The Political Thought of Calvin Coolidge. Thomas J. Tacoma
for President in 1928” statement. When Herbert Hoover triumphed over Democrat Al Smith in a landslide, Coolidge quietly retired to Northampton. He and Grace found daily life too much disrupted by gawking spectators who would drive past their home on Massasoit Street in hopes of seeing the popular former president, so they moved to a more private location. There Coolidge lived his brief final years. He died on January 5, 1933, of a coronary thrombosis. He was sixty years old.[9]
The State of Coolidge Scholarship
Most Coolidge scholars have been biographers. The occasional intellectual historian has taken up his ideas and traced them to major sources of origin, but most studies of Coolidge have been biographical. Other works that touch on Coolidge have generally been historically oriented, for Coolidge features little in presidential studies and less in American political thought.[10] This should be at least somewhat surprising—Herbert Hoover is the subject of a large number of scholarly books on political thought in the 1920s, and even Warren G. Harding has his defenders and interpreters.[11] There is a definite gap here.
Historical studies of Coolidge largely fall into one of two camps. On one side stand those general histories of the era and its social thought, such as Paul Murphy’s The New Era: American Thought and Culture in the 1920s or Niall Palmer’s The Twenties in America: Politics and History, which mention Coolidge but usually without significant reference to his relation to America’s constitutional order.[12] On the other side, there are the Coolidge biographies, such as Amity Shlaes’s Coolidge or Robert Sobel’s Coolidge: An American Enigma, which focus on his life and thought but almost always much more on his presidency. In between there are specific studies of Coolidge-era policies or occasionally of his specific actions (for example, handling the Boston police strike, his childhood years, or his administration’s handling of European debt crises).[13] One exception to this pattern is Robert Ferrell’s outstanding study of Coolidge’s presidency, The Presidency of Calvin Coolidge, which begins to bridge the divide between biography and thought.
Coolidge biographies themselves have a history. The earliest biographers wrote during Coolidge’s lifetime and often with some political goal in mind—helping to elect him, or the converse.[14] Most of the work on Coolidge done between his death in 1933 and the 1980s was written by Progressive historians or their students, and they consequently maintained some bias against Coolidge, his policies, and his ideas. These include biographies such as William Allen White’s A Puritan in Babylon and Donald McCoy’s Calvin Coolidge: The Quiet President, as well as general historical works, such as Arthur Schlesinger’s Crisis of the Old Order.[15] These writers shaped the image of Coolidge for later generations of historians, including the textbook portrayal of Cal as a silent, stand-pat reactionary who sought to promote big businesses at the expense of everyone else (an image unfortunately repeated in David Kennedy’s magisterial Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War and later in David Greenberg’s Calvin Coolidge).[16] However, beginning in the early 1980s, an effort to recover Coolidge and to vindicate his policies began. Thomas Silver’s Coolidge and the Historians marked the beginning of a changing tide when he took Schlesinger and other historians to task for their errors, distortions, and misrepresentations of Coolidge. Historian Paul Johnson likewise had high praise for Coolidge.[17] Some years later, Robert Sobel took up the task of writing a new and sympathetic biography of Coolidge—which biography stands out as the finest study of his political thought to date. Then, in 2013, Charles Johnson, Niall Palmer, and Amity Shlaes published independent biographical or political studies of Coolidge.[18] Their work has sought to remove the prejudices of earlier generations of biographers, to write sympathetically yet not uncritically of Coolidge.
In the much smaller field of studies that touch specifically on Coolidge’s ideas, several useful works have recently come to print. John Almon Waterhouse claims chronological precedence for his study of the connection between Charles Garman’s teaching and Coolidge’s political ideas in Calvin Coolidge Meets Charles Edward Garman, though L. John Van Til claims pride of place as better interpreter of the intellectual connections between them for Thinking Cal Coolidge: An Inquiry into the Roots of His Intellectual Life.[19] Arthur Fleser wrote a brief but illuminating volume on Coolidge’s rhetoric, which provided much-needed light on Coolidge’s writing style and speeches.[20] Most recently, Joseph Postell in 2013 and Gordon Arnold in 2019 have made a great effort to begin recovering Coolidge as a serious political thinker. In “‘Roaring’ against Progressivism: Calvin Coolidge’s Principled Conservativism,” Postell interprets Coolidge in the light of the American founding, and Arnold suggests in “Calvin Coolidge: Classical Statesman,” that Coolidge is best understood through the teachings of the great classical political philosophers.[21]
Coolidge’s Political Thought
The path of biography has been well trodden by able historians. My enterprise has been to unearth and examine Coolidge’s principal political beliefs—his core political principles and the rationale behind the policies he supported both in Massachusetts and as president of the United States. The goal has also been to set Coolidge’s thought in clearer relief by contrasting his ideas with the dominant Progressive thinkers of the era, especially fellow presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Coolidge has often been interpreted as a conservative’s conservative. In this telling, he was an apologist for the large corporations that dominated business during the 1920s and the embodiment of an older America, one which was fading from the scene and passed with him into the dust bin of history in 1933. The political party structure and divisions which had lasted since the Civil War came to an end during Coolidge’s lifetime: the age of Republican domination in national politics ended abruptly with the success of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.
This book challenges that understanding of Coolidge. A more careful study of his political thought, one which relies more on his actual words and ideas than on what his critics wrote about him, reveals the portrait of a reformer and responsible statesman, a Burkean Americanist. Coolidge took his political ideas from his vision of humane civilization (discussed at length in chapter 3). On one hand, this was a departure from the principles of the American founding. Coolidge was not looking, in the final analysis, to the truths of the Declaration of Independence, the principles espoused by Hamilton, Madison, or Adams, but to a modern notion of “civilization.” This should not be surprising—civilization was the watchword of the era, as much as progress. In fact, the argument of this book is that Coolidge was far more moderate a Republican than most studies of him have recognized.
Coolidge’s Americanism was clear in every speech he gave and book he wrote: he loved the American regime that he had inherited, and he defended its institutions all his life. But what does it mean to associate Coolidge with Burke?
It does not mean that Coolidge was a devoted reader of Edmund Burke, nor that Coolidge consciously imitated Burke in his political career. To the contrary, there is no evidence that Coolidge read or reflected at length on Burke’s life or works. However, there is substantial conceptual overlap in their thinking and their approach to politics, which justifies labeling Coolidge a Burkean. Coolidge and Burke shared a kindred spirit in their understanding of political reform, perhaps most fundamentally in their dispositions to conserve, even while they sought to build up their respective regimes. Society was complex, and sudden, radical reforms were destabilizing and dangerous. Burke taught that the British constitution was a creature of slow growth and organic development. Coolidge spoke similarly of American society. They conceived of politics and political reform in terms of multi-generational labor. The words of Edmund Burke in the Reflections on the Revolution in France that “people will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors” found their abridged parallel in Coolidge’s affirmation that “no people can look forward who do not look backward.”[22] There was substantial conceptual overlap in drawing a distinction between civilization and barbarism. This theme was fundamental and explicit for Coolidge, implicitly assumed by Burke. Similarities in their thought extend to other areas: both interpreted the American War