As we mourn the passing of an exemplary Justice and a principled man in Antonin Scalia, we are reminded of this golden kernel from Calvin Coolidge. Having been a citizen-servant for nearly thirty years, Cal held the belief “that, when a duty comes to us, with it a power comes to enable us to perform it.” He explains, “I was not thinking so much of the Governorship, which I already had, as of the grave danger to the country if the voters did not decide correctly.” This demonstrates even more the vital obligation we hold to choose rightly who will name the next Supreme Court Justice. It is not a game. We dare not approach it as such.

Both Coolidge’s classical education and his personal experience reaffirmed that power – not its modern sense of celebrity, wealth, or even political clout – but its original sense: what the Greeks called dunamis, reposed in the ability, the competence, and the will to act decisively when right demands it. He summarized, “My faith that the people would respond to the truth was justified.”

The truth – no cheap imitation of feigned indignation or smoothly delivered falsehoods, packaged deceptively in alluring wrappings – but the straight, honest, consistent, verifiable and transparent truth, Coolidge meant. His faith was not shaken then and it must not be shaken now. It rested not with some other individual or set of people. It stood squarely in the hands of “regular” Americans to affect the correct result. The truth demands the duty, our faith must summon the power – not merely of our finite selves – but that most perfect and wholly complete Power Above which equips us to rise to the occasion.

President and Mrs. Coolidge at Phillips Andover, May 1928.

John Hendrickson has written an excellent and though-provoking editorial published by The Toledo Chronicle explaining Calvin Coolidge’s view of trade policy. It presents a very welcome discussion of so important (and controversial) a national policy long taken for granted in the United States. Mr. Hendrickson reminds us that even the good thing that is freedom can be abused, mishandled, and stretched beyond its beneficial limitations. Who, after all, would dare oppose freedom? But what if, as Coolidge understood, free markets on a global scale led to harmful effects for Americans? Would it be just or principled to adhere to a policy that hurts creative growth and the quality of its production at home for the sake of global quantity?

The issues we currently face with TPP are not original to our time. They have been discussed and found wanting before. Perhaps it is time again to reconsider the costs that have been inflicted on Americans through years of a blind and unquestioned adherence to a removal of tariffs. By taking away the protection of the excellence of goods and people replacing them with an abundance of goods and cheapening of people, is America really better off?

Perhaps Coolidge’s case for protectionism merits our attention once more. Perhaps it is time to honestly read the score of a policy that has emphasized cheap goods and cheap labor for a policy that once again restores an expectation of a more excellent way.

John Zmirak, writing over at The Stream, presents an interesting take on the GOP campaign at this stage. Channeling the views of past presidents on American exceptionalism, three basic policy outlooks emerge: the pragmatic nationalism of Donald Trump; the traditional constitutionalism of Ted Cruz; and finally, the idealist internationalism of Marco Rubio.

As Zmirak explains, not every quality of character or approach is mirrored between past and present, but the parallels still work to explain the differences each outlook holds.

In the first, American “greatness” is achieved without the “Constitutional niceties” of Separation of Powers, civil liberties, property rights, or just war doctrine. Projecting the nation’s economic and military might is paramount to America’s cohesion. “On this view, America is exceptional because it is big and powerful enough to exempt itself from the rules that bind other countries.” Zmirak points out, we’ve seen this outlook before in the ambitions of Aaron Burr and the assertiveness of Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson — brash, hot-tempered, and feisty “Old Hickory,” President from 1829-1837

In the second, American exceptionalism came from the civic culture, an environment “compatible with human flourishing” brought about by Providence, respect for law, and a government of carefully prescribed limits operating by our consent. The expansion of state control is opposed vehemently as it correspondingly subtracts freedom from the lives of people. Foreign policy is recognized from the premise that we are all fallen, and thus “sharply limited in what we can achieve” in relating to cultures alien to our outlook. Immigration, likewise, should be pared back not merely for its impact on the economy but for its impact on our civic system. Ours is a system not universally compatible with every other culture on earth. This outlook found expression in the restraint of William Howard Taft and the perspective of Calvin Coolidge.

Calvin Coolidge — brave, reliable, and shrewd “Silent Cal,” President from 1923-1929

In the third, American exceptionalism is approached as a propositional exercise. It is best represented, though not exclusively, by Senator Rubio. The propositions America expounds are not only true, but should be brought to the whole human race. In this outlook, America must do more than simply stand as Lady Liberty but rather to go and make disciples, exporting democratic government systems around the globe. Called “neoconservatism” it has been the prevailing view for some time. Hence, welcoming Syrian refugees or sponsoring Amnesty corresponds with this vision as America’s transformative ideals remake the world. As Zmirak points out, however, this idealism (lost in its own heady optimism) seems to feel that America is somehow immune to transformation itself by the ideas and habits of those who come here. It works with the belief that American ideals are just too dynamic and self-contained to be so influenced.

As it mobilizes in foreign policy, this outlook always opens the ongoing crusade of regime change.  Anything less, it is argued, would “admit defeat of our ideals…surrender our national mission and plunge into moral relativism — suggesting that liberty is only available to certain countries and cultures, especially those with a Christian, or even an Anglo-Protestant heritage.” In the end, it must acknowledge the merits of the limited foreign policy of traditional constitutionalism. This is rarely done, though, before committing America to a course of unbounded aspirations and expensive dreams that making the world safe for democracy will finally work… this time. The singular focus of Woodrow Wilson, the unconstrained experimentation of FDR, and the hopeful nation-building of George W. Bush all animate this outlook.

George W. Bush — “Dubya,” President from 2001-2009

Zmirak concludes that the differences of each worldview are significant and most importantly, they do matter. What the future holds will be directly attributable to whether these distinctions have been fully discussed and carefully considered, or hastily blurred and dismissed. If wisdom is to prevail at the ballot box (and thus good government to return), voters must see that these are three very different choices. This is a trinity not created equal.

While we find the comparison to Mr. Coolidge to be less precise than with the other two candidates, especially Trump and Jackson, it is good to see Coolidge’s ideas rekindling a timely and useful discussion. It is a welcome sign that, through it all, the moral courage and political wisdom of Calvin Coolidge are respected assets once more, not liabilities, to the decision we must face.