On Promises

While self-serving and deceptive politicians are not new in our time, the past year has exposed many for who they are. The hypocrite is one who campaigns with soaring ideals but when circumstances demand principled courage and competent integrity, substance must be bluffed and ability feigned. The hypocrite is flush with lofty promises but when the time comes to deliver, the facade is revealed for all its emptiness. Coolidge identified it well, when he said, “When you substitute patronage for patriotism, administration breaks down. We need more of the Office Desk and less of the Show Window in politics. Let men in office substitute the midnight oil for [in place of] the limelight.”

Let’s review some of the promises made over the past five years. Obama, during the 2008 campaign, rejected NSA wiretapping to uphold national security. Turns out President Obama has not only approved domestic wiretapping of political opponents and government officials but also 35 foreign heads of state.

Obama promised not to govern by executive orders, signing “statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law.” Turns out that only applies to the laws he agrees with enforcing, failing to uphold Federal law regarding border enforcement, marriage and even waiving provision after provision of Obamacare, except the individual mandate, just to name a few.

Obama promised his $787 billion stimulus would ensure 5.4% unemployment if passed. Turns out it went on to unleash 43 consecutive months above 8%, not reporting total numbers.

President Obama promised “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Turns out Obama’s administration has been one covert decision after another, from “Fast and Furious” to Benghazi to passing Obamacare to “see what is in it” then engaging in a contrived government “shutdown” to coerce full funding for its implementation.

President Obama said we could keep our current insurance plans. Turns out that will not be the case for millions of families being dropped by their providers, faced with multiplying premiums, forced to pay fees or fall into a single-payer system, as was the intention all along.

President Obama said this bill was not a tax. Turns out costs are already skyrocketing for both the insured and uninsured as the Supreme Court majority agreed last summer was a legitimate part of the law.

President Obama drew a red line August of last year on Syrian chemical weapons. Turns out the red line was not a unilateral declaration of war, as he conveyed, but was a meandering debacle of indecision and moral surrender.

Obama promised to end budget deficits and restore surpluses. Turns out, after incurring over $6 trillion in debt without a single budget passed in five years, he alone is responsible for over one third of what has taken two hundred and thirty years to accumulate.

Finally, President Obama promised leading up to October 1, the new health care website would “make shopping for health insurance as easy as ‘buying a plane ticket on Kayak or TV on Amazon.’ ” Turns out the “glitches” of a site that took three years and $93.7 million to build are not going to be worked out until the end of November and perhaps later. Yet, when they cannot even properly execute something so simple as a webpage, are the people to be trusted with providing our medical well-being?

When it came to promises, Coolidge held to a practice diametrically opposed to this repeated inconsistency between word and deed. In stark contrast, Coolidge under-promised but over-delivered. As he made clear, “The conduct of public affairs is not a game.” It is the sober execution of responsibilities humbly and competently. “Governments are not founded upon an association for public plunder,” Coolidge would continue, “but on the cooperation of men wherein each is seeking to do his duty.” That duty meant telling the truth, a practice missing altogether vacant in this current administration. Coolidge would declare his duty to truth inherent to sound government, “I am not one of those who believe votes are to be won by misrepresentations, skilful presentations of half truths, and plausible deductions from false premises. Good government cannot be found on the bargain-counter.” Coolidge knew that promises, to be of any value, were not mere words uttered in the heat of a campaign, they were actions. What was done about a problem meant something far more than what was said or felt about it.

In Roland D. Sawyer’s excellent book “Cal Coolidge, President,” the author devotes space exploring how Coolidge worked when it came to political favors and promise-making. In short, he never made promises. Yet, he stands in an exclusive few among politicians, in general, and Presidents, in particular, for his ability to produce results far beyond what others expected. Sawyer writes,

“Coolidge…had the faculty of doing, in a quiet and unostentatious way, a lot of favors for people. We representatives and senators have may appeals for this and that from constituents. Governors are always affable, they give us the glad hand and–promises. Coolidge would hear us with little comment–and if favorably impressed would merely say, ‘I will see, Representative, if I can do anything on that,’ and generally the matter would be attended to at once. It was his habit to make the next visitor wait while his secretary was called and the wheels were set in motion on the thing wanted. Such treatment was so unusual in an office-holder that Mr. Coolidge soon had a lot of smaller ‘Frank Stearnses’ rooting for him. In my own case, for instance, I entered the House the same day Mr. Coolidge was sworn in as president of the senate. The next week we rode into Boston together. I had been introduced to Mr. Coolidge the week before, and had not been favorably impressed by his cold exterior. This Monday morning I was walking down the car, and merely nodding to Mr. Coolidge, when he said, ‘Representative, I see you have a road bill in; sit in here a minute, perhaps I can help you a little on it.’ Gladly I sat in. And in a few words Mr. Coolidge explained to me, a green legislator and member of the opposition party, the methods of legislation, and the way of getting favorable consideration. The brief and well chosen sentences finished, Mr. Coolidge turned his head to look from the car window, and to smoke his stogie. My estimate of the man was at once changed,–I saw at once he was a man of kindly nature, interested in his fellow men, but unable to make trivial conversation, and not caring to try. Such was the method of the man, and such his temper.”

Such was the Coolidge way. By refusing to multiply promises, guarantees and assurances, he prevented the disappointment of failure before those to whom he was accountable. As he would say, “I don’t recall any…that ever injured himself very much by not talking.” By taking up each matter promptly, acting decisively without fanfare or empty rhetoric, Coolidge accomplished far more with fewer words than most do with mountains of promises.

3a22398u

“Calvin Coolidge and civility”

“Calvin Coolidge and civility”

Here is a worthy piece by Rick Sincere, Jr., illustrating Coolidge’s graciousness and civility, even toward those who ran against him for office. A mutual respect existed not merely because of Coolidge’s heartfelt kindness for others but also because his opponents still cherished the virtue of forbearance. It is that self-restrained tolerance, that allowance for disagreement without plummeting to personal vilification that exemplified the ideal that we are Americans first. The Kennedy who defeated Coolidge would not have recognized his Party today. Were Coolidge, or Kennedy for that matter, able to witness politicians today exchange the vitriol we hear for this or that fellow Representative or Senator they would find it a reprehensible and disgusting perversion of the noble duty of public service. The mentality that impugns and mocks our common foundation as Americans is why politics, no less lively and spirited in Coolidge’s day, now shamelessly mislabels opponents “terrorists,” “legislative arsonists,” “hostage-takers” and as virtual “enemies of the human race,” the last label being virtually ascribed by the Supreme Court majority in United States v. Windsor this last summer against those who support the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

While the case can be clearly made that one side is predominantly given to such childish name-calling, the personal attacks against those who are simply trying to do what is right, represent the people and work faithfully come from opponents in both parties. These conscientious public servants among us deserve no less the civility Coolidge displayed.

Americans have never entirely agreed on every point. What made peaceful co-existence possible in the past came down to a healthy respect for those who believe and think differently. We may disagree but we are still Americans who love our country, our institutions and our liberties. The tone has changed not because opposition to Administration policy is new, unjustified or “all opposition is uncivil” but because that respect for others and commitment to America first is no longer paramount in the actions and words of certain politicians.

Civility never muzzled Coolidge from taking clear, controversial or principled stands. Each time he did so, he ran the risk of offending someone. He kept to ideas, not personalities. He campaigned for principles, not against people. He championed convictions that met with partisan opposition but demonstrated that civility did not mean surrendering the fight. He led the way back toward a kindly forbearance to be shared by all, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, made possible by an abiding sense of obligation to America’s people, institutions and morals.

On the Consequences of Compromise

Image

“The Congress threw away a great opportunity to help the people. If it has granted all necessary relief and then by a policy of rigid economy reduced governmental costs, avoided a deficit and more debt, the country would have looked on it as a savior. Politics is always present. Probably there were those who thought they would profit politically by being able to charge that business is bad and taxes and debt have been increased. Those making the charge in the future will have to explain what constructive measures they proposed to revive business, promote economy and reduce taxes and debt. Those voting for the largest peace-time expenditures any Congress ever authorized cannot escape responsibility” — Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1931.

As talk of Congressional deals to reopen the government seem imminent, funding everything including Obamacare, what is not being discussed is how any of these proposals advance the interests of the people. On an unprecedented scale, we stand alone, without representation in Washington. The establishment of both parties, insulated from the impact of their own decisions, seem content to ensure surrender to the President and his agenda on every point of difference so long as they get to hold some measure of Congressional power over the money and committees.

Observing a Congress ready to embrace the largest peacetime tax increase up to that time, as proposed by President Hoover, Coolidge would live to see the first deficit in over a decade and its attempted remedy, the disastrous Revenue Act of 1932. The Republicans, flinching at the prospect of unpopularity, forgot the lessons of the 1921, 1923 and 1926 recessions. Instead of holding firm on reducing expenditures, cutting waste and following Coolidge’s recipe for success, fear prevailed over principles. The quick recoveries of past recessions due to strict economy by Harding and Coolidge were thrown overboard as passe and obsolete.

The election of 1930 was but a harbinger of F.D.R.’s sweep in 1932. The costs of abandoning the people in that crucial hour, refusing to stand in bold opposition to the expansion of government at the sacrifice of individual freedom, cannot be quantified. Had the 71st Congress demonstrated courageous and conservative leadership, like Senators Lee and Cruz have done, the losses both at the ballot box and to the people may have been curtailed, if not largely avoided. Whatever might have happened, this much can be known: it is compromise, not conservatism, that leads to defeat at the polls.

The timely warning Coolidge expressed in the spring of 1931 applies just as readily now as it did then. The consequences of compromising, when just a little more resolve and the pressure of time could win a huge victory for the people, will have enormous impact on every one of us. It will especially affect those currently in Washington who find themselves joining the unemployed after next year’s fast-approaching primaries and general election. Just as Coolidge put it, “Those voting for the largest peace-time expenditure any Congress ever authorized cannot escape responsibility.” The Washington establishment will not rule over and against the people with impunity. There will be electoral consequences for surrendering now to the radical and partisan wishes of this President.