On Great Examples

     “This Governor of Massachusetts, deep in public service, was by temperament a private man. In public reticent and unwilling to speak, he conversed constantly in closed meetings, in quiet conferences, and on the telephone….he never said more than he had to, and he said it once…His program was not one of sweeping changes, but one of small steps toward his goals: curtailed expenditures, reduced indebtedness, and increased legislative self-discipline…His administration was unspectacular and widely praised; he had not been expected, or elected to introduce grand reforms…He was the classic man-behind-the-scenes. Avoiding limelight and applause, he was a man who ‘knew,’ a collector of information, an acute observer who had many sources…With an easy private approach to individuals, he won their confidence; with sound perceptions, he gained their respect. His colleagues knew that he could keep a secret. He was honest, not extravagantly frank, and eminently sensible, with a deep knowledge of men and a wide grasp of affairs” (Carolyn W. Johnson’s book, pp.24, 29, 39).

One could read these descriptions and easily mistake them as a characterization of Calvin Coolidge. They were, instead, all about the man who had served as Governor while Coolidge rose in county politics, married Grace and found a living demonstration of the principled public service he would come to exemplify. The man was Winthrop Murray Crane. Nineteen years Coolidge’s senior, Crane had begun in business, working up through his family mills to secure the contract for printing paper currency for the nation.

He would establish a solid record as Governor, earn appointment to the Senate to complete the term of the late incumbent and serve eight years in Washington, returning again to a quiet service in his home state in 1913. It would conveniently coincide with Coolidge’s election as President of the State Senate, giving the younger Coolidge the benefit of Crane’s political wisdom and approach to leadership.

When older men fail to exert the influence for good and young men take the advantage of experience for granted, society suffers for it. When young men instead seek out their peers or surround themselves with equally short-sighted “mentors,” devoid of character, rights and responsibilities are both at risk. Like the naive young Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12, who divided the kingdom because of his pride, we are living in times that need wise men and women.

In offering his thoughts on so valuable a friend, worthy example and faithful public servant, President Coolidge, writing five years after the great man’s passing, introduced a biography of him entitled, “W. Murray Crane: A Man and Brother,” with these words: “More people trusted him than any one else of who I can think, because of his broad human sympathy. He seemed to have a fellow feeling for every one to such an extent that he could make their wants and desires his own. He had a broader comprehension of American life, reaching from the humblest fireside through all the various activities of the business and political world, than any other man of his time. Of course many others excelled him in special directions and in details, but in the broad grasp of the whole he had no superior. He was a product of that intensive effort that has long characterized the men of prominence in his region, one of the best examples of American life on both its material and spiritual sides. The world is distinctly better because he lived in it.”

Though rising to the Presidency some day may not be in our future, we can resolve to exercise  integrity and genuinely demonstrate for the young what trustworthy service and sound judgment are supposed to be. Who knows what powerful examples for good we can leave? It may be that we are the next Mr. Crane to a future Calvin Coolidge.

                                                           Image

                         Image

                    Included in “Calvin Coolidge: The Man From Vermont” by Claude M. Fuess

On Reuniting the States

On Reuniting the States

Return of the Confederate battle flags to Virginia, North Carolina and Texas on December 16, 1927. An earlier attempt by President Cleveland in 1887 met with successful opposition by the Grand Army of the Republic (Union veterans) as “trophies” of the War that should not be returned. It would be “treasonous” according to the large body of obstinate veterans.

President Theodore Roosevelt, through a careful coordination with Congress, restored a partial collection of battle flags to the Southern states in 1905, taking them from storage by the War Department in Washington.

Like so many old wounds, however, President Coolidge did not evade the controversy for fear that it would cost political support. Coolidge upheld just dealings toward all, whether it was the full citizenship for all tribes or fair honor due Southern Americans who fought just as valiantly as the Yankees did for principled reasons. It was overdue time to lay aside hostility, heal old grievances, and reestablish peace between Americans, North and South.

He recognized his duty included leadership by example to help reunite the country around the essentials we share as Americans. It would not be right to misuse a President’s influence by keeping us divided and at war with one another. He was as much an advocate of peace at home as he was abroad.

On Deportation

Our republic was framed with power separated between distinct and equal branches of government. Defined limits to the authority of each ensured that autonomy, jealously guarded, would restrain the ambitious from consolidating all the powers from the people and the states into the control of an elite minority. To combine the power to legislate with the power to enforce or the power to interpret and judge would overturn the wisely crafted framework laid down in the Declaration and built upon by the Constitution.

The sovereignty of a self-governing people would, through elected representatives, enact laws that disclose the existence of certain rules for the healthy growth and productive advance of the nation. It was exercised by civilized countries for centuries until the right of nations to set standards for citizenship became illegitimate in recent decades. Instead of respecting law and responsible citizenship, borders are decried as “xenophobic” and naturalization “oppressive” to what the current Attorney General considers the “civil right” of illegal immigration. Emotion, too often, counters the need for careful deliberation of our laws to preempt bad policies. Immigration and basic standards of citizenship are no exception. We are experiencing now the effects of a nation in denial of itself, its laws and its institutions. A nation that renounces standards for admittance is not a nation at all, but has become an amorphous tract of territory that owes all to everyone regardless of character, conduct or intentions without anything required in return. This is a recipe for very real chaos.

President Coolidge defended the motives of immigration standards when he said, “Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American.” Some, succumbing to emotion, hear racism and “white supremacy” in such remarks. They completely misunderstand Coolidge.

He reminds us that by upholding certain rules, everyone is protected and those with no regard for law will be prevented from bringing harm, economic and otherwise, to those who respect the rights of others. If a person enters in disregard of the law, on what basis will he or she respect the laws that protect those already here? If laws are arbitrarily applied or selectively enforced, it tells the law-abiding there is no protection under law at all. The law has become the preferences of those in power, instead of an impartial rule fairly obligating everyone alike and observed for the good of society. When that happens, no law is strong enough to hold back the consequences. This is why Coolidge defended the wisdom of an incremental, legal immigration. He did so in order to ensure people are not forced to bear more than can be borne to care for and help assimilate those who come here to become Americans. The exercise, at times, of a nation’s right to deport becomes just as essential when individuals come here to reject assimilation, break the law and make trouble, as both Marcus Garvey and Lothar Witzke did.

As the former President heard of immigration in the news again, he wrote, “A few years ago we were discussing Americanization of our residents of foreign birth. Not being an appropriate word, it aroused considerable antagonism among those we desired to help…What we really intended was a course of helpful education to instruct new arrivals to the United States in the meaning of our laws and customs, so that they might better avoid the perils and secure the advantages of being here…The great proportion of immigrants duly become desirable citizens. But those who fail to respond to the privileges of our country, who fall into evil ways and violate our laws, should be punished for their crimes and then deported. We have all we can do to take care of deserving people without being burdened with those who demonstrate their unfitness to enjoy our liberties.”

Such is felt to be unfeeling and devoid of compassion today. What is really missing is today’s lack of concern for the costs of policies passed while haste in implementing legislation on emotion alone prevails. How many people have been hurt by the good intentions of feeling rather than thinking through our nation’s challenges? Electoral politics cannot be the impetus for crafting future immigration law. As Coolidge observed, “As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants.” Of course, Coolidge meant legal immigrants. He did not indulge in the politically correct game with which we now call illegal inhabitants, “undocumented workers.” It is a hard truth to digest but no less necessary if we are to retain freedom with responsibility.

                         Image

The Italian Republican League of New York presents President Coolidge with an original parchment of the Gettysburg Address, February 12, 1927 (Library of Congress photo).