reality

On the Individual

/ gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

It was on Memorial Day in Northampton, 1923, that Vice President Coolidge said,

“…[I]f our republic is to be maintained and improved it will be through the efforts and character of the individual. It will be, first of all, because of the influences which exist in the home, for it is the ideals which prevail in the home life which make up the strength of the nation. The homely virtues must continue to be cultivated. The real dignity, the real nobility of work must be cherished. It is only through industry that there is any hope for individual development. The viciousness of waste and the value of thrift must continue to be learned and understood. Civilization rests on conservation. To these there must be added religion, education, and obedience to law. These are the foundation of all character in the individual and all hope in the nation.”

When Coolidge spoke of conservation here, he was speaking of its broad sense, the preservation of not merely material resources but moral ones. If the Republic is to continue, it will be due to the moral resources of the individual, not the powers of Government. He was no libertarian nor sympathetic to objectivism, both notions that would have struck him as self-defeating and short-sighted. He knew the individual was not liberated from public responsibilities to his or her neighbor. He also knew the government had a clear role to legislate and demand obedience to law. No man was absolutely free in the exercise of one’s rights or duties. Such was a responsibility to each other as we live together in society. His outlook was rooted in a far more resilient foundation, the example of service set by Christ.

It is the individual with the real power to uphold the soundness of our future. It was the deep reservoir of an individual’s moral capital that make civilization possible, the value of whom is bestowed by God, nurtured by the instructions of the home, instilled with virtues like thrift, strengthened by religious faith, and developed with an informed mind that retains reverence for the supremacy of the law upon all people. It was the individual that would keep Benjamin Franklin’s warning from fulfillment. A Republic, with duty-minded individuals such as Coolidge describes (as opposed to the self-centered or hedonistic) would find faithful men and women through whom to entrust its legacy to the next generation. Devoid of such individuals, no civilization is secure.

On Leading By Example

/ gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

Example is the heart of leadership. Anyone can tell someone what to do, how it should be done and what will happen when instructions are not followed. In short, anyone can be a bureaucrat. Possessing leadership is something entirely different. While it is not always, and some would say not usually, an official position, the approach of successful leaders follows the same course every time. Without a conscientious commitment to duty manifested in example, one is merely “that jerk” in the office. By throwing one’s weight around, reminding people of your authority, and refusing to put hand to the wheel and work, especially when conditions burden everyone, it only breeds resentment and exposes an utter lack of one’s qualifications to lead. Without the keen sense of moral obligation tempered with humility, even Presidents reveal their mettle.

Leadership is not simply who has the most ideas, consider Herbert Hoover. Leadership is not simply who has the most amiable personality, consider Warren Harding. Leadership, especially of Chief Executives, is a profound call to serve, not be served. The inconsistency between one’s words and one’s actions could not be hidden forever and for honest leaders, such is never tolerable. For men like Coolidge, the oath and the office were serious responsibilities to be exercised with utmost respect and self-discipline. Those who lack such qualities are never able to conceal them completely from the people.

The inception of the Budget Bureau illustrates the strength of Coolidge’s leadership. The Bureau was the result of some nine years of persistent effort to bring about responsible budgeting at the national level. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, some twenty-eight consecutive years had kept balanced budgets, ensuring that government expenditures were carefully met within revenues. Surpluses defined these years and it was simply a matter of good sense to so manage the public household. That began to change with the feckless habits of the Benjamin Harrison years and when deficits hit six years in a row, from 1904-1910, something had to be done. It was President Taft who advocated replacing the piecemeal approach with a coordinated and deliberate budgeting process for all government departments. They would go through a formal system that prioritized cutting waste and practicing the strict economy it preached to others. It would be sidelined during the Wilson administration, underscoring how those considered the most “forward-thinking” today would be left in the dust by conservatives such as Taft, Harding and Coolidge, the latter being the most tenacious advocate of modern budgeting. It would be under Harding that the two Congressional bills for this concept would find effective support and quick passage into law as the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Bureau found realization with Harding’s prudent selection of General Charles Dawes, as its first Director. Suitably, Dawes would serve alongside Coolidge as his bold and flamboyant Vice President.

It would be Coolidge, however, (with Bureau Director, General Herbert Mayhew Lord) who would bring both a meticulous and relentless approach to cutting down the debt and restoring surpluses. Continuing to hack away at every possible area of waste, the President, General Lord and his staff of 45 people, ensured that government spending was kept down despite constant efforts to the contrary. At the end of six straight years of surpluses, the nation’s debt had dropped to $16.9 from $22.3 billion at the beginning of Coolidge’s Presidency. Directing those growing surpluses toward productive ends became more and more difficult as Congress sought increased spending levels rather than returning those surpluses to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, as Coolidge sought.

The Coolidge Administration, and his team of Mellon and Lord did more than talk about benefiting people with these policies, they lived them. Lord’s Bureau was proud of the fact that it used every supply until it wore out. Mellon would give $52 million of his personal income to charity, giving to people generations in the future, not including his generous gifts to the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian. Coolidge, ever conscious of his moral duty to Americans, saved much of his Presidential salary and, when his friends sought to establish his official library (before such entities were funded by public money), he gave it all to help the blind. These were leaders not by virtue of their position in government or their campaign rhetoric but by virtue of their genuine demonstration of service toward others. It is time for a renewed commitment to leadership by example.

Image

On the Danger of Cynicism

/ gouverneurmorris / Leave a comment

It has always been easier to criticize and find fault than to contribute toward and respect the constructive ideal. Optimists, always the creators, have to work not only to realize what previously seemed impossible but they also have to overcome the destructive habits of the pessimists. Those pessimists are the first to surrender in the face of difficulty while they trumpet the message of hopelessness. “Nor is it worth trying,” these closet nihilists aver. Failure to measure up to certain expectations is enough for some to give up entirely on a project and declare defeat for the cause. America is no different. It has always had a healthy share of pessimists and other weak-willed “experts” who knew it would fail in this or that endeavor. The purpose of America, as Coolidge would reiterate, remains valid. It has raised for all the world to see a set of truths that preserve liberty with duty in a way that no set of principles has before, or can surpass. The failure to eradicate all the failings and frailties inherent in human nature is no more proof of failure than evidence of any grander success by empowering government now to accomplish it for us. For these “armchair” critics, it discredits the entire foundation and persuades them that progress means abandoning moral clarity, surrendering confidence in self-government entirely and trusting in our modernity to move past the “old” and “inadequate” concepts of an “ignorant” and “limited” eighteenth century existence. It would be one thing to adopt so foolhardy and naively defeatist outlook for oneself. These self-proclaimed skeptics are imparting this to the next generation, however, through “modern education.” To this issue of education, Coolidge turned in June of 1922, when he said,

“This is the civilization which intelligence has created and which sacrificed has redeemed. We did not make it. It is our duty to serve it. Education ought to assess it at its true worth. It ought not to despise it but reverence it. If there be in education a better estimation of true values, it must be on the side of a great optimism. Under its examination human relationship stands forth as justified and sanctified. There is no place for the cynic or the pessimist. Who is he that can take no part in business because he believes it is selfish? Who is he that can take no part in religion because he believes it is imperfect? These institutions are the instruments by which an eternal purpose is working out the salvation of the world. It is not for us to regard them with disdain; it is for us to work with them, to dedicate ourselves to them, to justify our faith in them…The great service which education must perform is to confirm our faith in the world, establish our settled convictions, and maintain an open mind.”

The annual American Educational Research Association meeting in April made evident that improved testing and eradicating poverty are but symptoms of an education missing its core. As schools all across the country let out for the summer, now is an ideal time to consider the service education is actually rendering for us and our children. Is it consigning our proven ideals to failure, proclaiming a gospel of hopelessness and permanent moral uncertainty? Is it rejecting the worth of Christian standards of behavior because America is forever trapped, they claim, in racism, hypocrisy, chauvinism, bigotry and oppression? Is it championing the control of a few who can finally achieve the perfection which is our right, if only we abandon this failed framework of eighteenth century slaveholders? Such goes the cynic’s mantra. What is not so readily apparent are the rocks waiting on the other side of those words. It has wrecked and will continue to wreck the lives of those who are taught to embrace pessimism, to rely on the force of government to compensate for all of America’s shortcomings. The cynic, ultimately, doubts liberty. America has never worked, he assumes, so why work at it as responsible and informed citizens? Just as Coolidge remarked, though, an open mind can co-exist with settled convictions. Forever holding out undecided on everything is the perfect soil for cynicism. Moral relativity, taught by too many schools in this country, is actually moral surrender in a more subtle form. On the contrary, knowing certain things are right and true broadens the mind to keep learning. It is the pessimist whose mind is closed, failing to accept that the people can be trusted with their liberty far more than government has or ever will. Education serves its purpose when it keeps that flame of optimism in our ideals alive. It is the more difficult task than the ease of cynicism but faith is vindicated in the end.

Image