On Thoughtfulness

One of the best insights into a person comes from the honest assessments of those with whom one works. President Coolidge had many such witnesses. Not everyone accurately understood him nor did they all respect what they did not “get” about him. Still, there remain many whose firsthand experience with the man emphatically contradict the popular image of Coolidge as a cold, unfeeling and callous individual. On the contrary, Ira Smith, the director of the White House mailroom for fifty-one years (including the entire Coolidge era), has one of many such examples of Coolidge’s spontaneously given kindness. His thoughtfulness was not unexpected because it was rare but because it manifested a degree of attention and regard the recipient never thought a President would deign to feel let alone show. Underestimated all his life, Mr. Coolidge enjoyed doing the unexpected. More than this, though, he was a kind man. He noticed the small things and took care to express concern, be it little Anne Morrow’s hurt finger, “old man” Mellon’s morale in the midst of the tax cut fights or a complete stranger as in the case recounted here:

 

     “He had a temper that could make itself felt in high places, but he always felt a strong sympathy for the ordinary citizen and frequently went out of his way to perform some little act of thoughtfulness for a stranger. One Sunday morning when I was at the office trying to catch up with a heavy flood of mail he came over from the White House and stood beside my desk while I opened a large pile of letters. One of them was a special delivery letter from a woman who wanted to know what church the President would attend that day and at what time he would be there. She explained that she was in Washington only for a few days and that she wanted her small son to get a glimpse of the President while he was in the capital because it would be something he would remember always and could tell his friends about. She asked whether it would be possible to telephone her at her hotel and tell her which church Mr. Coolidge would attend. I handed him the letter and he read it carefully. Without saying anything, he picked up a pencil and wrote: ‘Phone 10:30 A.M. Monday.’ He handed the notation to me and went abruptly away. Such notes were typical of Mr. Coolidge, and I understood that he meant for me to telephone the woman and tell her to bring her son to the White House on Monday at 10:30 A.M. for a visit with the President. This I did, and the delighted mother and son were received by Mr. Coolidge.”

 

Some may cynically dismiss this as mere political calculation but to those who knew and understood him well, he was simply thinking of others. Conscious of his limitations as President, he exercised the power he held as a moral example that should inspire with humble service, not arrogant disdain for people. When he declined to use the powers he could have wielded as President, he did so with respect for his Constitutional oath and the rightful exercise of state and local governance. To blame Coolidge for the silence toward Charles D. Levy, a Jew facing boycott and expired leases in Ohio from the Klan, overlooks that the President was acting — to both preserve local self-government from federal good intentions and to set the moral example of presiding. The President presides, he does not take all powers into his hands to intervene on behalf of select citizens. To do so, would have undermined the freedoms of others and compromised the purpose of the Office. It would have been unjust, a variation of “picking winners and losers.” It would only help legitimize the Klan for a President to treat them seriously with a public statement. Ignored as insignificant, the lack of attention would defeat them. It had nothing to do with a lack of compassion and everything to do with an overriding concern for what was fair to all and respectful of liberty. He knew the disaster of good intentions and so the situation Mr. Levy faced was referred to the Bureau of Investigation, under the Justice Department led by Attorney General Stone. This was the Coolidge way: to take care of issues if they are his to handle; If not, to delegate to the proper person what is their responsibility. To explain to Mr. Levy, or anyone else what he was doing, would have undermined his actions and undone the effectiveness of addressing the problem versus discussing what one intends to do about it. In this way, Mr. Coolidge imparts even greater thoughtfulness for Mr. Levy (safeguarding his lawful liberties and the freedoms of all concerned) than his sharpest critics understand or will admit.

On the Jews

“It is easy to understand why a people with the historic background of the Jews, should thus overwhelmingly and unhesitatingly have allied themselves with the cause of freedom. From earliest colonial times, America has been a new land of promise to this long-persecuted race…whatever their origins as a people, they have always come to us, eager to adapt themselves to our institutions, to thrive under the influence of liberty, to take their full part as citizens in building and sustaining the nation, and to bear their part in its defence, in order to make a contribution to the national life, fully worth of the traditions they had inherited…

“Our country has done much for the Jews who have come here to accept its citizenship and assume their share of its responsibilities in the world. But I think the greatest thing it has done for them has been to receive them and treat them precisely as it has received and treated all others who have come to it. If our experiment in free institutions has proved anything, it is that the greatest privilege that can be conferred upon people in the mass is to free them from the demoralizing influence of privilege enjoyed by the few. This is proved by the experience here, not alone of the Jews, but of all the other racial and national elements that have entered into the making of this nation. We have found that when men and women are left free to find the places for which they are best fitted, some few of them will indeed attain less exalted stations than under a regime of privilege; but the vast multitude will rise to a higher level, to wider horizons, to worthier attainments” — President Coolidge, portion of remarks at the laying of the cornerstone of the Jewish Community Center, Washington, May 3, 1925.

Cited in Slemp, C. Bascom, compiler, “The Mind of the President.” New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1926, pp.288-9.

On Being American

Standing before those gathered at the American Legion Convention in Omaha, Nebraska, President Coolidge on October 6, 1925, offered one of the plainest expositions of what it means to be an American citizen ever uttered. He could have said any number of vague platitudes to avoid alienating anyone. He could have tried placating the supporters of the Klan with sympathetic doublespeak. He could have even appealed to the emotional and racial invectives of two administrations before, under President Wilson. To Coolidge, being “American” meant far more than any of these attitudes could comprehend. Weighing the heavy costs of the war, concluded a mere six years before, Coolidge recognized the long-term burdens but also the exceptional example of service Americans of all national origins had demonstrated to the world. Despite the dangers personal and national, the humble and devoted efforts of individuals serving side by side for common defense of life and liberty, that is, “Americanism” (as Coolidge would call it) shone forth. For Americans, it was not an imperial conquest. It was not the racial or ethnic superiority of “Americanism” that willingly shouldered the burden and cost. It matters not from where you came or how long you have been here. What matters is the sharing of a common respect for law, our founding institutions and our sense of moral obligation.

Being American, to Coolidge, is a unity of spirit not a physical birthright. It is an agreement on what is eternally essential, not earthly, racial and unessential. This is why Coolidge never appeals to class differences or racial distinctions. They are irrelevant and counterproductive to being American. “Americanism” is not a call to absolute conformity, emptying the individual into “cookie-cutter” blueprints. It is a voluntary enterprise ventured upon together with a common set of navigational truths that do not grow old with time or fade with use. By these essentials, Americans assimilate to embrace not only the freedoms of self-government but also the responsibilities. Both are necessary to ensure liberty remains intact. Liberty is not to be a cover for license. Flouting the law is just as un-American as is enforcing laws in contradiction to those essential truths of human nature discovered by the Founders. As Coolidge would aptly summarize,

“We must not, in times of peace, permit ourselves to lose any part from this structure of patriotic unity. I make no plea for leniency toward those who are criminal or vicious, are open enemies of society and are not prepared to accept the true standards of our citizenship. By tolerance I do not mean indifference to evil. I mean respect for different kinds of good. Whether one traces his Americanisms back three centuries to the Mayflower, or three years to the steerage, is not half so important as whether his Americanism of today is real and genuine. No matter by what various crafts we came here, we are all now in the same boat. You men constituted the crew of our ‘Ship of State’ during her passage through the roughest waters. You made up the watch and held the danger posts when the storm was fiercest. You brought her safely and triumphantly into port. Out of that experience you have learned the lessons of discipline, tolerance, respect for authority, and regard for the basic manhood of your neighbor. You bore aloft a standard of patriotic conduct and civic integrity, to which all could repair. Such a standard, with a like common appeal, must be upheld just as firmly and unitedly now in time of peace. Among citizens honestly devoted to the maintenance of that standard, there need be small concern about differences of individual opinion in other regards. Granting first the essentials of loyalty to our country and to our fundamental institutions, we may not only overlook, but we may encourage differences of opinion as to other things. For differences of this kind will certainly be elements of strength rather than of weakness. They will give variety to our tastes and interests. They will broaden our vision, strengthen our understanding, encourage the true humanities, and enrich our whole mode and conception of life. I recognize the full and complete necessity of 100 per cent Americanism, but 100 per cent Americanism may be made up of many various elements.”

It is the current cultural climate that is intolerant of these essentials and fixated on non-essentials that forecasts even rougher waters ahead for the American enterprise. If we are to navigate safely to port, we have to rally around the moral nature of our voyage while giving no berth to those resolved on dragging the ship back from real progress into the barbarity of ignorance, lawlessness and government paternalism.