The rule of reason and New Nationalism represent different approaches to economic regulation and antitrust law. The rule of reason, established by the Supreme Court in cases like Standard Oil, suggests that not all business practices are inherently illegal; instead, they should be evaluated based on their overall impact on competition. In contrast, New Nationalism, championed by Theodore Roosevelt, advocated for a more active government role in regulating big business to ensure fairness and social justice, emphasizing the need for strong regulatory frameworks to curb corporate power. Essentially, while the rule of reason focuses on a case-by-case analysis, New Nationalism promotes broader regulation and reform.
William Howard Taft's rule of reason sought to limit the government's power. Theodore Roosevelt's new nationalism sought to strengthen the government's power.
The New Nationalism would back stronger government power to bust trusts, while the Rule of Reason would weaken that power.
William Howard Taft's rule of reason sought to limit the government's power. Theodore Roosevelt's new nationalism sought to strengthen the government's power.
William Howard Taft's rule of reason sought to limit the government's power. Theodore Roosevelt's new nationalism sought to strengthen the government's power.
William Howard Taft's rule of reason sought to limit the government's power. Theodore Roosevelt's new nationalism sought to strengthen the government's power.
William Howard Taft's rule of reason sought to limit the government's power. Theodore Roosevelt's new nationalism sought to strengthen the government's power.
Taft supported the "rule of reason," which relaxed the hard line set by the Sherman Antitrust Act
New ideas are discouraged from the seniority rule
it discourages new ideas
it discourages new ideas
it discourages new ideas
To create a new nation