On Being American

Standing before those gathered at the American Legion Convention in Omaha, Nebraska, President Coolidge on October 6, 1925, offered one of the plainest expositions of what it means to be an American citizen ever uttered. He could have said any number of vague platitudes to avoid alienating anyone. He could have tried placating the supporters of the Klan with sympathetic doublespeak. He could have even appealed to the emotional and racial invectives of two administrations before, under President Wilson. To Coolidge, being “American” meant far more than any of these attitudes could comprehend. Weighing the heavy costs of the war, concluded a mere six years before, Coolidge recognized the long-term burdens but also the exceptional example of service Americans of all national origins had demonstrated to the world. Despite the dangers personal and national, the humble and devoted efforts of individuals serving side by side for common defense of life and liberty, that is, “Americanism” (as Coolidge would call it) shone forth. For Americans, it was not an imperial conquest. It was not the racial or ethnic superiority of “Americanism” that willingly shouldered the burden and cost. It matters not from where you came or how long you have been here. What matters is the sharing of a common respect for law, our founding institutions and our sense of moral obligation.

Being American, to Coolidge, is a unity of spirit not a physical birthright. It is an agreement on what is eternally essential, not earthly, racial and unessential. This is why Coolidge never appeals to class differences or racial distinctions. They are irrelevant and counterproductive to being American. “Americanism” is not a call to absolute conformity, emptying the individual into “cookie-cutter” blueprints. It is a voluntary enterprise ventured upon together with a common set of navigational truths that do not grow old with time or fade with use. By these essentials, Americans assimilate to embrace not only the freedoms of self-government but also the responsibilities. Both are necessary to ensure liberty remains intact. Liberty is not to be a cover for license. Flouting the law is just as un-American as is enforcing laws in contradiction to those essential truths of human nature discovered by the Founders. As Coolidge would aptly summarize,

“We must not, in times of peace, permit ourselves to lose any part from this structure of patriotic unity. I make no plea for leniency toward those who are criminal or vicious, are open enemies of society and are not prepared to accept the true standards of our citizenship. By tolerance I do not mean indifference to evil. I mean respect for different kinds of good. Whether one traces his Americanisms back three centuries to the Mayflower, or three years to the steerage, is not half so important as whether his Americanism of today is real and genuine. No matter by what various crafts we came here, we are all now in the same boat. You men constituted the crew of our ‘Ship of State’ during her passage through the roughest waters. You made up the watch and held the danger posts when the storm was fiercest. You brought her safely and triumphantly into port. Out of that experience you have learned the lessons of discipline, tolerance, respect for authority, and regard for the basic manhood of your neighbor. You bore aloft a standard of patriotic conduct and civic integrity, to which all could repair. Such a standard, with a like common appeal, must be upheld just as firmly and unitedly now in time of peace. Among citizens honestly devoted to the maintenance of that standard, there need be small concern about differences of individual opinion in other regards. Granting first the essentials of loyalty to our country and to our fundamental institutions, we may not only overlook, but we may encourage differences of opinion as to other things. For differences of this kind will certainly be elements of strength rather than of weakness. They will give variety to our tastes and interests. They will broaden our vision, strengthen our understanding, encourage the true humanities, and enrich our whole mode and conception of life. I recognize the full and complete necessity of 100 per cent Americanism, but 100 per cent Americanism may be made up of many various elements.”

It is the current cultural climate that is intolerant of these essentials and fixated on non-essentials that forecasts even rougher waters ahead for the American enterprise. If we are to navigate safely to port, we have to rally around the moral nature of our voyage while giving no berth to those resolved on dragging the ship back from real progress into the barbarity of ignorance, lawlessness and government paternalism.

Remembering a President’s Inaugural

             Image

This morning while waiting in line, a news network reminded its viewers of the March 4, 1933 inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt. To hear the reverence in the voices of those on the air, one would think any history worth remembering began with that infamously famous Presider over Depression, New Deal and World War. The thirty-six March 4th inaugurations before that time — 144 years of history — simply aren’t worth mentioning. One of those neglected thirty-six deserves mention here. In fact, it deserves our attention and study. It was March 4, 1925, the occasion of President Coolidge’s first formal inauguration after a resounding electoral victory in his own right the previous November. It is on this day, eighty-eight years ago, that he declared,

          If extravagance were not reflected in taxation, and through taxation both directly and indirectly injuriously affecting the people, it would not be of so much consequence. The wisest and soundest method of solving our tax problem is through economy. Fortunately, of all the great nations this country is best in a position to adopt that simple remedy. We do not any longer need war-time revenues. The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the action of their representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them.

Those are words worth remembering today. When self-government is responsibly exercised in this way, we have no reason to fear for the continuance of liberty under law.

On Wealth and Profits

Against the attempts to demonize “wealth” and “profits” eighty years ago, President Coolidge, in characteristic fashion, raised some fundamental question: if people do not make profits, from where do wages come? Who pays for the costs of production? By what means are people’s lives made better if not by the service of profitable businesses and wealth accumulation? He addresses each of these questions in his daily articles. It is his article from March 25th, 1931 that directly attacks the illogical hostility to “wealth.” Introducing the gift of one such wealthy individual upon her death of an estate just under $75 million (which would be about $1.1 today) to charity, he calls on the reader to remember what benefits result from such accumulation. It is, he would write, “one of the foundations of our progress. Distributed per capita, it would be ineffective; in accumulation, it supports our industries, raises the standard of living and endows educational, religious and charitable institutions. Almost all the time we find it genuinely employed in the service of the people.” Coolidge was hardly naive about those who abused great wealth, “chiefly to their own harm,” but neither did he ignore the multitude of exemplary men and women, like Ella Wendel in this article, who endowed libraries, museums, schools, foundations and numerous institutions dedicated to the betterment of people everywhere. The successful individuals who bequeathed them to us may be gone but their example and stewardship deserve our respect and emulation.

Image Ella Wendel with her dog, Toby

Image

Andrew Carnegie, whose endowments made possible over 2,500 libraries around the country and overseas.

Image

Andrew Mellon, pictured here with Amelia Earhart, gave the country the National Gallery of Art with his own collection forming its nucleus. Mellon also gave much to help numerous individuals during his lifetime and to fund several scientific innovations and private institutions long after he was gone.

None of these successful people could have given so much to so many without the accumulation of wealth derived from work.