Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Why Coolidge Matters: an Interview with Charles C. Johnson

Rescuing the reputation of one of America's most misunderstood and under-appreciated leaders.

by
J. Christian Adams

Bio

May 26, 2013 - 10:00 am

There are a couple of Coolidge books out there right now. How is the Coolidge you describe different than their Coolidge, particularly Coolidge, by Amity Shlaes? Who was closer to the mark, and why?

Having read Amity’s book, I think she tried to write a history of the 1920s more than she was interested in Coolidge’s political thought, which is unfortunate, because I think Coolidge’s views are timely even today and that the 1920s seem very remote to Americans living in 2013.

My more substantive complaint with her book is that she looks at what she perceives as the libertarian fruits of his political policies without really looking seriously at the political philosophy that underlay them. There’s no mention of his Whiggish understanding of history and no real insight into Coolidge the man. It seems as if she has read the New Deal historians who claimed Coolidge did nothing, and put a libertarian gloss on it. Whereas they condemn Coolidge for “doing nothing,” Amity praises Coolidge for “doing nothing,” comparing him, one time, to a windsurfer.

The truth is something that Reagan noticed and applauded — that Coolidge did quite a lot and that he did it by standing up for constitutional, limited government and that this view of government is ultimately at odds with the small-government, libertarian views that Amity presents.

Other times, Amity’s book is silent on key issues. There’s nary a mention of the Immigration Act of 1924 or the tariff. I believe that authors, particularly biographers, have to offer a compelling defense of the thought of their subjects, even when they personally disagree.

All that said, I’m in favor of there being as much competition as possible on Coolidge and a general free market. It’s good for consumers and I appreciate the sort of work that Amity does even if I don’t always agree with its conclusions.

You portray Coolidge as a progressive of a unique sort, not in the Teddy Roosevelt model, but another way. How?

Coolidge’s central insight is the continuing importance of the Declaration of Independence in our politics. This was a conscious appeal to the more Lincolnian understanding of American life: “that all men are created equal,” which he considered a final proposition from which there could be no progress because that was, as he put, the culmination of man coming into his own.

Coolidge saw the Declaration as both a product of the Enlightenment as well as a religious document. He reasoned from Garman that as we have a common God in God the Father, so we are brothers and therefore only republican government is possible.

And so, he was against any form of supremacism — be it government unions, which he considered a conflict of interest, or racism and eugenics, which he considered denial of the self-evident truth that all are created equal.

For him, the more republican we make our politics, the better. He believed in equality before the law above all else.

Or, put another way: that progress need not be progressive. Aristotle, for example, thought that the human sciences evolved but that the nature of man would remain forever fixed. That is not something that today’s progressives have fully embraced if they have even understood it.

As Coolidge put it, no political party can succeed if it isn’t at some level progressive. The question is what is our vision of progress. I would contend that we should embrace Coolidge’s view of the Declaration’s promise of natural equality and republican self-government.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"For example, when the first direct elections for U.S. senators were held in ’14, progressive candidates were defeated in droves."

A temporary setback. It lasted just until they learned the new ropes of institutional power. It didn't take them very long.

I do wish Coolidge had run in '32. The people still remembered the crash of '20 and the subsequent good times under Coolidge. He'd've won in a walk. We would not have had Roosevelt. We would not have had the 60+ years of Democratic majority, nor the growing Progressive movement. He could've labeled the crash for what it was - activist big government. He might have smothered Progressivism in its crib, by relegating it to fringe status in people's minds.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (2)
All Comments   (2)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
That would make an excellent college course:
"Discerning truth from Democrat/Progressive Narrative".
And the perfect academic that has steeped himself in enough history to know the fact from fantasy, is Dr. Victor Davis Hanson.
And Dr. Hanson just loves kicking over Democrat/Progressive ant hills.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"For example, when the first direct elections for U.S. senators were held in ’14, progressive candidates were defeated in droves."

A temporary setback. It lasted just until they learned the new ropes of institutional power. It didn't take them very long.

I do wish Coolidge had run in '32. The people still remembered the crash of '20 and the subsequent good times under Coolidge. He'd've won in a walk. We would not have had Roosevelt. We would not have had the 60+ years of Democratic majority, nor the growing Progressive movement. He could've labeled the crash for what it was - activist big government. He might have smothered Progressivism in its crib, by relegating it to fringe status in people's minds.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All