-
17
Oct
Spoke at Fountain Street Church in Grand Rapids for the Hauenstein Center and the Seidman College of Business. Found myself talking about Coolidge. Writing a Coolidge bio is going to be hard, because his assumptions were so far from ours today. Jon Alter, the other speaker, moved forward in time and is writing on President Obama.
Is Coolidge’s America still America? I think so, but many won’t agree. Ray Nothstine wrote a Facebook note making same point. What would Coolidge make of a state stabilization fund? What would he make of Michigan’s unemployment rate?
Also: Got some important help from Jerry Wallace of the CCMF improved a forthcoming Forbes Coolidge column by me.
- Published by Amity Shlaes in: Uncategorized
- If you like what you're reading, why not subscribe to our rss feed!
5 Responses to “Silent Cal in Grand Rapids”
We’re about as far removed, in years anyway, from Coolidge as he was from Andrew Jackson. Would it have been a good idea for a 1920s biographer of Jackson to have tried to figure his views of Woman Suffrage, Prohibition, Federal Reserve policy, the National Origins Act, or the Fordney-McCumber tarriff?
I’ve read the Forbes piece you mentioned in your post:
“Calvin Coolidge Rules” http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1102/opinions-amity-shlaes-current-events.html
You make a case that we’d be better off if elected officials today–like Coolidge in 1919–would more frequently resist the demands of public employee unions. What’s more, there’s political hay to be made by doing so. “The politician who tries the Coolidge method,” you write, “may find himself pleased with the results.” Didn’t it work for Coolidge? His handling of the Boston Police Strike propelled him to the vice presidency and beyond.
It’s a well-written piece but the mixing of history & current affairs bothers me. It’s too present minded and that can be as dangerous to a historian as it’s evil twin, nostalgia. (This is sort of what I was trying to get at in my snarky comment above about the imagined Andrew Jackson biographer of the 1920s).
The account of Coolidge’s political good fortune is too pat. It ignores the coincidences, the luck, the frustrations, and the bone headed blunders that make up life.
A couple of points:
1) Coolidge got the vice presidential nomination because Hiram Johnson turned it down. Irvine Lenroot’s fate wouldn’t have been Johnson’s. He had a sizable bloc of delegates who’d stuck with him during the presidential balloting; he would have helped heal the wounds from 1912; and, best of all, it would have put on the ticket candidates from Ohio & California, two states Hughes had lost in 1916.
2) If Coolidge’s police strike performance was so politically galvanizing, then why was his presidential campaign in 1920 such a bust? After all, he wasn’t swept aside by a colossus like Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Reagan; he lost to Warren Harding. (Sort of like losing to the Detroit Lions). In its August 13, 1923 issue TIME pointed out, “Mr. Coolidge is now in a position where he can make himself felt if he chooses. He had such a position before, as Governor of Massachusetts, and he went to the Convention of 1920 with many more strongly marked attributes than did Senator Harding.” Furthermore, he had Dwight Morrow & Bruce Barton working for him. (The House of Morgan & BBDO!) Murray Crane was there in the smoke filled rooms at the Blackstone to present his case.
http://blog.acton.org/archives/tag/calvin-coolidge
You are really focusing on some important work Amity. I think the fact that Coolidge’s assumptions are so far from us today is an essential note to highlight in the biography.
Hey, I really like the design of your site. What design are you using?
My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool
And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
P.S. Sorry for my bad english
Leave a Reply