On Foreign Policy

June 25, 2013October 5, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

President Coolidge took nearly everyone by surprise when he mounted the podium on the floor of Congress, December 6, 1923, for his first major Presidential address, the first of six annual messages. The “silent” former Vice President enjoyed being underestimated, especially by the “experts,” and when an occasion presented to reveal their erroneous judgment, he took it. This “provincial” man set the tone for where he was going to lead in the future, bravely beginning with foreign policy. He explained the general principles before dealing in specifics,

“Our country has one cardinal principle to maintain in its foreign policy. It is an American principle. It must be an American policy. We attend to our own affairs, conserve our own strength, and protect the interests of our own citizens; but we recognize thoroughly our obligation to help others, reserving to the decision of our own judgment the time, the place, and the method. We realize the common bond of humanity. We know the inescapable law of service.

“Our country has definitely refused to adopt and ratify the covenant of the League of Nations. We have not felt warranted in assuming the responsibilities which its members have assumed. I am not proposing any change in this policy; neither is the Senate. The incident, so far as we are concerned, is closed. The League exists as a foreign agency. We hope it will be helpful. But the United States sees no reason to limit its own freedom and independence of action by joining it. We shall do well to recognize this basic fact in all national affairs and govern ourselves accordingly.”

The vision he explains here, a policy that protects American sovereignty while exercising the readiness to help in times of need, held consistently in each of the many foreign conflicts encountered during his five years and seven months in office. Through the violence erupting in Mexico, the issues of reparation payments in Europe, the involvement in a World Court, the “outlawry of war” movement and the restriction of Japanese immigration, Coolidge and his Secretaries of State, Charles Evans Hughes and Frank B. Kellogg, navigated safely through some very uncertain waters. As we know from more recent experience, “official” peacetime does not eradicate the explosive possibilities ever present in world affairs. Contrary to what many perceive to be an uneventful footnote in history, the peace experienced during the Coolidge administration was not merely accidental. The foreign policy articulated by President Coolidge could easily have succumbed to any one of a series of foreign conflicts during his time. Coolidge did not presume to be a brilliant diplomat. He was simply reaffirming President Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling ourselves by the promises we make to other nations, subjugating American lives and independence to foreign designs. His first loyalty was to America and its protection, in fidelity to his sacred oath. It is a sound policy in any era.

On Agriculture

June 24, 2013June 27, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

Born of hardy farming stock, Calvin Coolidge knew firsthand the costs and difficulties of such an investment. With the vote against passage of the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (H.R. 1947), roles have certainly reversed from the days when the President, not Congress, was acting to restrain federal spending as the best help government could render.

President Coolidge would veto both McNary-Haugen farm relief bills for their mechanisms to fix prices artificially, instead of letting the market decide value. The equalization fee of both pieces of legislation encouraged a special favor to one segment of the country — farmers — a device Coolidge never supported toward anyone, regardless of the form of their contributions to commerce. He held that constructive economy, not spending to compensate farmers for overproduction or veterans for their incalculable sacrifice, was for the benefit of all alike. Lobbyists, like George N. Peek who pressed Congress for “farm parity, as Gilbert C. Fite termed it, should not dissuade legislators from this commitment to represent the interests of all their constituents.

What was conspicuously missing in the legislation of McNary-Haugen, who were both Republicans (a fact that did not hold any weight with President Coolidge), was a recognition of what farmers can do for themselves. The haste for government to spare people (voters) from the consequences of certain choices was no less acute then as it is now. It was the President, in two powerfully written veto messages, who reminded the large and influential farm bloc of some obvious truths when it came to farmers. Farming has always and will ever be a supremely difficult task. No law can take all the risk or uncertainty out of working with the land.

Farmers can still help alleviate some of the difficulties they face by altering how they operate instead of running to Washington for help. For instance, farmers can diversify the crops they grow. By cultivating a variety of foods, the farmer is expanding the scope of yield without overproducing any one commodity. The farmer, as Coolidge would write in his daily column after the Presidency, best helps the soil — the center of the farmer’s world — and himself, when he expands into greater self-sufficiency in both crops and stock. Making an unpopular but glaringly simple observation, Coolidge saw the solution to overproduction (be it wheat, cotton or any other item on the market) was producing less in single-crop operations by broadening into different areas of agriculture.

In areas, particularly those in the West, creating discord between farmers, ranchers and consumers, co-operatives instead of government price-manipulation schemes could be an answer. Coolidge saw better results possible when farmers voluntarily collaborated, as used to be the case in rural communities, to form co-operatives that deploy their own efforts to improve efficiency, find markets for their produce and enable local problems to be resolved by the people directly involved. Government would not do any favors helping reward overproduction, prop-up higher export rates or rescue farmers from hard times. President Coolidge, through articulating reminders of the obvious, spelled out a way farmers can escape the many unintended consequences that follow when government gets involved. Many farmers wanted the assistance in spite of what it meant for the rest of the country. Coolidge knew he could point the way to self-reliance applied to the problems facing agriculture, but it would only succeed if farmer’s made it work for themselves.

It is thanks to the resolve and foresight of President Coolidge that farmers were spared the loss of their independence from Washington’s management, at least for the rest of his administration, while constructive economy continued for everyone. It is a reminder that we are much more capable of effecting solutions to our own problems than we may realize. At its heart, Coolidge’s reasons for vetoing these bills were grounded in a confidence that we, as free men and women, possess all the abilities we need to “work out our own salvation,” as he would put it. Therein lies greater potential for success than any of us imagine.

President Coolidge pitching hay on the Blanchard Farm in Pinney Hollow, up the road from Plymouth (Thanks to Corbis Images).

On Equality

June 21, 2013October 5, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

When Coolidge spoke of the “American ideal” being that of equality, he had something very distinctive in mind. He was not talking about a communal utopia with perfect conformity, no property ownership, no borders, no religious, political or economic disparities. He was not endorsing our current slavery to “political correctness,” where any sensible standards of behavior, speech or thought deemed “insensitive” or “offensive” to someone somewhere sometime must be repeatedly apologized for and repaid with deserved ostracism. He lived in reality. He was not self-deluded or so naive to feel an equality of outcome was both possible or desirable in the real world. We are all equal before our Creator, but to expect an equality of results, especially built on the shifting sands of our morally confused culture, is the height of self-deception.

Coolidge understood that equality is only possible with fixed standards of conduct, established by our traditions, our customs and our morality. Without being anchored in Christ’s standard: treating each person as we would expect to be treated in mutual respect with God-given value, we are powerless against every cultural wind pulling us here and there. We are experiencing that anchor-less existence now, groping for some kind of authority that will take the place of what we have discarded.

When Coolidge spoke of equality, he had something more essential that the superficial differences of appearance, gender, upbringing. It was an appeal to rise above the artificial and work to attain higher standards. “Not that all are equal in degree, — there are differing glories, as of sun, and moon and stars, — but all are equal in kind, tolerating no class distinction, no privilege, save that which comes from service; no plutocrat, no proletariat, no authority, save that which is derived from the consent of the people.”

The George Orwell description of socialism as “equality, with some more equal than others,” was repugnant to Coolidge not because we all deserved to share equally in stuff, or we all deserved to be equally miserable. Coolidge knew the victim mentality was destructive, always empowering a few to use authority in fostering dependence and eroding self-reliance. The American ideal was a society built on the merit of service, not the authoritarian enforcement of what the people must accept as normal, fair or for their own good. The basis for equality under law is not dispensed by government, it comes from the consent of the governed. Anything less will always fail.

“The sovereignty of the people means the sovereignty not of a self-selected few. It means the supremacy of the matured convictions of all the people. Our franchise is not granted to class or caste. It is the acquired right of all Americans.”