On the Kennedy Connection

November 23, 2013November 23, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / 2 Comments

While yesterday marked the remembrance of President Kennedy’s tragic assassination by Communist Lee Harvey Oswald, it is usually not remembered what brought the President to Dallas fifty years ago. Set to address the Dallas Citizen’s Council at the Trade Mart that day, President Kennedy was not only there to bolster flagging national support for reelection — hardly certain that he would even be renominated — but he was also there to gain support for a stronger national defense and an $11 billion permanent, across-the-board tax cut. The tax cut had passed the House two months before and needed to survive the Senate. He had prepared the ground for this sharp cut since his election — taking top rates from 91% to 65% and bottom rates all the way down to 14% from 20%, also cutting corporate rates to 19.5% from 25%. It was not to be a temporary measure helping a few, it was to be permanent, helping Americans in every bracket.

Even more importantly, we need a return to the remembrance of JFK as he was instead of how modern revisionists, starting with the late Mrs. Kennedy, wish him to be. One cannot fault the widow’s grief for the loss of her husband, but, as Piereson observes, one cannot rationally join her and the chorus of voices since who have blamed America for killing the President (Camelot and the Cultural Revolution p.59, 178). They have blamed America first for every societal ill ever since.

Shortly after his death, it was she who lamented, “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights…It had to be some silly little communist. It even robs his death of any meaning.” His life had meaning but that meaning did not conform to the higher demands of an agenda already at work to recast history. In that pursuit of an alternative meaning, the modern Left could not bring itself to accept that the ideology they had courted for thirty some years had produced this heinous act. Consequently, the radical Left turned to the only conclusion consistent with their refusal to see communism for what it was — in JFK’s publicly announced conviction, a “Godless tyranny” and “evil” system (Stoll, JFK, Conservative p.64-6). America had to be the problem, they shouted. Thus began a narrative creating “Camelot,” publishing Mark Lane’s conspiratorial theories and now equating 1960s Dallas with the “angry” Tea Party movement of today. It is a fifty-year drum-beat that shrouds the truth, denying what JFK believed, in order to salvage a political worldview he never held.

As we know, an earlier son of Massachusetts, has also been the recipient of decades of mischaracterization and politically-motivated revision: Calvin Coolidge. It is recalled that Coolidge’s only electoral loss was to a Kennedy, when John J. Kennedy narrowly won a seat on the School Board shortly after Coolidge had married. When Coolidge learned his loss was due to not having children yet, he replied, “Might give me time.” He had been married barely two months.

The ties to JFK, however, go deeper. True, Senator Kennedy helped raise funds and even serve on the Board of Trustees at the Clarke School for the Deaf, working beside Grace Coolidge until her passing in 1957. Upon hearing of her death, Senator Kennedy wrote:

“As a fellow trustee of Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton I have a strong personal recollection of her untiring devotion and labors throughout her life to this most worthy cause…Since her days in the White House she continued to epitomize the qualities of graciousness, charm and modesty which marked her as an ideal First Lady of the Land” (Ishbel Ross, Grace Coolidge and Her Era, p.312).

In August 1962, President Kennedy enthusiastically sponsored the Coolidge Memorial Foundation’s efforts to promote Coolidge’s legacy nationwide. His support for both Mr. and Mrs. Coolidge speaks not only to their selfless service but also to JFK’s sincere belief that America remained exceptional and that lower taxes, economic growth, religious liberty, protection of property, the rights of the individual against the State, private enterprise, respect for law and order, moral leadership at home and abroad, opposition to unbridled government spending and the eventual defeat of socialism were principles worthy of preserving, regardless of political affiliation. To Kennedy as to Coolidge, they were principles every one of us could proudly champion because America is worth preserving. By keeping America strong, everyone is better for it. This is the Kennedy not allowed to be known by too many self-appointed gatekeepers of our history.

The speeches he gave on August 13, and December 14, 1962, and again, his State of the Union Address, January 14, 1963, embarrassed and shocked the Left of his day. According to Ted Sorenson, one of his closest advisers, Kennedy’s August 13 speech saying “no” to temporary, limited tax cuts, was “without qualification…the worst” speech he ever gave. When he laid out his argument for permanent, across-the-board cuts on December 14, attacks came from all quarters. Senator Albert Gore Sr., mystified why Kennedy was making tax cuts his top priority over health care, education and welfare programs, refused to support it. John K. Galbraith, the devoted Keynesian economist, maligned the message as “the most Republican speech since McKinley.” Galbraith’s disciple, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., excoriated any legitimate consideration of tax cuts as “full of Republican dogma” being “the worst speech the President had ever given” (Stoll p.135). Even Sorenson distanced himself from the President, comparing the substance of his message to something Hoover would say…insinuating, “…and we all know what happened when Hoover tried it.” Even former President Eisenhower decried tax reduction as “fiscal recklessness.” The suspicious distance between Kennedy and liberals of both parties came to a head on this issue in a way none other did.

This internal fight between a President, who was supposed to be of them, and an elite Left who inherited his legacy makes it all the more incredible that his plan – the fundamentals of it, anyway — became law in February 1964, three months after his death. It would validate his arguments that revenue would exceed prior levels and fixed, universal cuts would reinvigorate economic growth in a way more spending never could. Yet, his political heirs obscure that accomplishment to this day. Granted, the cuts were no where near the four Harding-Coolidge reductions in scope or intensity but it illustrated the very real power of the principle whenever championed. It would continue to fuel growth all the way until the recession of 1968. It would provide another potent demonstration for what was to be derisively called “supply-side” or “voodoo economics” when Reagan not only fought for but secured long-overdue tax cuts across-the-board in 1981.

Whether JFK was willing to expressly acknowledge his debt to Coolidge, as Reagan did, remains unsaid. It may be argued, though, that his sponsorship of the Coolidge Memorial Foundation in the midst of his 1962 battle against runaway Federal expenditures and for permanent tax cuts (in order to restore economic growth and then budget surpluses) was perhaps the best tribute he ever rendered to “Silenced” Cal.

On the Gettysburg Address

November 19, 2013November 19, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / 2 Comments

To express our devotion we have come to the field of Gettysburg. It ranks as one of the great historic battle grounds of this continent. In the magnitude of its importance it compares with the Plains of Abraham, with Saratoga, and with Yorktown. It is associated with a great battle between the Union and Confederate forces and with one of the greatest addresses ever delivered by one of the greatest men ever in the world, Abraham Lincoln. – See more at: http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/address-at-gettysburg-battle-field.html#sthash.LvYMuGW1.dpuf

The “Nicolay Copy,” earliest known handwritten version of the Gettysburg Address.

One hundred and fifty years ago, President Lincoln ascended the speaker’s platform to give over the course of two, short minutes one of the most eloquent speeches ever uttered. His words stand in timeless tribute to those, on both sides of those vast fields and hills of Gettysburg, who gave all they had to preserve freedom and government by consent.

President Coolidge being presented an original parchment of the Gettysburg Address by the Italian Republican League of New York, February 12, 1927.

President Coolidge being presented an original parchment of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address by the Italian Republican League of New York, February 12, 1927.

One of six Presidents to visit the battlefield at Gettysburg up to that time, Calvin Coolidge came here in 1928, honoring not only what brave men did there but what one man said there,

“We do not come to lament, but to give thanks. With one acclaim the people bestow upon them all that divine salutation, ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant.’ To express our devotion we have come to the field of Gettysburg. It ranks as one of the great historic battle grounds of this continent. In the magnitude of its importance it compares with the Plains of Abraham, with Saratoga, and with Yorktown. It is associated with a great battle between the Union and Confederate forces and with one of the greatest addresses ever delivered by one of the greatest men ever in the world, Abraham Lincoln.”

On Facing Consequences

November 14, 2013November 15, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / 3 Comments

John Coolidge, circa 1924

In the April 1935 issue of Good Housekeeping, the President’s son, John, recounted this portion of a father’s wisdom all too absent in political leaders at present. It is best to let John do the telling,

“Mother bought for us one Hallowe’en jack-o’-lanterns made of paper-mache with candles in them. When Father saw these, he warned us to be careful lest they take fire. However, we heedlessly went right ahead, lighted one, and, regardless of drafts, placed it on the window sill in the front room. During the excitement we went off and forgot about it. When we returned, it was in flames.

“Father had been there all the time, and had seen the jack-o’-lantern going up in smoke and scorching the window sill. But he made not a move to put the fire out. He wanted to impress upon us the danger of what we were doing. He succeeded. The charred window sill served as a lasting reminder.”

Parents and politicians alike might be appalled at such “unfeeling” inaction on the part of Father Coolidge. How could he allow the children to lose their jack-o’-lantern and burn the window sill? Why did he not intervene sooner to spare the loss and destructive consequences of his boys’ actions, despite their neglect? They were just children, who cannot be expected to suffer for their negligent disregard, can they?

The same principle holds as we see millions of Americans, including those who supported Obamacare, who are now feeling the pain of lost insurance coverage, while politicians seek cover for the electoral consequences coming to them next year. The ad campaign launched this week by the Administration to promote government insurance is equally a part of this refusal to instill responsible conduct. Such is equivalent to Father Coolidge helping pour gasoline on the fire in order to put it out before any harm could be done, expecting future self-restraint to prevail. Would the boys have learned the lesson? Or, would John and Calvin Jr. dismissed it as a sign that any future costs of recklessness will be paid for by their parents? Should the government, or anyone else for that matter, not only “bail out” but actively promote reckless behavior in order to “save the day”? Are we not losing sight of what a wise father was trying to teach his children?

An escape from any and all suffering is now perceived humane and compassionate. Coolidge warned his boys what would happen if the fire was not watched but did not immediately take charge, forcing them to comply to his will, when the fire spread. As a father he could have done so. He did not.

Just as members of Congress or the President now strain to spare next year’s voters from the personal and political consequences of past elections, Coolidge could have put out the fire and lectured them later. Instead, he gave them the freedom of their own self-reliance, providing the opportunity to exercise that freedom conscientiously.

Having failed to watch the fire, the boys did not permanently lose the ability to choose nor was any future confidence in them to govern themselves suspended. Father Coolidge kept a vigilant eye on the fire, allowing the boys to experience the proportionate degree of pain for their choice. Obviously, he was not letting the house burn down to illustrate the point. Nor could the point be made without allowing a corresponding measure of suffering for what the boys had failed to do.

The gravity of political choices carries infinitely more weight than a paper-mache jach-o’-lantern. As such, those choices must bear a commensurate cost: defeat at the ballot box for those who voted for it and the pain Obamacare was designed to inflict for millions of Americans. Repeal, instead of prolonging the agony by subsidized reforms, is the responsible course forward.

We do no one any favors by dulling the pain of these consequences with desperate attempts to delay the individual mandate, reform the Health Care Act to “make it work,” spare politicians from the heat of their votes and generally salvage failure so that relatively less suffering occurs in the short-term.

We remember what it felt like to touch that hot burner, despite our parents’ warning, and as such did not repeat it. A child never learns to leave reckless and irresponsible conduct so long as someone is there to insulate him or her from the consequences. It is the genuine exercise of compassion that teaches children to listen, to remember what it felt like to be irresponsible, and not repeat the mistake. It is compassion in the purest sense that prompted Father Coolidge to impress upon his children the lesson they had to experience to remember. Rushing to rescue others from the physical, emotional, and spiritual costs of persisting heedlessly despite the danger is neither caring nor compassionate.

For John and his brother, the consequences were slight because the actions were minor. Heavier consequences inescapably face us now because our choices at the ballot box were far greater in scope. It underscores that voting is indeed no trivial matter. It literally concerns life and death. There is no escape for voting recklessly. Elections have consequences. As Coolidge put it on another occasion,

“Of course it would be folly to argue that the people cannot make political mistakes. They can and do make grave mistakes. They know it, they pay the penalty, but compared with the mistakes which have been made by every kind of autocracy they are unimportant.” Even the People must be allowed to suffer that penalty if the lesson is to be learned. There is no short-cut or magic formula to exempt us from every painful consequence of our actions. It is precisely why Coolidge, knowing the people who comprise the marketplace restore sound conditions if allowed to do so, quoted the precept of Hebrews 12.11, “Now no chastening for the present seems to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness…”

Father Coolidge reminds us that suffering has a redemptive value to it as well. It raises mature adults like John, instead of coddling children to remain life-long dependents. By knowing that consequences are certain, an individual will not willfully defy this reality and the responsibility owed to others, oneself, and to God. The future is all the more secure when mature men and women take up each one’s responsibilities. After all, this is simply another word for “self-government,” the system of liberty under law envisioned by the Framers.