Coolidge got some surprising attention from Salon.com in its coverage of the No Labels political start-up. Not wholly accurate attention, to be sure. And certainly not in the service of a cause that Coolidge would support. (The author, Alex Pareene, is basically arguing against the notion of civility in politics, or at least against the utility of organizations devoted to it.)

Here’s what Pareene has to say about Coolidge:

Rich self-declared independents, we have been trained to believe, have no ideology. But the ones who support Mayor Bloomberg and fund centrist organizations like this tend to be conservative Democrats — or, more accurately, Calvin Coolidge Republicans. Coolidge was the original reasonable moderate! Silent Cal supported an invisible regulatory state and anti-lynching laws. (Only one of those priorities survived filibusters, of course — a tax cut for the rich has always been easier to get through Congress than protections for a minority group.) And his pro-business policies led to so much growth, for everyone, until … they didn’t, not long after his powerful commerce secretary succeeded him as president.

There’s an element of truth hiding in here somewhere: the notion that Coolidge was devoted to civility.

But in fact, Coolidge demonstrates that civility is not fundamentally “unserious” (to use Pareene’s terminology). And it’s not anti-political. Rather, civility can bolster meaningful politics.

Civility does not mean easy, empty, split-the-difference compromise. It does mean treating your opponents like decent people, rather than enemies of the Republic. It does mean making room for reasonable debate about the role of government, rather than tossing around words like “fascist” and “socialist.”

Seriously, why do we tolerate name-calling and gross exaggeration in the political arena? If it happened at our dining room tables, we’d be aghast. Or in our classrooms. Or anywhere.

OK, call me naive. And let me have it — I can almost hear you folks gnashing your teeth…

one

The Coolidge rehabilitation seems to be spreading, thanks in part to the publication of Why Coolidge Matters (which has gotten a rather remarkable amount of press). Here’s an item I ran across today:

The Vermont Republican is well known, perhaps, for what he didn’t do. In some history classes, he has been referred to as lazy, with some rumors even suggesting he was clinically depressed. But if you were to ask historians and family members of Coolidge what they think, the opinions and memories change dramatically. In fact, they are more like rebuttals to several decades worth of redicule by casual observers.

“Coolidge was our President during a time of peace and prosperity, between the two wars,” said Vermont Governor James H. Douglas (R). “He has a lot of offer the current American political scene. Fiscal responsibility, for example. He came at a time when our debt was quite high, when tax burdens were quite high, and he worked hard to reduce them.”

As one of the first radio presidents, Douglas claims President Coolidge was actually quite the conversationalist, connecting on levels to the American public in ways that are often overshadowed by historically great communicators like FDR and Ronald Reagan. A new book, “Why Coolidge Matters,” showcases some of the political victories and Presidential precedents set by Coolidge.

via 9NEWS.com | Colorado’s Online News Leader | Worst President ever, or simply misunderstood?.

none

As Americans prepare to go to the polls next week, we might consider Coolidge’s thoughts on voting. Here’s a selection from his November 3, 1924 radio address on the duties of citizenship:

We are always confronted with the question of whether we wish to be ruled by all the people or a part of the people, by the minority or the majority; whether we wish our elections to be dominated by those who have been misled, through the presentation of half truths, into the formation of hasty, illogical and unsound conclusions; or whether we wish those to determine the course of our Government who have through due deliberation and careful consideration of all the factors involved reached a sound and mature conclusion. We shall always have with us an element of discontent, an element inspired with more zeal than knowledge. They will always be active and energetic, and they seldom fail to vote on election day. But the people at large in this country are not represented by them. They are greatly in the minority. But their number is large enough to be a decisive factor in many elections, unless it is offset by the sober second thought of the people who have something at stake, whether it be earnings from in vestment or from employment, who are considering not only their own welfare, but the welfare of their children and of coming generations. Our institutions never contemplated that the conduct of this country, the direction of its affairs, the adoption of its policies, the maintenance of its principles, should be decided by a minority moved in part by self-interest and prejudice. They were framed on the theory that decisions would be made by the great body of voters inspired by patriotic motives. Faith in the people does not mean faith in a part of the people. It means faith in all the people. Our country is always safe when decisions are made by a majority of those who are entitled to vote. It is always in peril when decisions are made by a minority.

via Calvin Coolidge: Radio Address from the White House on the Duties of Citizenship, November 3, 1924.

Incidentally, the slideshow at the top of this post shows Calvin and Grace Coolidge completing their absentee ballots for the 1924 election. All photos are courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

one