The Political Thought of Calvin Coolidge. Thomas J. Tacoma
As pastors and theologians increasingly confronted the challenges brought to their congregations by the industrial transformations around them, they began to articulate new views of the meaning of Christianity for the modern world. These new conceptions were of a social Christianity, a faith that spoke directly to social ills. This was a Christianity made applicable to the problems of their cities. Social gospel preachers lent the traditional authority of the Christian churches to the proposed reforms of the era; their presence among the Progressives arguably provided a reassuring respectability to the movement and boosted its popular appeal.[47]
The leading American social gospel teachers were Washington Gladden, Richard T. Ely, and Walter Rauschenbusch. Gladden, sometimes referred to as the “the father of the social gospel,” published his Working People and Their Employers in 1876, seeking fairness in labor-capital relations.[48] Gladden, like most other social gospel preachers, was a theological liberal. More influential in developing the social thought and theology of the social gospel movement was Walter Rauschenbusch, professor of Church History at Rochester Seminary. He wrote several volumes explaining and promoting the social approach to Christianity, including Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907), Christianizing the Social Order (1912), and A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917).[49] Another American liberal theologian of the era, Shailer Matthews (Dean of the Chicago Divinity School) wrote Church and the Changing Order in 1907, which was the same year as Rauschenbusch’s first major book was released. This was Progressivism’s prime, and Matthews’ book was hailed “as placing the Social Gospel on a firm scientific footing.”[50]
The key teachings of the social gospel preachers were relatively few. First, they believed that the social principles of the historical Jesus (a reinterpreted version of the biblical Jesus) should be applied to all societies. Second, this historical Jesus taught the immanence of God as Father of all and the corollary idea, the brotherhood of all mankind. Third, social gospel theologians believed that the heart of Jesus’ message was the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth—a realization of the eschaton in human history. Through the active and reforming work of men, progress toward the realization of the Kingdom was possible.[51] Progress was possible, though not automatic. Men (and women) must work to improve conditions on earth to bring it about. As with the other philosophies considered here, the social gospel doctrine rejected the ideas of an unchanging human nature—including the Augustinian understanding of original sin and man’s sinfulness in general—as well as eternal verities of natural law. Indeed, one scholar of the social gospel movement recognized the influence of several key philosophers already named—Hegel, Comte, Darwin, Spencer, and Sumner—as major influences in the development of the social teachings of the social gospel.[52]
Progressivism as a coherent political reform movement emerged from this ideological and intellectual ferment. These philosophical strands—historical thinking and historicism, pragmatism, social Darwinism, positivism, and the social gospel—were interwoven throughout the Progressive thinking of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. No one philosophy individually constituted Progressivism, but each added to the intellectual gravity of the movement as a whole.
Principles of Progressive Thought
The confluence of these philosophic streams was found in the unifying principles of the Progressive movement and its reforms. It is because of their consensus on matters of principle that “the Progressives” and “Progressivism” can be described as a coherent body of thought.[53] In brief, they shared six widely held beliefs, which included (1) the historical contingency of truth, (2) faith in human progress, (3) a critique of older American political truths and institutions, (4) a redefined understanding of leadership, (5) confidence in direct democracy, and (6) belief in scientific government by expert administrators.[54]
As the earlier sections have explained, at the philosophic level, the fundamental agreement of the Progressives was in their doctrine of historical contingency. Truth was a function of history. This means that an idea or principle is good only for its time, inasmuch as it works (pragmatism) or it represents the spirit of the age (Hegelian historicism) or it accords with the evolutionary development of the people (Darwinism). Recognizing the contingency of all truth involved rejecting earlier theories that argued for truth as valid for all times and in all places. For Progressives, the idea of something being “right by nature”—and thus there being rights by nature as opposed to those merely granted by society—had to be abandoned. Instead, the work of politicians was to discern the current conditions through empirical study and thereby to understand what truths were applicable—which policy measures promised the most preferable outcomes. As conditions moved, so too do solutions to political, economic, or cultural problems.[55]
Second, Progressives coupled their historical thinking with a confidence in historical progress. Progress meant gradual improvement toward a better future. In some cases, such as with Hegelian Progressives, progress was toward a definite end-of-history. The rational state, which is the social community in which every individual recognized his full individuality and freedom within the state’s freedom—this was the target and ultimate end-goal.[56] Progressives of a less idealistic stripe believed in a gradual but unending progress. As human nature evolved, as human society was continuously adjusted to its changing conditions, the race would progress. Still, Progressives did not believe Progress was simply and merely automatic. Progress required human striving, effort, and strenuous labor.[57] Through such a recognition, Progressives energized their movement. A secularized (though sometimes very religious) faith in human progress animated their reforming spirit.
Third, the practical effect of embracing the doctrines of historical contingency and progress meant the wholesale rejection or redefinition of earlier American political truths and institutions. For Progressives, the great error of the “standpatters” was to cling to truths that were no longer relevant for modern times. The writings of such leading academic Progressives as Charles Beard, J. Allen Smith, or Carl Becker frequently reminded their readers that the Declaration and Constitution were written long ago to address old problems. They may have been good for their times, but now they were out of date.[58] Old truths needed to be updated and adjusted to the current environment. Other ideas—for example, of people forming their governments through reflection and choice, according to social contract theories developed by philosophers like John Locke—must be rejected as complete errors in reasoning. Governments and societies grow and develop naturally. They are not created by the mind of man.[59] The Constitution and its separation of powers must also be understood as relative to its own time. In the eighteenth century, constitutions were written to follow Montesquieu’s advice, but in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, men had evolved past the need for such a strict separation. Now it was clear that separation of powers between branches of government stood as an obstacle to good government and healthy reforms; constitutional formalism (strict adherence to the text of the Constitution) would need to be abandoned in order to make the federal government relevant to the problems of modern life.[60]
Fourth, Progressives also found agreement in their reinterpretation of political leadership. In this more organic conception of government and society, some necessary leader was called upon to see more clearly the direction of history, the needs of the moment, and the true will of the people. The direction of historical change was not always clear. The people certainly could not discern for themselves where it was going. However, some great men destined by “providence” had deeper insight into their own times and the ability to translate their understanding of history’s currents to the people. These were the rightful leaders who should and must take the helm in order to guide political affairs correctly. This was still genuinely democratic, for the leaders did nothing against the true will of the people. All the same, leadership often included explaining to the people what their real, objective will was.[61] In some cases, this explanation might take a great deal of time and effort before the people could recognize their true will.
For the Progressives, it was the president of the United States who was best positioned to embody this new conception of leadership. The president alone among officers of the government was elected by the whole nation. By virtue of his unitary office, he was a most