On the Human Race and America’s Source of Exceptionalism

June 17, 2013June 27, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, France, back in 2009, the current assessment of what makes America exceptional was summarized this way, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” This familiar statement from four years not only misses the point, perhaps even intentionally, but also repudiates the profound distinction.

Outsiders mistake it for arrogance, as if humanity itself does not struggle with hubris, envy or selfish ambition. In purely material terms, America has made possible an unprecedented standard of living, a presence felt globally, and a recurring willingness to aid those in need anywhere in the world. In moral and spiritual terms, the Founders, by studying the ideas of those who came before them, discovered that a system of self-government, protecting the individual by strictly limiting the powers of the State, rather than the reverse, was the basis for a free and fair society. Up to then, the norm had been to empower rulers over individuals, to secure the State. The people revolved around government. Now the balance was returned to recognizing the individual as sovereign while restraining government power. This discovery wrought exceptional results, even with all the obstructions, setbacks and difficulties Americans have encountered in a short two hundred and forty years.

It is in this way, by restoring the ideals of self-government to the foundation of society, that America found they were the exception to the way the rest of the world chose to work. This is American exceptionalism: adopting a set of ideals that all who come here must share if liberty is to remain for everyone. Those ideals must also be infused with hard work to find opportunity and exercise the responsibilities of independence. Those unfamiliar with our optimistic ideals, accept defeat when faced with the slightest resistance of circumstances. Millions around the world languish in real need and emptiness because of this lack of faith in people to govern themselves. Sovereignty resides in the few at the top with privileges doled out and taken back when it suits. Humanity shares this test everywhere. We are no different. It is in America, though, that a deliberate choice has been made to depart from this oppressive and wasteful system of controls, embracing instead the higher ideal of independence with responsibility.

Calvin Coolidge saw this impasse and explained it in 1923 this way,

“There are two broad theories which have held sway in the world. They have developed with the development of the [human] race. One is the system of class and caste, of a claim of divine right of rulers by inheritance — a system where the individual is nothing and the government is all supreme…

“There is another system with which every American should be familiar, a system of equality and of freedom, not without the claim of divine right, but recognizing that such right reposes in the people; a system where the individual is clothed with inalienable rights, the people are supreme, the government is their agent. Under this conception there is real freedom, real independence, and grave personal responsibility. The rulers look to the people. Their authority is the public will, ascertained in accordance with law. There will be the least possible interference with private affairs. Realizing that it is people who support the government and not the government which supports the people, there will be no resort to paternalism. Under such institutions there may appear to be a lack of machine-like efficiency, but there will be no lack of character. Private initiative will be stimulated. Self-reliance and self-control will be increased. Society will remain a living organism sustaining hope and progress, content to extend its dominion not by conquest but by service. Such is the system of self-government, the orderly rule of the people, carrying within itself a remedy for its own disorders and the power of self-perpetuation. This is the ideal of America.

“No one would say that existence under these conditions is effortless. Independence is exceedingly exacting, self-control is arduous, self-government is difficult. Always there is the temptation that some element of these should be surrendered in exchange for security and ease [emphasis added]. The appeal to passion and prejudice always lies in this direction. The proposal to despoil others of their possessions is a manifestation of the same spirit. This is reason that to certain of our native-born, and more often to our foreign-born, the American Republic proves a disappointment. They thought that self-government meant the absence of all restraint, that independence meant living without work, and that freedom was the privilege of doing what they wanted to do. It has been a hard lesson for them to learn that self-government is still government, that the rule of the people does not mean absence of authority, that independence means self-support, and that, complete freedom means complete obedience to law. They are disappointed more than ever when they learn, as ever they do, that these are so, not because they have been decreed by some body of men, but that they are so by the very nature of things, and all the governments in the world are powerless to change them.

“Here again it is perfectly obvious that if the American system is to be cast aside there is only the one other system which can be adopted. The call of the old life of ignorance, of fear, of superstition, of every savage instinct is all toward the old system. The call of the new life of learning, of courage, of enlightened reason, of faith, of religion, is all toward the new system” (quoted from “Calvin Coolidge: His Ideals of Citizenship As Revealed Through His Speeches and Writings” by Edward E. Whiting, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1924, pp.20-23).

On Enemies of the Government

June 8, 2013June 11, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

“Every government always has enemies. Our government at this moment is no exception. We have more just now than is usual, and if they are in the pay of the revolutionary authorities of Russia, as I believe to be the case, the danger is somewhat greater than in normal times simply because these enemies to-day are better financed than usual. Even so, I do not regard the menace as genuinely serious…It is right to punish overt acts, but the only way to deal with beliefs is to meet them, to expose their fallacy, to present the facts which prove them wrong. This is the American way” — Governor Calvin Coolidge, 1919.

This is why as a State Senator he would confront with law lines of propaganda that endorsed racial and class preferences. This is why as a Governor he spoke up for Americans’ rights to a law-abiding and due process government. This is why as President he pardoned Wilson’s political prisoners, opposed wiretapping and entrapment procedures and refused all attempts to “play favorites” or target enemies with the enforcement of the law. He knew such measures were an abhorrent dereliction of his duty, an abuse of his office and a perversion of justice.

The current regime in Washington, failing to respect law itself, is not merely suffering from an eroded “trust factor,” as former DOD Secretary Rumsfeld said this week, it has more than proven unworthy of the trust it has left, let alone an ounce of good faith in its honest intentions going into the future. The sanctity of the law, justly applied, demands it. The current regime, living in defiance of America’s respect for law (as it impartially binds all alike), are ideological enemies of that ideal and fail to realize that the law cuts both ways. They will not succeed in flouting that law forever.

On Leading By Example

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

Example is the heart of leadership. Anyone can tell someone what to do, how it should be done and what will happen when instructions are not followed. In short, anyone can be a bureaucrat. Possessing leadership is something entirely different. While it is not always, and some would say not usually, an official position, the approach of successful leaders follows the same course every time. Without a conscientious commitment to duty manifested in example, one is merely “that jerk” in the office. By throwing one’s weight around, reminding people of your authority, and refusing to put hand to the wheel and work, especially when conditions burden everyone, it only breeds resentment and exposes an utter lack of one’s qualifications to lead. Without the keen sense of moral obligation tempered with humility, even Presidents reveal their mettle.

Leadership is not simply who has the most ideas, consider Herbert Hoover. Leadership is not simply who has the most amiable personality, consider Warren Harding. Leadership, especially of Chief Executives, is a profound call to serve, not be served. The inconsistency between one’s words and one’s actions could not be hidden forever and for honest leaders, such is never tolerable. For men like Coolidge, the oath and the office were serious responsibilities to be exercised with utmost respect and self-discipline. Those who lack such qualities are never able to conceal them completely from the people.

The inception of the Budget Bureau illustrates the strength of Coolidge’s leadership. The Bureau was the result of some nine years of persistent effort to bring about responsible budgeting at the national level. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, some twenty-eight consecutive years had kept balanced budgets, ensuring that government expenditures were carefully met within revenues. Surpluses defined these years and it was simply a matter of good sense to so manage the public household. That began to change with the feckless habits of the Benjamin Harrison years and when deficits hit six years in a row, from 1904-1910, something had to be done. It was President Taft who advocated replacing the piecemeal approach with a coordinated and deliberate budgeting process for all government departments. They would go through a formal system that prioritized cutting waste and practicing the strict economy it preached to others. It would be sidelined during the Wilson administration, underscoring how those considered the most “forward-thinking” today would be left in the dust by conservatives such as Taft, Harding and Coolidge, the latter being the most tenacious advocate of modern budgeting. It would be under Harding that the two Congressional bills for this concept would find effective support and quick passage into law as the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Bureau found realization with Harding’s prudent selection of General Charles Dawes, as its first Director. Suitably, Dawes would serve alongside Coolidge as his bold and flamboyant Vice President.

It would be Coolidge, however, (with Bureau Director, General Herbert Mayhew Lord) who would bring both a meticulous and relentless approach to cutting down the debt and restoring surpluses. Continuing to hack away at every possible area of waste, the President, General Lord and his staff of 45 people, ensured that government spending was kept down despite constant efforts to the contrary. At the end of six straight years of surpluses, the nation’s debt had dropped to $16.9 from $22.3 billion at the beginning of Coolidge’s Presidency. Directing those growing surpluses toward productive ends became more and more difficult as Congress sought increased spending levels rather than returning those surpluses to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, as Coolidge sought.

The Coolidge Administration, and his team of Mellon and Lord did more than talk about benefiting people with these policies, they lived them. Lord’s Bureau was proud of the fact that it used every supply until it wore out. Mellon would give $52 million of his personal income to charity, giving to people generations in the future, not including his generous gifts to the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian. Coolidge, ever conscious of his moral duty to Americans, saved much of his Presidential salary and, when his friends sought to establish his official library (before such entities were funded by public money), he gave it all to help the blind. These were leaders not by virtue of their position in government or their campaign rhetoric but by virtue of their genuine demonstration of service toward others. It is time for a renewed commitment to leadership by example.