On Expecting Too Much Of Government…And Too Little Of Ourselves

December 7, 2013December 7, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / 19 Comments

“If some current statements are to be taken seriously we are expecting too much from free government…We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts. We want the right to run our own business, fix our own wages and prices, and spend our own money, but if depression and unemployment result we look to government for a remedy.

“We insist on producing a farm surplus, but think the government should find a profitable market for it. We overindulge in speculation, but ask the government to prevent panics. Now the only way to hold the government entirely responsible for conditions is to give up our liberty for a dictatorship. If we continue the more reasonable practice of managing our own affairs we must bear the burdens of our own mistakes. A free people cannot shift their responsibility for them to the government. Self-government means self-reliance” — Calvin Coolidge, October 17, 1930

“When people are bewildered they tend to become credulous. We are always in danger of expecting too much of the government. When there is distress such expectations are enlarged…That is the danger now…A large expenditure of public money to stimulate trade is a temporary expedient which begs the question…Business does not need more burdens but less. The sound way to relieve distress is by direction action [by people themselves]…The people have more power than any government to restore their own prosperity” – November 28, 1930

“Some confusion appears to exist in the public mind as to the proper function of the national government in the relief of distress, whether caused by disaster or unemployment. Strictly construed, the national government has no such duties. It acts purely as a volunteer…In the case of unemployment, relief is entirely the province of the local government which has agencies and appropriations for that purpose…Every government should spend its own money. Otherwise the appropriating agency has no control over the disbursing agency and no check on extravagance” – December 5, 1930.

“…[I]nstead of letting the market take its own course there is always a great temptation to try some artificial remedy. Of late this has run to the device of having the public treasury assume in some way the burden of absorbing the losses of those who have suffered. It is the duty of the government to provide highways and waterways…But local government must relieve the needy. In the general field of business, whether of industry or agriculture, government interference in an attempt to maintain prices out of the treasury is almost certain to make matters worse instead of better. It disorganizes the whole economic fabric. It is a wrong method because it does not work. It is better for every one in the end to let those who have made losses bear them than to try to shift them on to some one else. If we could have the courage to adopt this principle our recovery would be expedited. Price fixing, subsidies and government support will only produce unhealthy business” — December 22, 1930.

“Another proposal to be made in the name of relieving unemployment will undoubtedly be an extension of government ownership…The government has never shown much aptitude for real business…The most free, progressive and satisfactory method ever devised for the equitable distribution of property is to permit the people to care for themselves by conducting their own business. They have more wisdom than any government” — January 5, 1931.

“Left alone without the paralyzing interposition of the government, the people have a better opportunity for progress, prosperity and happiness than can ever be secured from any official bureau” – March 27, 1931.

“With the convocation of representatives of various lines of industry have come proposals for controlling and standardizing business. Almost all these suggestions are for artificial rules of conduct to save a situation from the inevitable consequences of the force of natural laws. If business is to be controlled from the outside, the liberty of action and power of initiative will be greatly circumscribed. If standardization is adopted in its entirety, the result is rigid fossilization which prevents progress. Neither the state nor the Federal governments can supply the information and wisdom necessary to direct the business activity of the nation…The experience, skill and wisdom necessary to guide business cannot be elected or appointed. It has to grow up naturally from the people. The process is long and fraught with human sacrifice, but it is the only one that can work” — May 1, 1931.

“In the end the security of nations and men must be sought within themselves by observing the command to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly” — May 12, 1931.

“The centralization of power in Washington, which nearly all members of Congress deplore in their speech and then support by their votes, steadily increases…The farmer who was the shining example of sturdy independence has intrusted the government with finding him a market. Now the wage earner is to look to the same source to find employment. Individual self-reliance is disappeared and local self-government is being undermined.

“A revolution is taking place which will leave the people dependent upon the government and place the government where it must decide questions that are far better left to the people to decide for themselves. Finding markets will develop into fixing prices, and finding employment will develop into fixing wages. The next step will be to furnish markets and employment, or in default pay a bounty and dole. Those who look with apprehension on these tendencies do not lack humanity, but are influenced by the belief that the result of such measures will be to deprive the people of character and liberty” – June 20, 1931.

On Wages and Upward Mobility

December 5, 2013December 5, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / 15 Comments

Speaking in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on September 1, 1919, Governor Calvin Coolidge could have been critical of national conditions, its economic disparity and bleak situation coming out of war and into a still very uncertain peace. It remained to be seen how smooth an adjustment into peacetime America could accomplish. There was much unrest throughout the country and the Wilson administration’s Progressive rhetoric combined with the Justice Department’s prosecution of political threats continued to keep Americans on edge, a palpable anxiety which hovered over the Nation like a cloud.

1919 was not only the year of the Boston Police Strike but witnessed steel, coal and general strikes from Seattle to Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The immense power of the strikers to halt operations throughout the country reminded people they were not to be crossed without serious consequences. The incessant claims that ours was an unfair and inequitable system took a special kind of courage to publicly confront. Governor Coolidge, eight days before most of Boston’s law enforcement would vote to walk away from their duty, would address those gathered in Plymouth in full display of just that kind of courage. He would tackle the heart of the issue head-on covering the issues of labor, wages, equality and opportunity.

He began with sincere praise for America’s exceptionalism, “…[F]or it was here that for the first time in history a government was founded on a recognition of the sovereignty of the citizen which has irresistibly led to a realization of the dignity of his occupation….For the first time in five years it comes at a time when the issue of world events makes it no longer doubtful whether the American conception of work as the crowing glory of men free and equal is to prevail over the age-old European conception that work is the badge of the menial and the inferior. The American ideal has prevailed on European battle-fields through the loyalty, devotion, and sacrifice of American labor. The duty of citizenship in this hour is to strive to maintain and extend that ideal at home.”

In Coolidge’s estimation, unceasing discontent and perpetually-stirred criticism rendered no benefit to anyone and solved nothing — in fact, they were drains of energy when the challenges to be faced demanded constructive effort and optimism on the part of everyone. Creating a false perception that forced Americans into fixed classes to be constantly pitted against each other was not only dishonest but destructive if improvement and progress were to be continued. Fostering dissension and enmity between those perceived to be “Haves” and “Have Nots” was a denial of the Founding and a deceitful manipulation of the real property owners America empowers, the people themselves.

Coolidge continued, “We have known that political power was with the people, because they have the votes. We have generally supposed that economic power was not with the people, because they did not own the property. This supposition, probably never true, is growing more and more to be contrary to the facts. The great outstanding fact in the economic life of America is that the wealth of the Nation is owned by the people of the Nation. The stockholders of the great corporations run into the hundreds of thousands, the small tradesmen, the thrifty householders, the tillers of the soil, the depositors in savings banks, and the now owners of government bonds, make a number that includes nearly our entire people.”

Citing the figures of Massachusetts alone proved this assertion and laid bare the simplistic notion that justice could be legislated after “assuming that we can take from one class and give to another class.” The “property class” was already one and the same as the “employed class.” The interdependence of interests made it impossible to separate them and preserve what was good or just for either one. Reflecting on the fact that Massachusetts was an industrial state, he raised a series of questions that illustrated the path America would have to take to grow. It lay not in the direction of jealousies, hatred and class warfare but in expanding opportunity, not regulation, and raising prosperity for everyone through policies that encourage profits and its by-product, employment. He asked, “How can our people be made strong? Only as they draw their strength from our industries. How can they do that? Only by building up our industries and making them strong. This is fundamental. It is the place to begin. These are the instruments of all our achievement. When they fail, all fails. When they prosper, all prosper. Workmen’s compensation, hours and conditions of labor are cold consolations, if there be no employment. And employment can be had only if some one finds it profitable. The greater the profit, the greater the wages.”

In this economic axiom, Coolidge made clear the need, not to demonize profits, but to welcome them as a legitimate part of unchaining America’s economic potential. Coercive legislation was not the answer to higher wages. Clearing away the hampering clutter of controls that made people’s participation in the marketplace unprofitable was the solution. This raised wages. The increase in value of each individual’s labor is not determined by penalizing growth and punishing employment. The increase in value manifests itself in higher wages. The value of the individual’s work is as limitless as that person’s potential. Yet, it grows in proportion to the profitability of the enterprise to which a person’s labor is invested. If profits are suppressed, expansion of opportunity stops and, sooner or later, so does employment itself.

Governments, inept at accurately gauging the value of labor cannot set wage rates without harming growth and continued employment. In short, Governments in the business of setting wages always hurt the most vulnerable Americans, the very people wage laws claim to be helping.

Coolidge reminds us of these obvious and yet repeatedly forgotten truths. If we genuinely want everyone to prosper, we can only accomplish it by building up, not tearing down, America’s engine of growth. We do this not through constant appeals to prejudice and anger but through constructive work, encouraging the opportunities to be found in a marketplace of growing value and expanding opportunity. In such an environment, employment, higher wages, increasing profits and upward mobility are made possible for anyone with the will and determination to achieve his or her highest potential. That potential, the ability to work for yourself and keep the rewards of that labor is an American concept. It is through this recognition of the dignity of work, what Coolidge called the “crowning glory” of a free and equal people, that so extraordinary a success has been enjoyed here in America.

Economic power cannot be repeatedly stifled and thwarted without an accompanying loss to the people’s political power. Both powers are inseparably joined. While the force of Government fails whenever it attempts to harness capitalism for its own, vastly different ends, America still proves that freedom works.

On Credibility

December 3, 2013December 4, 2013 / gouverneurmorris / 8 Comments

Too often promises are made merely to send the inquirer away with hopes of fulfillment rather than informed answers or reliable results. The assurance matters more than the outcome on far too many occasions, it seems. We do not always have the answer but how often do we commit to finding one, only to never actually follow-up on the matter? Besides, who can be so confident (or is it disciplined?) to listen intently, guarantee nothing and then immediately set to work on what has been requested? When someone comes to us seeking information, do we respect him or her enough to keep our answers clear, concise and truthful?

To say what you mean to say and then follow through consistently from both factual certainty and dependable action establishes credibility. It is what sets apart the trustworthy from the unreliable and the faithless. Coolidge was notorious for his keen ability to listen without ever giving his consent or promise of fulfillment. It was not what Coolidge refused to say at the time, it was what he did after each visitor left that mattered. Coolidge would take the time to immediately follow-up on each matter before seeing the next appointment. By his deeds not his words, he accomplished far more with less “fuss,” simply doing what needed to be done. For Coolidge, it was the substance of the outcome not the intentions of the process that meant the most.

In Horace Green’s The Life of Calvin Coolidge, the author sets to work verifying from firsthand sources the facts from the fiction already growing up around the new President. One incident in particular, among those which actually took place, illustrates the seemingly effortless way Coolidge established credibility both personally and professionally. Of course, the perception of effortlessness did not reveal the work it took, the rigorous discipline Coolidge imposed upon himself from a very early age. It was how Mr. Coolidge overcame what so many in society and especially in politics consider even now a serious handicap: his willful taciturnity. By 1924, so many versions existed of young lawyer Coolidge’s “Can Move Body” story that Mr. Green was compelled to correct the record.

The original account, confirmed by Mr. Green’s research, begins with an older gentleman named Orville Prouty, who was currently serving as one of the selectmen of Hadley, Massachusetts. Throughout New England boards of “selectmen” or “aldermen” functioned as city executives whereas the legislative role was exercised directly by the people in town meetings. Hadley was a section of Northampton, the town young Coolidge had settled upon to “read” law. He chose the firm of John C. Hammond and Henry P. Field. Both men had ably and reliably served Northampton, and Massachusetts, for many years.

A man had been shot and killed while rowing on a small lake in the Hadley section of town. It was imperative that the recovery of the body be determined as soon as legally possible. Mr. Prouty needed to know whether he had lawful authority to remove the body himself without violating the law or compromising the collection of evidence for trial. He went to the law office he trusted, the same firm of Hammond and Field. However, neither man was there. There was only a thin young man he had never seen before, intently reading a law book. The young man responded to Selectman Prouty that “everybody was out.” As Mr. Green notes, “Apparently it never occurred to the selectman that the young man was anybody” (p.37). After nervously pacing around the room for a few moments, awaiting the return of either attorney, Mr. Prouty finally presented his question to the quiet youth.

Hearing out Mr. Prouty’s situation, the young man calmly replied, “Can move the body.” Without elaboration or excitement, Coolidge went back to his reading, respecting the selectman’s need for haste. Mr. Prouty could not account for this unruffled certainty. Asking whether Coolidge was completely sure, the young man responded, “Yes, can move the body.”

Astounded, Mr. Prouty met Mr. Hammond on the stairs after he walked out of the office. “Say, who the devil is that young tongue-tied blonde you got upstairs? Doesn’t he ever get excited?” To that Mr. Hammond, smiling, answered, “That young fellow isn’t much when it comes to gab, but he’s a hog for work. If he tells you you can move the body, you can bet your life you can. He’s only been in this office a few months, but I’ve found out that when he says a thing is so, it is.”

Coolidge’s reputation as a credible authority did not come without concerted preparation. He knew the difference between what were essentials and what was trivial. He did not waste time on the latter, whether the time was his or belonged to someone else. His internal focus did not permit the “show” of knowing more or promising much just to pacify the person. On the contrary, he invested himself in actually knowing the law and when he spoke, he would speak only on the firm ground of facts. Anything less would be a betrayal of himself and the trust reposed in him. His sense of economy presided not merely over his debt and budget-cutting policies but it was a consistent rule for his whole life. Just as he would not waste others’ money and time, so he would not waste words, not expecting people to be content with any answer, however correct, or manifold promises, without action. Enacting this resolute program of self-discipline, despite mystifying many while successfully defying the conventional path, made Coolidge a force of credibility that overcame time and again his reticent temperament and anti-social persona.

Dubbed “Coolidge luck” by those who cannot identify it, his diligence readied him unconsciously to be the best wherever conditions placed him, taught him to under-promise and over-deliver and gave him the confidence to lead through quiet action, instead of presumptuous fanfare. Never trumpeting what he intended to do, he dedicated himself to simply doing it, placing the substance of public service on accomplishments not aspirations. Coolidge’s approach had the effect of giving people further confidence in his credibility because they saw what he did, not just spoke of doing.

Judge Field, the other partner in the firm, was exceptionally active in the affairs of Massachusetts. He was not a man to award praise lightly. He assessed the basis for Coolidge’s credibility this way:

“I’ve never known a man who could say what he means more concisely than Coolidge. Moreover, he has an amazing faculty for reducing what he wants to say, to epigrams. No man has ever known Calvin Coolidge to go back on his word. He has lived in this city for more than twenty-three years, and you won’t find a man or woman, Republican or Democrat, but will tell you that this is true. I’ve never known any one who was a better judge of men. I’ve never known any one who doubted his courage. I’ve never known a cleaner man, a more decent citizen, a more loyal friend…Now, I say, that a man who doesn’t know how to advertize better than that is thoroughly lacking in what, from a practical political view, is the essential qualification in the science of self-exploitation.”

As Mr. Green points out, Judge Field said this before Coolidge reached national office. Yet, Coolidge turned that conventional “science of self-exploitation” on its head as he rose to the pinnacle of leadership. It was not by accident just as it was not entirely outside his control. His credibility, built from many years of effort, provides an inspiring reminder that trustworthiness is a quality each of us can attain through a similar dedication as we prepare ourselves, commit to the essentials and cherish substance over appearances. Coolidge remains credible today not because of any soaring pledges, grand intentions, or idealistic crusades but for his quiet competence, humble integrity, and decisive actions.