Neptunus Lex had something to say about the differing reactions that McCain and Obama recently faced, when commenting on a proposal to lift the ROTC ban at Columbia University.
The thread quickly became a discussion about "keeping (or encouraging) liberals out of the military," with the majority opinion developing that political diversity is very important for our military. It's a good thread, you should Read The Whole Thing, as they say.
What caught my eye towards the end was a secondary thread started by russiannavyblog (comment #15) wherein he mentioned more than a few liberal military members of excellent standing. Others took issue as to whether certain politicians (Teddy Roosevelt) were "really" liberal or not, and in what context. Mention was made of Teddy's trust-busting work, in contrast to McKinley.
That's where I jumped in:
Back in the day, more than a few of those trusts were (economically) objectionable. The problem is that both the economic & political context have changed, as well as our terms.
Back then, "progressive" or "reformist" meant something. Truly large corporations (including especially the railroad companies) held an enormous power over local politics. Unions were still scrabbling for a toehold, up to the point where the Supreme Court struck down one collective bargaining agreement on the basis that said agreement violated the individual's right to freely contract their own labor. Even most conservatives today would, I think, be appalled at that logic.