The point is that Mr. Roosevelt, in all good faith, and believing in the wisdom of his choice, selected Mr. Taft to carry out his policies in the government, and that Mr. Taft, no doubt with the best of intentions, failed to carry out those policies.  The result was a split in the Republican party, the election of a Democratic President and Congress, and other far-reaching consequences, the full meaning of which we have not yet begun to see.  They may be good; they may be unfortunate.  That is not the question at issue.  The question is, could Mr. Roosevelt, if he had had a scientific understanding of human nature, have foretold Mr. Taft’s course of action?

INDICATIONS OF DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTER, IDEAS, IDEALS, AND ACTIONS

The Roosevelt policies were aggressive and bold, cutting across traditions, flinging down the gauntlet, and throwing defiance into the faces of powerful political and business interests.  They assumed for the executive office at least all of the powers which, according to the Constitution, belong to it, working in harmony with a group of men who had interested themselves in a number of progressive—­perhaps some might say radical—­reform measures.  Furthermore, these policies were a perfectly natural expression of Mr. Roosevelt’s personality.

Do Mr. Taft’s physical characteristics, as easily observable indicate that he is of a character, temperament and aptitude to continue such policies as these.  A comparison of the two men should give us the answer.

Mr. Taft is very much lighter in color than Mr. Roosevelt.  As a general rule, the lighter blond coloring is an indication of mildness of disposition, instead of the fierceness and eager determination to dominate of the man who is as ruddy as Mr. Roosevelt.

Mr. Taft’s forehead is very much more practical in type than Mr. Roosevelt’s.  He is, therefore, far more interested in the practical application of such principles as he has than in theories, hypotheses, and reform.

Mr. Taft’s nose, by its roundness and softness of contour, indicates mildness, good nature, refinement, and delicacy of feeling, while Mr. Roosevelt’s is the large-tipped, bony-bridged nose of aggressiveness and combativeness.

Mr. Taft’s mouth is a good-natured, smiling, laughing, jovial mouth, instead of the grim, hard, fighting mouth as shown in Mr. Roosevelt’s type.

Mr. Taft’s chin is of the rounded and rather retreating type, an indication that he is probably far better qualified by disposition to follow a strong and aggressive leader than to take the aggressive, dominating, fighting leadership himself.

Mr. Taft is a very much larger man than Mr. Roosevelt.  This, while not particularly important, is just one more indication of his good nature and his dislike for a hard, grueling fight.  It is an interesting fact that almost all of the great fighters of the world have been little men.  Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Grant, Lord Roberts, Sheridan, Sherman, Wilhelm II, and many others have been below medium in stature.  Of the others, Kitchener, Wellington, Frederick the Great, Washington, and von Hindenberg have been men of not more than medium size.  It is almost unprecedented to find a fighter in a man of Mr. Taft’s huge size.