Frost on Coolidge

                         Image

While some may think there was little to connect a Grover Cleveland Democrat with a life-long Republican, it would come as a surprise that Coolidge’s life was filled with such connections. He was not a man given to airs or sense of superiority, personally or politically. He would consider Democrats among his closest friends, even allies. He would count numerous Irish immigrants among his supporters. The Democrat presidential candidate of 1928, Al Smith, was a good friend. He married into a Democrat family. These relationships were not due to some lack of commitment to principle, for Coolidge’s consistency and conviction were widely known. It was due to a set of convictions that transcended political posturing. It was an agreement with what America was all about, whether you were Republican or Democrat. It was a respect for people stemming from a mutual reverence for America’s ideals. Character and perspective on both sides made it possible to have principled disagreement but still work toward common aims as Americans. Without integrity, civility has no pillars on which to stand. When the ideals of America are no longer shared and character is demonized, it is no wonder that both a sense of proportion and civility are missing as well.

One of the most predictable acquaintances Coolidge encountered, however, was Robert Frost. As Joseph A. Conforti in his book, Imagining New England, examines the identity and mindset of the commonly caricatured “Yankee,” he features both the President and the poet. While, as Coolidge biographer Fuess observed, Coolidge was unique for combining so many — if not all — of the qualities of a “Yankee” in a single person, Frost could not be more different in upbringing and politics. But what did Frost think of Coolidge? There is often an assumed affinity of the two but, again, Frost was a Cleveland Democrat while Coolidge held loyally to the Republican Party all of his life. Frost, widely regarded as a New England rustic, was born and raised in the city, San Francisco to be exact. Coolidge, as we know, came from the rugged hills of Vermont and hailed from rural western Massachusetts, not the sophisticated social circles of Boston. Frost was largely ambivalent when it came to politics; Coolidge joked that his hobby was “running for office.” Frost would never finish college while Coolidge would not only graduate but give the witty “Grove Oration,” for his class. It was Amherst that would enable these lives to cross paths. Frost would come to the College on and off from 1916 through 1938 to teach English. Meanwhile, Coolidge rose in state and national affairs, serving as a trustee of his alma mater through his retirement from public life. They certainly knew each other and among the several interesting observations made by Conforti is this, quoting from Lawrance R. Thompson’s Frost: The Years of Triumph, 1915-1938,

“Frost admired Coolidge; he identified with his political and cultural conservatism, praised his ‘overthemountain nature,’ and respected his kindred descent from ‘a modest, frugal, and unpretentious line of Puritan farmers’…Frost’s political detachment and poetic rejection of social criticism provoked literary enemies who saw him as a product of the same stingy soil that gave birth to Coolidge.” Frost would be defended “against such critics” and his apologists would share the “Coolidge-like Yankee moral vision that emerges from much of his verse.” As Robert Coffin, of Yankee magazine fame, would write, “Frost likes his people in individual, not mass formation. He isn’t blaming their troubles on the capitalists or the environment, but on the way life is built and the way they are built…” Such an outlook would have found Coolidge in agreement.

As Coolidge would preside over the lively and energetic Twenties, Frost would become, in Conforti’s words, a “New England version of Will Rogers” personifying the folk wisdom and authenticity of American character. One reporter summarized the traveling poet this way, Frost’s temperament “was one of inexpressible gentleness, with humor and strength and whimsical sincerity.” It seems Coolidge and Frost were more alike than is apparent at first glance. But then this is America at work, bringing two very different individuals together around transcendent ideals, common principles of character and, tempered by realism, an abiding faith in her purpose.

        ImageImage

On Memorial Day

Addressing those gathered in his Northampton to observe Memorial Day, May 30, 1923, Vice President Coolidge delivered one of his most eloquent expositions of the day’s meaning and significance,

“Our country does not want war; it wants peace. It has not decreed this memorial season as an honor to war, with its terrible waste and attendant train of suffering and hardship which reaches onward into the years of peace. Yet war is not the worst of evils, and those days have been set apart to do honor to all those, now gone, who made the cause of America their supreme choice. Some fell with the word of Patrick Henry, ‘Give me liberty, or give me death,’ almost ringing in their ears. Some heard that word across the intervening generations and were still obedient to its call. It is to the spirit of those men, exhibited in all our wars, to the spirit that places the devotion to freedom and truth above the devotion to life, that the nation pays its ever-enduring mark of reverence and respect. It is not that principle that leads to conflict but to tranquility. It is not that principle which is the cause of war but the only foundation for an enduring peace. There can be no peace with the forces of evil. Peace comes only through the establishment of the supremacy of the forces of good. That way lies only through sacrifice. It was that the people of our country might live in a knowledge of the truth that these, our countrymen, are dead. ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’

“This spirit is not dead, it is the most vital thing in America. It did not flow from any act of government. It is the spirit of the people themselves. It justifies faith in them and faith in their institutions…It is to that spirit again, with this returning year, we solemnly pledge the devotion of all that we have and are.”

Writing in recognition of this day eight years later, he would summarize the abiding import of this Day with these words, “No lapse or diminution should be permitted in the yearly devotion which the people pay to the memory of those who have served in our armed forces…The principle involved must not be obscured. The day is sacred to the memory of all the dead who wore our uniform, from the earliest Indian wars to the present hour. In honoring their memory we are not glorifying war. We are a peaceful nation…But we honor their memory that we may glorify citizenship. They were the antithesis of selfish individualism, merging freedom and even chance of life in the common welfare of country. In danger, choosing the course that really counts, they preserved their rights by discharging their duties. No nation can live which cannot command that kind of service. No people worthy of such service will fail to do it in reverence.”

Image

President Coolidge with Secretary of War, Dwight Davis (left), and Secretary of the Navy, Curtis Wilbur (right).

Image

President and First Lady Coolidge meeting Civil War veterans, August 1924.

Image

Image

President Coolidge saluting the Unknown Soldier with Secretary of War, John Weeks; Assistant Secretary of Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and Naval Aide to the President, Captain Wilson Brown, (1923?).

On the Boy Scouts

                         Image

Reflecting on the purpose of this long-standing private organization, especially in light of the recent change in admission standards, it is important to recall what Calvin Coolidge had to say about them. Writing in his daily column on February 9, 1931, he said,

“Millions of our young men have had the benefit of the physical, mental and moral discipline that results from Scout training. When the evil reports of a few gangsters make us wonder if society and government are about to disintegrate and revert to the law of the jungle, we can turn with assurance to the humanizing and civilizing effect of the Boy Scouts. Under the old life in the country every boy was something of a Scout. But in the modern city many boys live on a narrow street or alley. The buildings make it impossible for them to see; in the constant roar they cannot hear. With the lack of healthful and life-giving impulses from without they are turned back on themselves. When they need action and companionship in order to secure a natural growth of body and mind, they are unable to find anything but an artificial, dwarfing substitute. The profitable and patriotic remedy for these conditions is the Boy Scout movement. Under the influence of a considerable body of citizens so trained our republic is fairly secure.”

Considering the Boy Scouts accomplished all of this for decades before the latest round of complaints against it, the policy change rings hollow. Volunteer and civic-minded organizations, like what the Scouts have been, represent certain moral standards and no force in the world can rightfully tell them to abandon that ennobling purpose in order to enact the amorphous values of someone else. The Boy Scouts are not about sexual orientation, but about instilling character and competence in our young men. That used to be an asexual blessing to society–not anymore. Sexual identity trumps all other values. Now, one by one, organizations like the Boy Scouts have to concede their purpose to an intolerant minority unwilling to grant the existence of any organization that chooses its own standards of membership. So much for the good old fashioned virtue of living and letting live. This latest coerced participant in reordering society to please a few is only the most recent effort to keep Pandora’s box open, whatever it will cost (in lives or public morals) down the road.