Bull Moose Party push for policies like wealth taxes, universal healthcare, or campaign finance reform?
• How do we balance innovation and economic growth with fairness and accountability?

Call to Action:

Let’s debate! Are we living in a new Gilded Age? If so, what does that mean for our society, and how should the modern Bull Moose Party respond? How can we channel TR’s spirit of fairness and reform to meet today’s challenges? Share your thoughts below!

TL;DR:

A debate on whether we’re living in a new Gilded Age and what it means for wealth inequality, corporate power, and democracy. How should we respond, and what would TR do?

Theodore Roosevelt is often celebrated for his strong views on citizenship, national identity, and fairness. His thoughts on immigration were nuanced: he embraced America as a nation of immigrants but was firm on the idea of assimilation and loyalty to American ideals.

But how would TR approach the modern challenges of illegal immigration?

TR’s Views on Immigration:

Roosevelt believed deeply in the idea of assimilation and unity, stating:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else... But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American."

At the same time, he was wary of divided loyalties, emphasizing:

"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Finally, in his 1903 State of the Union Address, Roosevelt balanced optimism about immigration with caution:

"We can not have too much immigration of the right kind, and we should have none at all of the wrong kind."

Applying TR’s Principles Today:

• Would Roosevelt support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have proven their loyalty and contributions to American society?
• Would he call for stronger border security measures to prevent illegal crossings while reforming legal immigration pathways?
• How might he address root causes of illegal immigration, such as economic instability in other countries, as part of a "Square Deal" for international relations?

What Should the Modern Bull Moose Party Do?

If the Bull Moose Party existed today, how should it handle immigration reform?

• Should the BMP advocate for balanced reforms, such as providing pathways to citizenship while strengthening border enforcement?
• Should it focus on addressing economic and political instability in countries driving illegal immigration?
• How would the BMP apply TR’s legacy of fairness, pragmatism, and bold action to this divisive issue?

Call to Action:

Let’s debate! Would Theodore Roosevelt favor stricter enforcement, a path to citizenship, or both? And what should the modern Bull Moose Party’s stance be? How can we balance compassion, sovereignty, and fairness? Share your thoughts below!

TL;DR:

A debate on how TR’s quotes and principles on immigration might apply today, and how the modern Bull Moose Party should approach the issue. Would we focus on enforcement, pathways to citizenship, or both? Let’s hear your ideas!

What do you think?

Hey Bull Moose,

Did you know, that this year at least 172 contracts, each covering more than 1,000 workers, expired. With that, we have seen several strikes that were to address mainly pay gaps and issues with AI. I can tell you working in corporate America, when unions are successful, CEO's get scared. We start seeing proactive push for changes to avoid the economic impact of not taking care of their workers. When the unions succeed, we all win from it, thus we need support our unions to see more pro-worker affects in this county.

Key ways to support striking workers:

• Walk the picket line: Be physically present on the picket line to show solidarity and support. 
• Donate to a strike fund: Contribute financially to help striking workers cover living expenses during the strike. 
• Boycott the company: Refuse to purchase goods or services from the company being struck. 
• Share information on social media: Spread awareness about the strike and the workers' demands through social media platforms. 
• Contact elected officials: Reach out to your local representatives to express your support for the striking workers and urge them to take action. 
• Bring supplies: Provide food, water, and other necessities to workers on the picket line. 
• Write letters to the editor: Share your support for the strike in local newspapers and publications. 
• Attend rallies and demonstrations: Participate in public events organized in support of the striking workers. 
• Educate others: Talk to friends, family, and colleagues about the strike and why it's important to support the workers

A very easy thing, that can be very effective to supporting a strike is working with your local food bank to do a drive to support union families during strikes.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt led the Bull Moose Party with a vision of a fairer, more just America. A century later, one of the greatest threats to that vision remains unchecked: gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party over another. It creates a system where politicians pick their voters instead of voters picking their representatives. This deeply undemocratic process distorts elections, entrenches incumbents, and silences millions of voices, undermining the very principles Roosevelt championed.

Today, gerrymandering isn’t just a political issue; it’s a moral one. It affects everything from healthcare to education to climate policy by ensuring that extremist voices dominate while moderate, consensus-driven policies are left behind. Roosevelt’s Square Deal was about fairness and equality. Gerrymandering is the antithesis of those ideals, perpetuating inequality and division.

Why It Matters:

• Erodes Accountability: Gerrymandered districts are often "safe seats," meaning representatives have little incentive to listen to their constituents.
• Undermines Representation: Communities are split or packed into districts to dilute their voting power, particularly targeting marginalized groups.
• Stalls Progress: Partisan gerrymandering ensures gridlock, making meaningful legislative change nearly impossible.

What We Can Do: Ending gerrymandering requires action on multiple fronts:

1. Support Independent Redistricting Commissions: States like Michigan and Arizona have adopted citizen-led commissions to draw fair maps, removing partisan influence.
2. Advocate for the Freedom to Vote Act: This federal legislation includes provisions to combat gerrymandering nationwide.
3. Engage Locally: Attend redistricting hearings, write to your state representatives, and push for transparency in the map-drawing process.

A Call to Action: Roosevelt once said, "A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." Ending gerrymandering is essential to restoring faith in our democracy and ensuring that every vote counts equally.

Let’s honor Roosevelt’s legacy by fighting for fair representation. Join the movement to end gerrymandering and make democracy work for everyone, not just a select few.

TL;DR: Gerrymandering undermines democracy by distorting representation and accountability. Support independent redistricting commissions, advocate for federal reforms like the Freedom to Vote Act, and engage locally to fight for fair maps. Let’s honor TR’s vision of a just and equitable democracy.