Mr. Coolidge recognized the essence of good business was in strengthening ties of service and collaboration with others. He never saw the validity of an adversarial system, such as Bentham and the socialist economists espoused. Profit was important, of course, but not the supreme purpose of good business relations. He understood that business was about more than “crushing the competition.” It was about building bridges, not burning them. That is why he demanded a meeting with an apprehensive editor one afternoon. The editor had not published the entire number of articles agreed upon and written by the former President. Still, Mr. Coolidge had been paid for the entire set. The editor, bracing for confrontation, was shocked to find the former president wanted to meet in order to return the balance of the money due for the articles not published. To Coolidge, if they were not “good enough” to warrant publication, it would not be right to take money for them. In this way, good business is preserved.
The former President, writing another article on June 17, 1931, observed the necessity for “good business” to continue, especially as folks struggled to keep commerce going,
“It is a very sound business principle to let the other fellow make a profit. That was the essence of the slogan we heard a few years ago about passing prosperity around. The same thought is involved in paying good wages and fair prices. Cutting prices calls for cutting wages in the end.
“This is often the basis of the complaint against large concerns. When they control a large percentage of production they control the prices of the raw and unfinished materials used in that trade. They become almost the sole market for them. Under this condition there is a strong tendency in the name of efficiency and good management to squeeze out the small concerns furnishing these materials. But it is not usually good business.
“We are all so much a part of a common system of life that the business world is not healthy unless we all have a chance. A profit made by squeezing some one else out of a livelihood will almost surely turn up later as a loss. The great asset in trade is good will. The best producer of good will is the profit which others make” (emphasis added).
business
On Public Image and the Press
“Whenever any section of our press turns on America and on American institutions, and assumes a foreign attitude, every informed person knows it has fallen from the high estate which is our common heritage, and becoming no longer worthy of regard is destined to defeat and failure. No American can profit by selling his own country for foreign favor” — Calvin Coolidge, April 25, 1927, Messages and Papers of the Presidents p.9689. Cited in “Silent Cal’s Almanack” by David Pietrusza, p.90.
Among the most striking ironies of the Coolidge years is the rapport that persisted between the President and the press. It was observed as extraordinary at the time and it is no less fascinating now. Even so, more animosity for Coolidge among the press rose up in later generations than existed at the time. The man known for placing substance above appearances, handled the members of the Fourth Estate shrewdly and sincerely. It is interesting that while Harding, a newspaperman himself, never quite mastered the relationship between his administration and reporters, Coolidge did. It is not as though Coolidge was forcing a fake “public image” on the country, he was merely adept at preempting problems with his own excellent skills in public relations. As John L. Blair has noted, an extensive public relations staff was not there in the 1920s. Coolidge, through a consistent and attentive approach, succeeded in politics where most have failed: the battle of perception. Policy fights could be waged with Congress but it could all be lost if “the artificial” things as Coolidge would describe the Washington mindset in his Autobiography (p.229), were neglected. He wisely understood that if the best results were to be obtained, he had to succeed in marketing what he was trying to “sell,” be it constructive economy in government, income tax reductions, war debt reparations, or the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. All of this took cultivation in advance. Coolidge, as any good marketer knows, sold his audience without telling them he was doing so. Coolidge would not pretend to be someone he was not.
As one veteran journalist urged at the beginning of the Harding administration, “Don’t slap us on the back and call us ‘old man,’ as did that genial fellow, Elihu Root [T.R.’s legendary Secretary of State].” Journalists were not naive, ready to be duped, or to be treated with condescension. An examination of the record before and after Coolidge makes this clear. Nor was the Coolidge era without public relations problems. It had more than one conflict between the “White House spokesman” (as the President was to be known in print, at least until Coolidge discontinued the policy in 1927) and the press. What distinguished the Coolidge approach was its even-handed respect for news work and its sincere transparency in explaining what the government was doing. Coolidge’s unprecedented 520 press conferences over the course of five and a half years outranks all previous and many subsequent Chief Executives, including the three terms of F. D. R.
While Coolidge required questions in advance — at times only answering the inconsequential or giving vague answers — he consistently allowed thorough follow-up questions on policies that remained unclear. This enabled the press to fulfill their constitutional obligation of “interpreting the administration to the country” (Coolidge, March 1, 1929 in “The Talkative President,” p. 34). At times, the press violated their mutual agreement, such as publishing speeches ahead of time, citing President Coolidge directly, or defending foreign countries against the policy of their own. Each met with Coolidge’s consternation but were well-handled so that the press knew where he stood and respected the clarity of his consistency. Coolidge surmised the press handled him so favorably because of this approach (“The Autobiography,” pp.185-6). Whether they agreed or not, they knew principles motivated him. Even the fearless crusader, William Randolph Hearst, mustered his publications to favorably expound Coolidge to readers.
At the same time, Coolidge observed in his address to the National Press Club that the news business was changing. News reporting had its constitutional protection but it also had responsibilities. It was coming to the realization that journalism was not mere demagoguery but there were obligations to be upheld as a business in the service of the American people. In light of today’s failing newspapers, struggling ratings and the self-deluded cloak of “objective journalism,” perhaps it is time to look back to what works instead of replicating what fails. This is why the sympathies for foreign institutions and their political decisions against those of the United States never sat well with Coolidge. It undermined the very basis for sound judgment which journalists are to exercise as they report the news. Honest journalism suffers when reporters dispense with a respect for truth and the pursuit of the ideal. It was not for himself that Coolidge opposed this unhealthy trend in news coverage, for he “often said that there was no cause for feeling disturbed at being misrepresented in the press.” What concerned Coolidge far more was the prospect of actually doing wrong, not the mere reporting of wrongdoing. The press was not there to serve him personally, they were there to serve America. Defense of the ideals that made America compelled Coolidge to take a firm resistance to a journalist who discarded his attachments to America’s founding principles in favor of what is both incompatible and hostile to those ideals.
He was not in blissful denial of where Americans had erred from time to time. On the contrary, knowing those missteps were made provoked a keen awareness in him for what America had done right. In one hundred and fifty years America had accomplished more through the power of ideals and the moral force behind them than others had achieved over thousands of years. These ideals were valid because they were universals, not exclusive to Americans. Americans had simply discovered them, not been born to deserve them through their superiority to others. Still, these ideas were welcome in America unlike most of the world for principled reasons. As a result, the press must serve the American people, giving expression to those timeless ideals instead of ridiculing and dismantling them. Some have poked fun at this “patriotic journalism” but in light of current affairs, Americans are better informed and better served when diligent journalists, committed to her ideals, report the news.
On the occasion of President Coolidge’s first press conference (August 1923), which met with spontaneous applause. The press knew with Coolidge things were changing for the better of all.
For further reading, see Blair, John L. “Coolidge and the Image-Maker: The President and the Press, 1923-1929,” The New England Quarterly XLVI (December 1973): 499-522; Brayman, Harold. “The President Speaks Off the Record: Historic Evenings with America’s Leaders, the Press, and Other Men of Power at Washington’s Most Exclusive Club–the Gridiron.” Princeton: Dow Jones Books, 1976; Quint, Howard H. and Robert H. Ferrell, eds. “The Talkative President: The Off-the-Record Press Conferences of Calvin Coolidge.” Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1964.
On Banks and Prosperity
While the “Occupy Wall Street” mobs have subsided, having served their political purpose last year, the notion that banks are a device of the “excessively wealthy” is not new to our time. The image of fat, out-of-touch, greedy capitalists forming banks to “exploit” workers, the poor and the needy, robbing them of their hard-earned money was just as familiar in the early years of the twentieth century as it is now. Despite the verifiable fact that Secretary Mellon paid millions more in income taxes under his own plan, it did nothing to assuage the attempts throughout the twenties and thirties to finally “pin down” this “excessively wealthy tycoon” as guilty of something. If one keeps looking, they seemed to say, it can be found somewhere. Even F.D.R.’s tax “show trial” of Mellon yielded nothing but an unfairly demolished reputation. On the contrary, Vice President Coolidge addressed this very attitude about banks, a prejudice against capitalism and the myth that forceful redistribution of prosperity is both possible and virtuous. In a speech given on June 27, 1921, he said:
“There can be no permanent prosperity of any class or part. Such a condition can only be secured through a general and public prosperity. This means that to secure this end there must be a general distribution of the rewards of industry. Wherever this condition is maintained there you have the foundation for an increasing production and a sound financial and economic situation.
“One of the strongest reasons for supporting American institutions is that under them this condition is more nearly attained than under any other form of government that has ever met with any permanent success…
“…Too often the uninformed think of a bank as the possession of a few rich people, and as the creditor of the people at large. You who have had any experience with banking know that it is the opposite of this which is true. The resources of banks are not the resources of a few rich, but the resources of the people themselves, small perhaps in any individual instance, but, in the aggregate, very large. Nor are banks exclusively a creditor class. It is usually true that they owe to their depositors more than their borrowers owe to them. Every banker knows that to depend on the business and patronage of the rich would be in vain, that if any success attends his efforts it must be by serving and doing the business of the people. The stock is generally owned by the people, the deposits are always made by the people. This is the reason that banks partake of the nature of a public institution and perform real public service. They are the sole means by which modern commercial activities can be carried on. They afford the method by which the people combine their individual resources, providing a collection of capital sufficient to extend the necessary credit for financing the whole people of the nation…A bank is not a private institution, responsible to itself alone, or to a few. It is a public institution, under a moral obligation to be administered for the public welfare…Any power which is not used for the general welfare will in the end destroy itself…Such an institution is doing the work of the people.”
This simple explanation lays bare the ignorance of those who vilify banking and American capitalism as the instigators of what is wrong with the country. To go to war against these concepts is to war against the “common man,” the very person protestors claim to be helping. By calling for redistribution and the boycott of banks, the true perpetrators of class conflict, economic stagnation and human suffering are sought out as “saviors.” People like us, ultimately, are held responsible for this “unfairness” while those who create the climate are rewarded with more authority to solve problems they have no inclination or ability to resolve. While certain government officials are usually first and foremost this kind of “savior” sought, it is conveniently ignored that the capital on which banks are made possible belongs to “normal” people engaged in the daily use of what is theirs — buying, selling, saving, earning, investing, exchanging, lending, and borrowing. The complaint is with Washington not with regular folks.
