2010 JFK Symposium

Calvin Coolidge: A Man of Character– A Panel Discussion

Good morning and welcome to our panel discussion on the character of Calvin Coolidge.

My name is Milt Valera and I am the president of the National Notary Association, and publisher of the newest book about our 30th President, “Why Coolidge Matters,” a work that brought together twenty outstanding thought leaders with diverse views, but with a common connection – a fascination with the extraordinary character of Calvin Coolidge.

I am honored to be serving as moderator for this panel discussion.

Please allow me to begin by explaining the National Notary Association’s connection to our special subject today. Calvin Coolidge was destined to come to our attention because of what transpired on August 3, 1923, some thirty-four years before our founding.

Yet, if Calvin Coolidge’s only relevance for American Notaries had been the fact that he was the only U.S. President ever to be sworn in to office by a Notary Public, that might be little more than an interesting historical footnote.

The more compelling connection has always been the way President Coolidge conducted his public life. And for that conduct, the National Notary Association elevated him as a shining example of what a conscientious and selfless public servant should be.

Notaries, as public officers, are expected to perform their duties with integrity, evenhandedness and scrupulous attention to propriety. These same qualities enabled Coolidge to set his impeccable example as a public servant. But this is not the sole reason for our special kinship to Coolidge. Our 30th President was, above all, a man of small town common sense and virtue – a modest man of no modest talents.

Americans in Coolidge’s time were drawn to his integrity, his humility, his love of family, his commitment to public service, and his charming simplicity.

And Coolidge was one of those rare men who are so secure in themselves that they never worry that people will think less of them for their quiet demeanor.

Today at this wonderful symposium, we learn about a man with a penetrating and highly organized intellect. We learn about a man of deep faith whose constant message was that matters of the spirit come first. And we learn about a man who championed the rights of the vulnerable – notably women, blacks and the mentally ill – long before it was politically fashionable to do so.

Historians and author Richard Norton Smith spoke here twelve years ago and said that, to most Americans in the 1920s, Coolidge was more than a character, “He was character.”

This morning, we explore that character, as we examine Calvin Coolidge’s integrity, his leadership, and his respect for public service and the fundamental principles of good government.

I am pleased to be sharing this time with three distinguished scholars and experts on our subject today.

Each has published extensively and spoken widely on a President who was a success in his day – and perhaps a model for all time. 

You’ve already heard about nationally syndicated columnist and commentator Amity Shlaes, who opened our symposium today speaking on Coolidge as a strategic administrator. She deserves your applause again for her sterling presentation.

David Pietrusza, an exceptional authority on Coolidge, is a historian, author and media figure. He deserves your plaudits, too, for his earlier presentation on Coolidge’s political philosophy and world view.

Our third panelist is widely respected Coolidge expert, Dr. L. John Van Til, a Fellow for Law and Humanities with the Center of Vision and Values and a retired chair and professor of business, history, and humanities at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He also taught at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Texas and served as a Visiting Fellow at Harvard.

Professor Van Til’s main academic interest has been intellectual history, highlighted by his “Liberty of Conscience: The History of a Puritan Idea.”  He is widely respected for his articles and essays on theology, philosophy, public policy, as well as his notable work on three volumes of President Coolidge’s writings. His latest project is a new edition of Coolidge’s writings which will include his book length essay, “Thoughtful Calvin Coolidge.”

John Van Til most recently delivered a lecture exploring the ideology of President Coolidge, specifically his regard for the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence, and how his understanding of rugged individualism and personal responsibility elevated him to status as one of the most popular political figures in 20th Century America.

John will begin our session this morning by telling us how much of Coolidge’s character was influenced by his college professor – Charles Garman – whom he met while studying at Amherst. Garman taught students that they could reason about life, and Coolidge was greatly affected by his philosophy of the self and personal ethics, and ultimately of politics.

Amity and David will then join in the discussion before we entertain questions from you.


A Man of Character

Not “Silent Cal,” Thinking Cal:

Correcting The Faulty Historical Image of Calvin Coolidge

L. John Van Til, Ph.D.

Consult almost any history or political science textbook of the past 50 years as it comments on the 1920s, and very likely it will portray Calvin Coolidge negatively, frequently referring to him as a dumb, indolent, anti-intellectual pawn of Big Business.  In this view, Coolidge was a political accident who, upon becoming President of the United States on August 2, 1923, slept through his five-and-a-half-year presidency.  While he slept, say his critics, the nation drifted towards disaster — which came in the form of a gigantic stock market crash and great economic depression.

How did this apparent political naif, this so-called simpleton, this relic of the 19th century become President, conventional historians and political scientists ask in their best-selling texts.  After penning a few lines of ridicule, most historians then push any serious consideration of President Coolidge off to the side and continue their speculation about what, in their opinion, “should have been” in the 1920s — that “lost” decade between Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Let’s find the real Coolidge and see what difference it makes for the historical record. Sadly, decades of hostile historical comment about Coolidge in hundreds of texts has left a large percentage of the American public with a decidedly negative image of him.  It is the contention of this essay that Calvin Coolidge certainly should be appreciated for several reasons.  First, the textbook image of him believed by most who have matriculated in the nation’s schools is simply dead wrong.  The prevailing view of him is not merely a matter of interpretation, it is a question of facts, and the texts have the facts wrong in most instances.  Second, as I found in a several years-long study of his writings, Coolidge was a very thoughtful man with a comprehensive view of the world.  Indeed, the nation would be much better served if more of its Presidents had a world view as consistent as Coolidge’s.  We should strongly suggest that his writings be read today because they have a deep wisdom in them that was born of the man’s basic common sense.  Besides, he was a man of great humor and we all can use more of that.

Fortunately a more balanced view of him may emerge as a result of a modest Coolidge renaissance that is now under way.  Evidence of this appears in several new scholarly biographies of him by leading historians, numerous conferences devoted to a further exploration of Coolidge and his era, and not least of all, in a quirky political endorsement of him by a recent, very popular President.  The last reference, of course, is to the now-famous White House scene in which Ronald Reagan, upon assuming office, ordered Coolidge’s portrait to be hung in the Cabinet Room.  Reporters snickered, and when their inquiries about it reached Reagan, he emphatically said that Coolidge was his kind of President because he cut government spending and lowered taxes — two things Reagan hoped to do.

British historian Paul Johnson also contributed to the Coolidge revival, especially in his thoughtful evaluation of Coolidge in his best selling Modern Times.  In fact, it was Johnson’s view that encouraged me to find Coolidge’s works and read them for myself.  It was soon clear that they were not easily available and out of print since the 1920s.  It occurred to me that a new edition of his main works would be valuable for the emerging Coolidge revival and for others interested in him and his era.  I resolved to study and prepare a new edition of Coolidge’s published works and then write an account of his intellectual development.  Both of these projects are now complete.  Two main things emerged from my study of his writings, one expected and the other not.  Naturally a better understanding of Coolidge flowed from this study.  On the other hand, to my surprise, it became evident that Calvin Coolidge was a very thoughtful man, a quality never implied or suggested by text writers and critics.  After reviewing several notebooks full of quotations gleaned from my study of his speeches and addresses, it was also evident that Coolidge’s writings displayed a rather well-thought-out set of ideas about society, government, business, the nature of man, and related topics.  Was it possible that the proverbial “Silent Cal” was also “Thinking Cal?”  And, since Coolidge wrote all of his own speeches and addresses, they reflect his thought, not the thinking of speech writers as is often the case with subsequent Presidents.

Concluding that Coolidge was exceptionally thoughtful raised the question:  How did he get that way?  Did he read his way to a comprehensive world view?  His personal library, preserved in the Forbes Library, Northampton, Massachusetts, suggests that he was, indeed, very widely read.  The same message, in the form of copious literary quotations and paraphrases, jumps out of the pages of his dozens of essays and speeches.  And, his extensive knowledge of history is everywhere present in his writings.  Coolidge himself, however, tells us very clearly in his Autobiography from whence it was that he obtained his interest in the way the world works, that is, how he developed a coherent world view.  It was, he says, his professors at Amherst who opened the door to a comprehensive view of life.  Quoting a crucial passage from his Autobiography sums up his intellectual development very succinctly in his own words.  After noting that he studied history and literature in his first years at Amherst, Coolidge focused on what to him was the critical point in his education:

“It always seemed to me that all our other studies were in the nature of preparation for the course in philosophy.  The head of the department was Charles E. Garman, who was one of the most remarkable men with whom I ever came in contact.… Beginning in the spring of the junior year, his course extended through four terms.  The first part was devoted to psychology, in order to find out the capacity and the limits of the human mind.… We were not only learning about the human mind but learning how to use it, learning how to think.… The human mind has the power to weigh evidence, to distinguish between right and wrong and to know the truth. (emphasis mine)  I should call this the central theme of his philosophy.… We looked upon Garman as a man who walked with God.  His course was a demonstration of the existence of a personal God, of our power to know Him.… The conclusions which followed from this position were logical and inescapable.  It sets man off in a separate kingdom from all other creatures in the universe, and makes him a true son of God and a partaker of the Divine nature…. He believed in the Bible and constantly quoted it to illustrate his position.… To Garman was given a power which took his class up into a high mountain of spiritual life and left them alone with God.… What he revealed to us of the nature of God and man will stand.  Against it ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail.’”

It seems remarkable, indeed, that all of this was still so clear in Coolidge’s mind thirty- five years distant from the classroom at Amherst.  No doubt, it is evidence of the strength of Garman’s influence on the shaping of Coolidge’s mind. The power of Garman’s influence is everywhere evident in Coolidge’s two major works, The Price of Freedom and Foundations of the Republic, first published in 1924 and 1926 respectively.  We turn now to a consideration of two principal characteristics of Coolidge’s life and thought.

First, Coolidge had a systematic and comprehensive view of the world, one that was obviously and distinctively Christian.  Second, he had supreme confidence in the societal and governmental principles the Founding Fathers hammered out for the new nation in their own writings and in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  These features of Coolidge’s thought are woven into virtually every speech he delivered and essay he wrote.

Turning to the first theme, we may observe that many of Coolidge’s contemporaries, Americans who came to maturity in the last quarter of the 19th century, would not be surprised to hear someone refer to Coolidge as having a Christian world view, because most of them thought of their own lives and world in the same way.  Notwithstanding late twentieth-century intellectuals’ and Supreme Court Justices’ views to the contrary, America into the 1920s was in many ways a Christian society — meaning that the prevailing flavor of culture assumed Christian principles.  This congruence between Coolidge’s view of America and many Americans’ view of it was one of the reasons why Coolidge was the most popular public figure in America throughout the decade of the 1920s, even after he left office and was replaced by Hoover.  Once out of office he was paid a small fortune for articles he wrote for magazines and newspapers because the public wanted to know what Coolidge thought about any and every thing.

There was, however, something distinctive about Coolidge’s Christian world view, rooted as it was in the teaching of his beloved professor, Charles Garman.  We can only touch a few of the highlights of this view here.  Beyond the usual Christian assumptions about life — that God was sovereign, that He made man in His image to rule over the Creation, that man sinned and could be redeemed, that man had a duty as image-bearer to create civilizations, and more — Coolidge focused on societal structures and how they ought to work.  He thought society had a natural balance among its several segments — family, business, religious institutions, labor, education and the like.  Significantly, following Professor Garman, Coolidge believed that this balance had been disrupted by business practices during the Industrial Revolution, especially since the Civil War.  Leaders of industry had obtained power a thousand times greater than any man had held in the days of craftsmen, Coolidge noted.  The new Captains of Industry, as they were called, gained great wealth and power while others working as laborers lost almost all control over their own lives and labor.  It was especially frightful, and immoral, to Coolidge, that such workers had no outlet for their creativity — an image-bearing quality each worker should exercise either on the job or in some other realm, Coolidge argued.

It should be noted in passing that this focus by Coolidge on creativity as part of life was but one dimension of his continuous emphasis on the spiritual, immaterial and transcendent aspects of human nature.  Indeed, he pondered this at length in another of, what I have called, his “big picture essays,” this one entitled “The Things That Are Unseen.”  The concluding lines of that piece sum up very well the importance of the spiritual dimension of life that Coolidge believed was crucial in one’s view of man.  Said Coolidge:

 “We do not need more material development, we need more spiritual development.  We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power.  We do not need more knowledge, we need more character.  We do not need more government, we need more culture.  We do not need more law, we need more religion.  We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen.”

Elsewhere Coolidge spoke and wrote at length about the need for character, moral power and religion.  In addition, he was adamant about his claim that we do not need “more laws.”  What was needed, he said, was a much better enforcement of existing laws.

To return to the main point here, an accumulation of great power by the Captains of Industry, Coolidge did not merely refer to it in the abstract in his speeches and essays.  He put flesh and blood on this claim, especially in his essay “Theodore Roosevelt,” delivered as an address in New York City, just weeks before he was inaugurated as Vice President.  Though he thought the problem had been largely tamed by that time, 1920, he wanted to make his view clear about the imbalance that had developed after the Civil War, an imbalance that Roosevelt had largely corrected through his anti-trust efforts.

His remarks about Roosevelt provide an example of another of his “big picture” essays and addresses.  Noteworthy, too, is the fact that a number of these essays were biographical.  That was no accident, as the following quotation makes clear.  He states here, as in many other biographical essays, that great men have been sent from time to time to aid civilizations’ development in special ways. Stated Coolidge:

 “Great men are the ambassadors of Providence sent to reveal to their fellow men their unknown selves.  To them is granted the power to call forth the best there is in those who come under their influence.  Sometimes they have come as great captains, commanders of men, who have hewed out empires, sometimes as statesmen, ministering to the well-being of their country, sometimes as painters and poets, showing new realms of beauty, sometimes as philosophers and preachers, revealing to the race ‘the way, the truth, and the life,’ but always as inspirers of noble action, translating high ideals into practical affairs of life.  There is something about them better than anything they do or say.… They come and go, in part mystery, in part the simplest of all experience, the compelling influence of the truth.  They leave no successor.”

These remarks set the stage for the main point of this, his essay, that is, that Teddy Roosevelt was a God-given leader who corrected the economic imbalance that had developed in America since the Civil War.  Of course, this is part of Coolidge’s larger view of history, a view that may be termed “Augustinian,” with elements of a devotion to “manifest destiny” in it.  In short, history was a development through stages and now in America the last stage was unfolding.  His view, in these respects, was much like that of many other Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, though his focus on the “unseen” is more dramatic.

Coolidge’s view of societal structures and the need to keep them in balance illustrates the scope of his considerable thinking about how institutions should relate to one another in a civilization.  Indeed, it was the foundation of his policies while in government service.  Significantly, he saw government as just another of society’s institutions.  To be sure it had specific duties, as is evident in his view of Roosevelt’s use of governmental power to correct an imbalance in the economic sphere.  Stated another way, in his view government was limited in its role just as religion and business were limited. We turn now to see how Coolidge developed his view of government.

A basic distinction for him in this matter was to be found between the terms government and state.  Government for him and his generation meant the constitutional apparatus that provided for the ruling or governing of society. It included the separate branches of government, limitations on the powers and duties of each branch, an election process, amending powers, and the like. State for Coolidge, and again for his generation, referred to the series of social relationships found among citizens — political parties, religious organizations (including churches), family, unions, business firms, fraternal organizations, and more.

Strange as it may seem to most twentieth-first-century minds, each of these institutions in the minds of early twentieth-century Americans also had its own government:  Churches had ecclesiastical governments; families had paternal governments; and so on with all societal institutions.  Stated another way, the government in each realm applied the rules (laws) which regulated its realm and its realm only.  These distinctions have been largely lost today as the federal government has usurped power and authority previously held by each.  To emphasize, when Coolidge talked about government and its powers, he thought of it as civil government, one not possessed with immediate authority over all societal realms.  In short, he understood, as did his contemporaries, that civil government was but one kind of government, one with limited powers to be sure. In this, as in many other intellectual matters discussed here, he reflects the thinking of his beloved mentor, Charles Garman.         

Government, or Civil Government as Coolidge liked to call it, was that government created by the Constitution.  And, it was limited in two ways in his view.  First, by the Constitution itself because it was a document that enumerated the powers of the government it created.  This feature was strengthened by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, worth quoting here:

Amendment IX  (1791) — The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X  (1791) — The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.   

In addition to the limitations on the Civil Government found in the Constitution and its Amendments, it was also limited, in Coolidge’s view, by virtue of the fact that it was but one of many institutions in society.  To emphasize, it stood among the others — business, family, churches, labor, etc., and all together they constituted a part of the natural order of things.  From another angle, it may be said that Civil Government was not a superior or supreme institution in society, in Coolidge’s view.  How different this view is from that held by most in American society today!  Today most people expect and assume that the Civil Government is the first resort in solving problems rather than the last one as Coolidge and his contemporaries believed.  With this view of government as limited, Coolidge constantly worked to reduce government — which had expanded greatly during World War I, as governments always do during wars.  Harding had created the Bureau of the Budget just before his untimely death and Coolidge soon put teeth into it. He gave it life as a tool to help in the control and reduction of government expenditures.

We must note in passing that Coolidge was not opposed to new programs as many of his critics suggest, nor was he a mindless Dickens-like Scrooge, who delighted in destroying programs to save money.  He favored many new projects over the years, when they made economic sense.  He pushed developments in transportation, for example, both on water and on land.  Moreover, he was among the first to see the bright future of air transportation.

And where did Coolidge get his view of limited government ultimately?  In addition to what he found in the Constitution itself, he learned much from the Founders themselves.  It is evident in his essays and speeches that he was an accomplished student of the Founders’ lives and writings.  He spoke and wrote about many of them, noting the unique contribution each made to the American System.  It may be said with confidence, based upon his own writing and the contents of his library, that Coolidge was very likely as knowledgeable as any President about American history, and especially so when it came to the Founding Fathers.  Significantly, he not only quotes them, but often he also refers to them as he did to Theodore Roosevelt, as “ambassadors of Providence.”

Like Lincoln, Coolidge thought that the Declaration of Independence was in a way more important than the Constitution.  At least, the latter was not possible without the former.  This fascination with the Declaration is not only evident throughout his writings but especially clear in his address delivered on the one hundred twenty-fifth anniversary of this document.  Interestingly, at that time in American history, when July 4 fell on a Sunday, the celebration took place on the next day.  So it was that Coolidge presented his remarks about the Declaration on July 5, 1926, in Philadelphia under the title “The Inspiration of the Declaration.”  Among other things, Coolidge stated that the annual celebration of the Declaration was not so much a time to “proclaim new theories and principles as it was a time to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound.”

Something of Coolidge’s power with the pen is evident in this address.  He noted that people from other lands as well as Americans viewed Independence Hall as hallowed ground.  Indeed, to him it seemed to be as important to many as the Holy Land — a sacred place.  He went on to say:

“In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document.  It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual concepts.  Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch.  These are ideals.  They have their source and their roots in religious convictions.  They belong to the unseen world.  Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions [endures], the principles of our Declaration will perish.  We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.”

In this we see the close tie in his mind between the faith of the Founders and the principles of the Declaration.  The large audience before him at Independence Hall that day in July, 1926, would have felt perfectly comfortable with his view of the Founder’s faith and the Declaration.

Before concluding this essay, a point or two more should be clearly emphasized.  First, it is good to emphasize that Coolidge’s considerable thought-life had two principal features, two pillars as it were — a comprehensive world view rooted in the Christian philosophy of his beloved Amherst mentor, Charles Garman.  Mrs. Coolidge noted that throughout their married life Coolidge always had two books on his bedside stand — Garman’s Letters, Lectures and Addresses.… and the Bible.  The second pillar of Coolidge’s thinking was, as pointed out here, a deep devotion to the Founding Fathers and their achievements in creating the American System, its substance being on display in the Declaration and the Constitution.

And, one more point.  Being a quiet and modest man, Coolidge seldom referred to an achievement of which he was most proud.  During his senior year at Amherst — he subsequently was graduated magna cum laude — Coolidge entered a national essay contest which was open to all seniors of America’s colleges and universities.  The topic was the causes of the American Revolution.  The prize was a one hundred fifty dollar gold piece — worth a lot of money at that time.  The judges decided, weeks after graduations around the country, that Coolidge won.  When notified, Coolidge characteristically said nothing, placing the medal on his desk in the law office where he had begun to study law.  Days later, a senior partner, and fellow Amherst graduate, walked in and saw the medal, congratulating Coolidge. Coolidge, who later as a seasoned politician said of speech, “Be brief. Above all, be brief,” responded merely, “Thank you.”  His great, though quiet pride in winning the national contest is evident in his book Foundations of the Republic.  In it he included the prize essay as the last item in the collection.  The prestige associated with this prize in 1895 would be similar to, if not greater than, Rhodes Scholarships awarded today.  An obvious point to be made here, too, is the fact that this prize essay is powerful evidence of the fact that Coolidge was already a gifted and thoughtful person at an early age — reenforced by the fact that he was also graduated magnum cum laude from a top school, such as Amherst.

And so we conclude by asking: Was Coolidge an anti-intellectual simpleton and dullard as New Deal historians suggest?  Winning the top collegiate oratorical contest in the nation and being graduated magnum cum laude from a first rate school, Amherst, do not support such a view. Further, a sustained examination of his life and writings does not support such a claim either.  As a matter of fact, such an examination of the record strongly suggests the opposite.  Students and politicians today would be better off studying his life and ideas rather than those of recent Presidents. For, unlike them, he shows much wisdom about how to live a successful life as a public servant, based on Christian principles and a sound understanding of the Founding Fathers and their work.


 VALERA:      Thank you, John.  Now we’ll to move into our discussion period and I would like to keep it less structured to allow our experts to provide their interpretations and observations as we go forward.  At this point, let me call on Amity to give her observations.  Then we’ll have David and John do the same, and start our discussion from there. 

SHLAES:        Good morning.  I want to comment that this is a wonderful paper, or “mini-paper,” that Professor Van Til has given. I also want to comment on something that’s in the room but that we haven’t really talked about, which is the importance of religion and its being so large in the life of Coolidge.  I was struck by one sentence:  “American society had always been Christian,” and I wanted to talk a little bit about why I was comfortable with that, and why we all ought to be comfortable with that, even if we are not Christian. 

The answer is that part of the Christianity that was Coolidge’s and his professors’ was tolerance.  What they were doing was creating a house where others would be welcome.  So the way I view it is that American society has always been hosted by Christians and they’ve been very good hosts. 

This is an issue we think about every day today in the civil rights context.  If there’s an institution that is a nonprofit that is maybe one Christian denomination or another, do its actions constitute prejudice or is it just trying to convert people?  And I think Coolidge, of all the presidents, understood this relationship best and it’s good for us to look at it from his viewpoint rather than through the very narrow civil rights lens that’s been our lens in the modern period.

VALERA:      David, can we hear from you?

PIETRUSZA:             Well, that whole Christianity question is simply a reflection of a fact.  And that we have to state the fact almost apologetically today strikes me as bizarre because that was simply the reality of the American and the Western experience for so long.  And our sort of Christian-based republic – really a Protestant-based republic – was so remarkably tolerant and welcomed Catholics and Jews.  And we see at Amherst,  a Congregationalist institution – we seem to always be coming back to Amherst and Garman – where Coolidge’s classmates, like himself, really had no formal attachment, to a church; so that while the moral framework was widely understood in our republic, it was not coercive.  And that is an important thing because it contrasts so much with what is going on today when, I think, our system seems to work against people of faith, or against people of certain faiths.  When if you have a belief in something, and if you are religious, all of a sudden your opinions don’t count, and they really shouldn’t count in regard to governmental matters.  I think we’ve flipped everything on its head.

VALERA:      You know, in this day and age when character is almost a foreign term, particularly with the young, how do we restore Coolidge’s kind of character in society?

VAN TIL:       Well, first of all, I would say, by bringing it to the attention of young people .  If you could get them to read or to look at comic books.  Aren’t you working on a comic book project now, Amity?

SHLAES:        We’re making a graphic version of “The Forgotten Man,” my recent book, but also, hopefully, of my Coolidge biography that is forthcoming.  And the reason for that is, I don’t think it’s a dumbing-down, it’s just another form of presentation of these important ideas, like a movie.  So, our job is to reach these young people and if they are different from the young people we grew up with, then we must also adapt to them if we are to reach them, even as we sustain the quality of what we are transmitting.

VAN TIL:       And there are other examples, of course, besides Coolidge.  There are other historical figures or, one would hope, there are some current ones, although it’s a little thin when I look around and want to refer to political people who are good examples.  Sure, there are some.  But, at any rate, we’re talking about Coolidge, and what Amity’s doing is a good project.

VALERA:      In the process of researching and preparing for publication of our book, “Why Coolidge Matters,” I was more than surprised, shocked actually, by the lack of knowledge on the part of our young people about who Coolidge was and what he did.  Literally, there are kids who didn’t even know he was a president.  I’m concerned that if we have people who are pop stars or the like who will become our future leaders, they will overshadow the tremendous work of someone like Calvin Coolidge. 

 I have a young nephew who happens to be very conservative, by the way, and I was talking to him the other day.  And he said, “You know, we need to get the word out about Coolidge .  How do we get the Coolidge word out?”  And in addition to trying to get young people to read, what else is there?  Maybe it’s television.  David?

PIETRUSZA: Well, I think the Internet is a great tool.  Symposia of this nature, which are covered by C-SPAN, really get the word out.  These things are going to take a great amount of time.  Things are going to not come from the top down, they’re going to come from people taking an individual interest.  People in this room, people outside this room, people watching on C-SPAN, saying, “What’s this all about?  What does character mean?  What does the restraint of government mean?  What does the freedom of property mean?”  And seeing Coolidge as a role model. 

We’re seeing a lot of emphasis now on the Founding Fathers, but, you know, it’s been quite a span from the Founding Fathers to today and what role models do we have in between?  Well, we have Coolidge.   One of the things I’ve often said, but not said yet today and will now, is we look at politicians as they run for office and they promise to do four or five things.  They promise to balance the budget, cut taxes, reduce the deficit and create prosperity and employment.  We believe them, we hope their promises are going to come true – but none of them ever do.  They fail us almost every time.  This guy Coolidge did all of those things, and then the historians and the pundits say he did nothing.  So let’s get the basic word out on what he accomplished and what a man of character can accomplish by staying within his means, and staying within the Constitution.

SHLAES:        I’d like to add that there is a general interest in Coolidge.  Joe Thorndike and I have established a blog, SilentCal.com.  The Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation has a wonderful website blog.  Our little blog has a small grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.  I know that the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation has had help from government, including the State of Vermont.  So it’s not as though Coolidge is a pariah. The appreciation for him is growing and we hope everyone watching this and in this room will help us to get that word out.

VAN TIL:       I would add one more thing.  I haven’t had the chance to talk with Amity about how substantial her biography is going to be in terms of size, but having taught for years in college, I thought that there was room to supplement the basic textbooks with smaller books that could be added on.  I used to add half a dozen books in a course. So, if we came up with, maybe collectively or based on what Amity is doing, maybe a hundred and twenty-five pages at the outside, in relation to the twenties, and then focus on what Coolidge’s role was then, a lot of wonderful things can be said.  He was the most popular politician throughout the whole decade of the twenties, and no student, no adult, knows that.  So that kind of concrete stuff, along with some of his economic policies, and his fundamental moral position, and so forth, if we could get that into a colorful, small volume to be used in high schools and colleges, I think it’s possible.   There’s a marketing question but, at any rate, something like that might be useful.

VALERA:      By the way, we’ll entertain your questions, so if you’ll send your cards up, we’ll continue to have some discussion here.

Just to finish my thought on my young nephew.  He said, “You need a campaign,” and he gave me a slogan:  “Be cool with Coolidge.”  So, I guess that’s the kind of thing, perhaps, that we might have to do. 

We have a lot of employees at the National Notary Association, and they were very, very excited about the fact that our book “Why Coolidge Matters” was on television and discussed by Glenn Beck with David and Amity.  They just couldn’t say enough about the idea that we were on television. Maybe that suggests a way to get people interested in our nation’s history. 

VAN TIL:       Maybe you could get Ms. Maddow to do a session on Coolidge. 

VALERA:      Would be a very interesting – and enlightening – show for her audience.

With his strong Christian convictions, what actions did President Coolidge take to deal with the mistreatment of Native Americans and the victims of slavery?

PIETRUSZA: I believe it was under his administration that Native Americans became United States citizens for the first time.  And, as for the Ku Klux Klan, we see a number of instances where Coolidge would speak out against the temper of the times.  The classic Jim Crow era is mercifully fairly short-lived in terms of the history of the republic.  It arises from about the 1890s, and then it goes up to the 1920s and then it starts to fall away, and you get the Klan.  You have the Woodrow Wilson administration segregating all of the government workplaces in Washington.  And you see Calvin Coolidge working at variance against that.  You see where, in 1920, there’s a Calvin Coolidge Republican Club right here in Boston, which is a black organization boosting him for president that year.  You see his statement in the midst of this Woodrow Wilson segregationist environment, making a remark as Massachusetts lieutenant governor, really incensed that the German government is attacking our people and our army, for sending black regiments to fight on the western front, and saying, “I hope when this regime surrenders to the United States of America that there is a delegation of black troops there to accept that surrender.”  A very remarkable statement at the time.  He speaks at Howard University.  When he goes to Kansas City, kind of a southern border town, as president, to dedicate the World War I memorial, he insists that he be escorted to the ceremony by a detachment of black troops from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  So he’s making a lot of these symbolic statements.

Now, again, he’s constrained by what the role of the federal government actually is in all this.  But, all the time he is making these statements which go against the grain of a very, very institutionalized, racist society, not only in the South, but in the North.  And you also see in 1920 where, in his acceptance speech for the vice presidential nomination, he is speaking incredibly strongly against the practice of lynching in the South, and you see the reaction of the black newspapers across the country saying, “Boy, we’ve got a friend here.”

SHALES:        You may recall I spoke before about us not being able to understand Coolidge’s language because he spoke a lost language, the language of classical liberalism, and this would be an example.  Coolidge and those like him at that time tended to think of Americans as individuals rather than as political groups.  So, if he might do something for blacks, it wouldn’t be because they were blacks, it was because they were Americans.  Likewise, for Native Americans, and that was quite a bit at odds with the Roosevelt administration.  Roosevelt, too, went to Howard and he said, “There’s also a Negro forgotten man,” his forgotten man, “and I’m here to show him I remember him.”  That was in the election of 1936.  But the Roosevelt administration developed a very group-oriented idea of rights.  We give rights to a group.  The way we treat Native Americans, the whole system that we created with those reservations, addresses groups rather than people.  Whereas Coolidge, as a liberal, would tend to try to be, what we would say in modern lingo, color-blind, ethnicity-blind, and look to the soul of the individual.

VALERA:      We’ve got a few moments left and I have a couple of points that I will attempt to combine into one question.  As our demographics shift to a younger, less informed population, and more and more away from formal religion in our society, would you say that the electorate was more aware of issues during Coolidge’s time, and, if so, are we headed in a dangerous new direction?

PIETRUSZA: Well, I’m not sure, but I guess the basic question here is about the literacy, the cultural governmental literacy, of the American public and whether it’s going uphill or down.  It may be going in both directions at the same time.  We’ve yet to see where the Internet is going to take us.  I think in many cases it’s very positive and we’re seeing a re-examination and a re-discovery of the Constitution and the role of limited government that we have not seen in a while.  Of course, that’s because we’ve gone so far in the other direction in the last couple of years, more than the last couple of years, actually, so the pendulum is, in some sense, swinging backwards. 

But one of the things which I’m thinking about more and more as I do more research, and my friends are, and going back to the newspapers of yesteryear, is that while we may have more information at our fingertips on the Internet and on television and such, we have lost so much in the daily press.  So much.  Go to the microfilm, go online if you can to the paid sites for the New York Times, and not just the New York Times. Go to the small town papers of America and see the length and breadth of the articles that they were publishing back then on any number of topics.  On local topics, on national topics, reprinting the speeches that the politicians were giving, and dealing with things in so much greater depth and sophistication, and even with great beauty of language.  You can only say Darwin got it wrong, because the state of the daily press today is a disgrace. And I’m not talking about bias, I’m talking about pure substance.  We are dealing not only with sound-bite journalism on TV and with politicians, but look at the length of the articles and they lack substance.  And our elections are not discussed in the daily press in terms of issues and consequences and costs. It’s all a horse race and it’s all polling and it’s all process.  And we are going to all lose in that game.

VAN TIL:       A little footnote, I have a friend who just finished an article on what’s happening with the effect of texting on language for young people and, it’s a little early, but it appears that it’s destroying the ability to even make complete sentences when they go to write papers in high school, so the literacy level is likely to go down.

VALERA:      One of the problems with discussing Coolidge is that time does fly, and, unfortunately, we’ve come to the end of our engaging panel discussion on our 30th president by three incredible experts.  Thank you, John. Thank you, Amity. And thank you, David.  You have all given us much to think about.  You have reminded us here today that Coolidge is a too little appreciated jewel in our national heritage.  Thank you.