INSTITUTE BRIEF
Volume 20, Number 12
April 2013
The Great Coolidge Revival
by John Hendrickson
A rediscovery is under way in regard to the presidencies of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge
and their policies, which led to the “Roaring Twenties.” Several articles and books — both published
and forthcoming — have been written in praise of the limited-government economic policies that
consisted of both spending and tax reductions that occurred during the Harding and Coolidge
administrations. Amity Shlaes, who is the Director of the 4 Percent Growth Project at the George W.
Bush Presidential Center and a noted economic historian, has recently published Coolidge, a fullscale biography of President Calvin Coolidge.
One of the main elements to Coolidge is the issue of debt and the economy, which was a major issue
in the 1920s just as it is today. Today the nation is confronted with a dangerously high level of debt,
slow economic growth, high taxation, and high unemployment. The national debt is $16.4 trillion
and rising and the federal government is running annual trillion-dollar deficits. The continuous high
unemployment is said to be the “new normal” for society. The source of private- sector uncertainty
is the escalating debt, expanded regulations, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the
future of tax policy.
These were similar issues that confronted both President Harding and President Coolidge. In 1921,
President Harding inherited a severe economic depression, which consisted of high unemployment,
slow economic growth, a national debt, and high levels of taxation. The Harding administration
called for restraint in regard to domestic policy, which was the direct opposite of the progressive
philosophy. The Harding economic program consisted of cutting government spending, lowering tax
rates, and paying down the national debt. The Harding administration began the successful policy of
debt, tax, and spending reductions, which Coolidge continued after Harding’s death in 1923.
“Like Warren Harding, Coolidge understood the value of predictability in government: that a
predictable tax policy and predictable policy toward debt were the basis for strong commerce,” wrote
Shlaes.1 Coolidge was not just an advocate for economy in government, but his political philosophy
was rooted in the principles of the American Founding. Coolidge was joined in his objective to
limit government by his Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, who also served in the Harding
cabinet, and by Herbert M. Lord, who served as Director of the Budget Bureau. The first Director of
the Budget Bureau under Harding, Charles G. Dawes, was now Vice President.
The Coolidge administration’s commitment to limited government or economy in government was a
success. As Shlaes described:
Under Coolidge, the federal debt fell. Under Coolidge the top income-tax rate came down
by half, to 25 percent. Under Coolidge, the federal budget was always in surplus. Under
Coolidge, unemployment was five percent or even three percent…Under Coolidge, the
economy grew strongly, even as the federal government shrank.2
A Publication of: Public Interest Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College
600 North Jackson Street, Mount Pleasant, Iowa 52641-1328
If you wish to support our efforts, please donate by sending a check to us at the above address.
If you wish to donate by credit card, please go to our website: www.LimitedGovernment.org.
PII is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization and all contributions are tax deductible.
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: 319-385-3462 Fax: 319-385-3799
Volume 20, Number 12
April 2013
Both cutting government spending and lowering the tax rate were Coolidge’s great priorities as
President, and it was the Harding-Coolidge policies that led to the national economic prosperity.
In Coolidge, Shlaes also argues that “the extent of the Coolidge achievement is not known.”3
Coolidge, just as with Harding, is often neglected by historians because of his policies, and many
scholars charge the Republican Presidents of the 1920s with negligence in causing the Great
Depression. This thesis is especially popular with the pro-New Deal historians who champion the
policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his fellow activist Presidents. Nevertheless, Shlaes
makes a serious case for Coolidge in regard to presidential greatness. “Indeed, Coolidge was a rare
kind of hero: a minimalist President, an economic general of budgeting and tax cuts,” wrote Shlaes.4
As Shlaes argues, “Coolidge is our great refrainer.”5
Shlaes argument in favor of Coolidge is actually resurrecting the traditional conservative view of the
presidency — that is, a restrained presidency as demonstrated by Presidents such as William Howard
Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. The nation can learn a lot from Coolidge, whose
commitment to constitutional principles desperately needs to be replicated today. As Shlaes wrote:
Perseverance, property rights, contracts, civility to one’s opponents, silence, smaller
government, trust, certainty, restraint, respect for faith, federalism, economy, and thrift: these
Coolidge ideals intrigue us today as well.6
Shlaes argues that “perhaps the deepest reason for Coolidge’s recent obscurity is that the thirtieth
President spoke a different economic language from ours.”7 “Our modern economic lexicon and the
theories behind it cannot capture Coolidge’s achievements or those of his predecessor, Warren G.
Harding,” argued Shlaes.8 This is certainly true, especially in the post-New Deal and Great Society
eras in which the political culture of the nation has changed. It is debated whether or not Coolidgestyle solutions can be applied to today’s problems, but policymakers would be well served to follow
the Coolidge example. Whether the issue is cutting government spending, tax reduction, trade, or
immigration — all issues front and center today — Presidents Harding and Coolidge provide a
blueprint to solve these difficult problems.
By writing Coolidge, Amity Shlaes is changing the historiography of both the 1920s and presidential
history, and she is reminding conservatives of not only a forgotten hero, but the need to rediscover
traditional conservative principles.
Endnotes:
1
Amity Shlaes, Coolidge, HarperCollins, New York, 2013, p. 7.
Ibid., p. 6.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 7.
5
Ibid., p. 9.
6
Ibid., p. 12.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
2
John Hendrickson is a Research Analyst with Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, Iowa.
Contact him at [email protected].
Permission to reprint or copy in whole or part is granted, provided a version of this credit line is used:
"Reprinted by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute."
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of
Public Interest Institute. They are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry.