Everybody looks mostly settled. So welcome again here in the afternoon. My name is . Jarod rhodes. Im the speech and debate director for the Coolidge Foundation. Our program is an exciting. We give we provide opportunities for High Schoolers to, engage in speech and debate, and thereby learn and develop and practice the skills of oratory and rhetoric, civil engagement, research. You have to do a lot that in writing your own speeches as well. Of course, along the way we give them a big dose of coolidge material as well. And so they learn quite a bit about our 30th president as of our program. You might be how its structured. We have tournaments across the nation. Weve in idaho this year. Weve been in dallas in december, just came back north carolina. We have tournaments all all across the country and we qualify students essentially to the coolidge cup, which is our championship tournament that we hold each july in plymouth, vermont and in the coolidge historic site, we i know its been its been noted that we have our 1890 society here and we have about 17, only about 51, 1890 Society Members that ever been inducted. We had about a third of our all of inductees here at this conference today. Want to give a little bit of a hand for that representing. The 1890 society is our debater society. So these are its its something that you get inducted to in your senior year. If youre a particular standout in include speech and debate, hopefully youve had a chance to, you know, maybe converse with them in, you know, in between the breakfasts and the lunches and so on and so forth. If you got into a debate with any of them, my apology is, you know, maybe we should you lost and so we probably should have given a little bit of a warning. No, but they they are quite good at what they do. And were were really proud to that theyre that theyre on our team and that we are able to send them out into the world with with such great skills. Speaking of a we have one 1819 Society Member here who is going to a coolidge declamation. So allow me to call up coolidge cup champion, a native of rock, texas, and a current robertson scholar, matthew sweet. And come on out, matthew. In 1890, a Young Calvin Coolidge looked out upon his audience at the black River Academy and delivered a speech for his high school graduate. Its theme was oratory in history. The year 1890 was fit for our society then for three reasons. First, this was the moment at which coolidge stepped into his role as a powerful and commanding orator. Second, it was spoken to school students, the same age group that competes at these incredible tournaments. And finally the speech was about the rich american of history. With that, i would like to thank the Coolidge Foundation for putting together a network of some of the brightest most intellectually curious in principled Young Leaders that ive had the chance interact with. Thank you all so much for that. On august 1922, Calvin Coolidge spoke to the American Bar Association in san francisco, california the topic of his speech was the of the law. In this excerpt, Calvin Coolidge speaks to the balance between state action and social responsibility. His words echo with truth. Today, the growing multiplicity laws has often been observed. The national and state legislatures pass acts. Their courts deliver opinions, which each year run into the score of thousands a part of this is due to the increasing complexity of an advancing civilization. As new forces come in to existence, new relationships are created new rights and obligations arise which require establishment and definition by legislation and decision. These are all the natural and inevitable of the growth of . Great cities . The development of steam and electricity . The use of the corporations in is the leading factor in the transact of business and the attendant regulation and control of the powers created by these new and mighty agencies. The effort and insistent desire for an equitable distribution of the rewards industry for a justice, for a more righteousness in human affairs, is one of the most stimuli leading and hopeful of the present era. There ought to be a militant public demand for progress in this direction. The society which is satisfied it, is lost. But in the of these ends, there needs to be a better understanding of the province of legislation in judicial action. There is a danger of disappointment and disaster. Unless there be a wider comprehension of the limitations of the law as the standard of civilization rises, there is a necessity for a larger and larger outlay to maintain the cost of its existence as the activities of government increase, as it extends its field of operations. The initial tax it requires becomes manifold at many times over when it is finally paid by the ultimate consumer. When there is added to aggravated financial condition, an increase in the amount of regulation in police control. The burden of it all becomes very great behind very many of these in activities lies the untenable theory that there is some shortcut to perfection, that it is the conceit that there can be a horizontal elevation of the standards of the nation immediate and perceptible by, the simple device of new laws. This has never been the case in human existence. Progress is slow in the result of a long and, arduous process of self discipline. It is not conferred the people. It comes from the people. In a republic, the law reflects rather than makes the standard of conduct in the state Public Opinion real. Reform does not begin with the law. It ends with a law. The attempt to dragoon the body when it is needed to. When the need is to convince the soul will only end in. Under the attempt perform the impossible. There sets a general disintegration. When legislation fails, those who look upon it as a sovereign remedy simply cry out for more legislation. A sound in wise which recognizes and to abide by its limitations will undoubtedly find itself displayed by that type of public official who promises much talks, much legislation, much expends, much, but accomplishes little. The deliberate and sound judgment of the country is likely to find. It has been superseded by a popular whim. The independence. The legislator is broken down. The enforcement of the law becomes. The courts fail, in their function of speedy and accurate. Their judgments are questioned. And their independence is threatened. The law changed, changeable on slight provocation, loses its sanctity and its authority. A continuation of this condition. The road to chaos. It is time to supplement the appeal to law, which is limited with an appeal to the spirit of people, which is unlimited. Some un settlements disturb, but they are temporary. Some fatuous elements exist. But they are small. No. Of the material conditions americans can warrant anything but the highest courage and the deepest faith. No, upon the National Character has ever been betrayed. No survey goes below the surface, can fail to discover a solid and substantial foundation for satisfaction. But our countrymen must remember they have and can have no dependance save themselves. Our laws are their laws. It is for them to enforce support in. If in this they fail are none who can succeed the sanctity of duly constituted must be maintained and allegiance to Public Authority must be required with the citizens ship which voluntarily establishes in these the cause of america is secure. Without all else is of little avail. Thank you. Well, now move to our final panel. The conference. Session seven titled Mount Rushmore and the presidency. Our moderator this afternoon is spalding. Dr. Spalding is the kerby professor and constitute government at hillsdale college. And as the dean of hillsdale has been will graduate school of government in washington, d. C. Dr. Spalding is the author of numerous, including the bestselling book we still hold these truths rediscovering our principles, reclaiming our future. Please join me in welcoming dr. And our panelists to the stage. Which. Thank you all. Good afternoon. I want to begin by thanking amity, the great work of the Coolidge Foundation, for what theyre doing, restoring coolidges standing, but also spreading and teaching his his message. Our panel today is weve called the Mount Rushmore panel. And thats not just because of our chiseled good looks and granite features. But as an attempt, assess coolidges larger president ial legacy. Coolidge spoke at the dedication ceremony at mt. Rushmore in the summer of 1927, when that work was just beginning to take shape. There he spoke briefly about four president s to be inscribed to the memorial washington, the foremost disciple of ordered liberty, not outranked by any mortal greatness. Jefferson, whose wisdom ensured that government should be entrusted to the administration of the people. Lincoln, who demonstrated the permanency of our union and extended the principle freedom to all the inhabitants of our land. Theodore roosevelt, who saw the principles for which these three men stood, might be still more firmly established. Future American School age concluded will know the figure of these president s has been placed there because by following the truth they built fraternity. The fundamental principles which they represented been wrought into the very of our country. The question where does Calvin Coolidge fit in our president ial pantheon . I want to begin briefly by suggesting reconsider a higher standard. There was a bit of a back in the 1980s, thomas silver, a colleague of mine and dr. , argued the time in his book Calvin Coolidge and historians that such a of coolidges is difficult given the damaging attacks made by partizan critics of his time, which thereafter became a key narrative in the new deal. Historians read the accounts of. Alan evans or can you still consider above all . Alexander excuse me Arthur Schlesinger jr and you will see this mythology part of the official narrative of modern liberalism passed down to later historians who prejudiced. Repeat the same stories more generally. Our assessment of president ial greatness shaded today by modern Sciences Success and displays in the old model of politics with the modern theory of leadership first laid out by progressive archetype, our only professional academic to be president woodrow. We are today ruled more by expertise and following models of bureaucratic making and live under the administration of politics rather, look to the deliberation and judgment, prudence and political wisdom of statesmen. And yet, despite the modern historians and academic theorists strikes me just as it strike any close reader and any student of actual history that coolidge has more common with washington and, lincoln than any other modern president. When reagan famously Thomas Jeffersons portrait in the cabinet room with that of Calvin Coolidge spurring that early revival 30th president i it was not a displacement of jefferson as much as a recognition that coolidge may well be the best representative of the 20th century jeffersonian ism. Thats because coolidge, unlike the dominant intellectual and political presses of his day or our day, for that matter, understood deeply the trans historical ends and open purposes of the american regime, especially as expressed in the declaration of independence after lincoln who was following washington and jefferson. Coolidge was most significant and substantive interpreter of those concepts. The progressives understood politics to be determined by the spirit to the changing times to progress and the need for progressive leadership. Coolidge thought that things the spirit would come first and that no or progress can be made beyond the fundamental truths to the declaration. His claim to those things, he famously said, are all our material prosperity will. Turn to a barren scepter in our grasp into the politics of prudence and the necessity of statesmanship. But there can be no without statesmen. While circumstances often reveal greatness, circumstances do not determine the virtue, neither do historians or political scientists. Thanks be to god. While circumstances often reveal it should be any assessment. Thus of Calvin Coolidge requires a higher standard of statesmanship. This, despite the fact that just before speaking at Mount Rushmore, coolidge announced, he would not run reelection in 1928. Well, it is a great to a president and a major source of safety to the country for him to know that he is not a great man. That said, then what, is coolidges legacy. We have a great for you to assess this. I am mostly a historian of washington and lincoln and the early american presidency. Our first speaker today is craig furman, who has studied many president s as writers and the author of author and chief, where he writes about coolidge as one of americas best writer president s great. Thank you, matthew. Thank you to amity and thank you to all of you for coming out. Theres theres a lot of things you could be doing this afternoon, so its really nice that youre spending it with us. Talking about president s and history. Today i want to celebrate coolidges talent and legacy. A president ial writer. Both have been overlooked. Forget the silent cal nonsense. Coolidge built. His career. Not by being quiet, but by being especially between the covers of. Two hugely important books. Books that cleverly capitalized on his new forms of celebrity and commerce. So there are two main categories for political books. The campaign book, which helps you get to the white house and the legacy book which helps you reflect on and cash in on your time. There. Coolidge wrote an all time example of both have faith in massachusetts appeared in 1919, collecting many of his speeches as governor. Coolidge took speech seriously. His wife, grace herself was a superb and underrated writer, remembered him writing those speeches pencil so he could revise them again. And again. None of them was ever wholly satisfactory to him at the time. Grace recalled afterward, he read one and say that was a pretty good speech after all this produced a deceptively simple style. Short sentences elementary and a gift for aphorism that another new england writer, benjamin franklin, would have liked. But prose is only part of a book success. It also needs marketing, distribution, buzz and behind the scenes have received expert help. A famous editor chose the title with a book called base state orations was another option. Have coolidge to the white house. A businessman man used his industry contacts to secure the paper for a speedy reprint just before 1920 republican convention. This era also saw the of advertising shops and Public Relations firms and experts from both professions. Coolidges book in the National Media and on the convention floor. One appreciative reader was a delegate from oregon who nominated coolidge for the vice presidency. I knew the man who wrote those speeches was a patriot. The delegate told reporters after the fact. Coolidges book was his campaign, and his campaign was his book. Once became president , coolidge became a true celebrity. Now, this era also saw the rise of new kind of national star, thanks to radio and magazines and movie theaters. One newspaper introduced coolidge to the National Audience like this, quote, the governor looks like a typical yankee of the movies. Consumers wanted to glimpse the personal and personal lives of their celebrities to know not just what theyd accomplished, but also what brand of cigarets they smoked. One reason coolidge was so popular a politician was that he could appeal to both forms of celebrity at the same time. He came from authentic vermont farmers, but he was also happy to pose on that farm for photographers. Coolidge was also a writer. Still, though, he had less time for it as president during his second term, the New York Times declared him the most literary man who has occupied the white house since 1865, and that the way that when coolidge saw that article, he actually wrote personal letter to the reporter, the correspondent at the times, because that meant so much to him, because he was somebody who really cared a lot about his writing. But lines like that created these expectations that were huge for coolidge. His president ial memoirs, which appeared in 29. The book began as a series of essays in cosmopolitan, was a general interest magazine at the time. Mr. Coolidge, his own story, blared the april cover and the first essay gave readers the personal insights they craved from their celebrities, especially in coolidges account of his teenage son, calvin jr, who died of an infected blister while the family lived in the white house. Coolidges accounts remain not just personal, but beautiful and brutally honest. Im going to read you some lines here that really still hit even today in his suffering, coolidge wrote. My son, he was asking me to make him well. I could not the most powerful man in the world admitted that in this moment he felt powerless. Even years later he remained lacerate and unsure. Quote, if i not been president , he would not have raised a blister. I do not know why such price was exacted for occupying the white house. As coolidge put it in his essays final line. It costs a great deal. Be president. On the morning that issue went on sale, grace went out early to buy it at a newsstand. And it was a good thing because by the end of the day, the issue had essentially disappeared nationwide, even though cosmopolitan had printed hundreds of thousands of extra copies. Scalpers were selling copies for a dollar apiece. Cosmopolitan requests for additional inventory from. 2000 cities. Calvin coolidge, noted Publishers Weekly has received more publicity in one day than the author George Bernard shaw receives in three years. Coolidges autobiography became a massive bestseller and made him quite wealthy. It is also remarkably brief and remarkably for a political memoir. Perhaps of this conferences other presenters might benefit from his example. Taken together, coolidges books prove that silent. Carol was actually a wonderful writer, a careful reader and a savvy celebrity. Today, its easy to miss each of those qualities in him, but its also asking what qualities matter to most. Then and now. After all, in washington, we have plenty of celebrities. But do we have enough writers and readers. That. Thank you, craig. Our next speaker, dr. Stephen hayward. Hayward is a resident scholar at uc berkeleys of government studies program. Hes actually a on many president s, but he is the author of what i considered to be the best biography of Ronald Reagan. Two volume biography and the brought general title of the age of reagan, which think competes with age of roosevelt as a monumental history of very important president. Dr. That was the idea. I think. So leave it to amity shlaes to come up with something as provocative, an outrageous and seemingly preposterous as proposing Calvin Coolidge for Mount Rushmore. Im exactly im going to try and im going to try and get him in there. But if if you think i have the receipts from this, you go back to when, as was mentioned, Ronald Reagan put Calvin Coolidge picture up in the cabinet room down Thomas Jeffersons picture to put it there. The outrage in the media was deafening. And so itd be fun to say, yeah, the next thing should be to put him on Mount Rushmore. Your times to be had with that idea. But i think hes actually halfway there, and im going to try and get him the rest of the way here. It does require as laid out very well, a different standard for evaluating our statesmen. You know there has been a rise in his reputation matt mentioned a couple of key figures like tom silver. Paul johnson got a lot of the story right in modern times, of course, culminating amity spectacular biography. And this foundation, of course i when i was college back around the time of the boer war, i think my contemporary history professor going through, you know, the run up to the depression, set up Calvin Coolidge, and this is all he said of Calvin Coolidge as well. If took the Washington Monument and dug a commensurate in the ground, that would be a fitting monument for Calvin Coolidge is to america. And that was it. No argument, no specifics. Nothing to go to substantiate this view. There giggles from the students and of course, sat back and thought, my professor saying that surely coolidge is probably an interesting guy. The opposite must surely be true because. Thats usually a safe guide for a lot of college professors, right . And then greg said something, important. He has that reputation of silent cal. And you make a very important point. He was not silent at all the historians and their superficial approaches love to treat his sort of tacit nature thats legendary and it makes for fun reading. Ive always thought there was a purpose to attaching a label silent count to him, and some of that came to cite and some of the reading matthew twain just did of that, a 1924 address to the Bar Association. Keep in mind that coolidge was the last president. Write all of his own speeches. And by the way, that entire address, he read it today. And it is a think a brilliant and prescient analysis of what today we call the Administrative State and why it cant possibly work, cant give us Good Government or effect of government. And although he doesnt use, the terms we would use today read it take it in the hole. You realize he is content staying all the premises of Woodrow Wilson and the early Administrative State before that term came into current use. And so i always thought later on the reason that historians are disliked and want to call him silent count is they hope that you would ignore what he said because if you read it you might persuaded by it which i think is definitely the case. Why that that the excerpts that matthew tweeden shared with us seem so compelling today, a century later. But i said we need a map, suggested we need to. And matt raised the problems with the way we do it now. If you think about the president s who top all the rankings that come out periodically its i leave washington aside for various that hes sui generis but its always Franklin RooseveltWoodrow Wilson lately Ronald Reagan makes the top for some historians and then theres a close second tier that usually has truman, eisenhower and perhaps andrew and Theodore Roosevelt and. All those people have something in common that matt laid out. Ill sharpen a little further. Several them covered in times of acute crisis, usually a war or some Foreign Policy crisis, or the great depression, a domestic policy crisis, and or theyre people contributed to changing the of the presidency itself. That would Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt. And so this makes perfect sense for conventional history. You like drama. You like great crises. You like to say all the person you know did things. And even if you think, as i do my opinion, just is that Woodrow Wilson was largely a disaster. Whose legacy has been a disaster, and that Franklin Roosevelt did almost everything wrong. We still esteem those great president s because were on the scene for all of this and to the great. They think they mastered them or we got it. We rank them very highly. And it is, i think, the wrong way to go about it. The point coolidge had the misfortune from the conventional point of view of governing during times, although even thats not quite. You know what i think John Cochrane in the last panel made a very good point about how coolidge get in the way. There could be five or ten or 100 good books written about how and especially regulators will see some favorable happening and then try to get in front of the parade and just screw it all up. Ill just give you a couple of examples from some of you young people in the audience and some an old guy. You know, we could have had cell at least 15 years earlier than we got them. But hidebound federal government regulation that prevented the market from emerging and favorite story that almost no one knows. And i really need to write this up in a more prominent way than i ever have. You go to the late 70. Thats about halfway today and the age of coolidge and the fax machine starting to be commercialized and. It was slow and expensive and clunky. You could see it was going to change the nature of the way offices work. But couriers out of work and so forth. The post office shows up at the federal Communications Commission and says, you know, in the law we a monopoly on the transmission of all firstclass mail and these fax are going to be transmitting mail. Therefore fcc you should restrict fax machines to be only installed in post offices so that to send a fax would have to go to a post office to send it, and someone on the other end would have to go the post office to pick it up. Now, fortunately, even in the late seventies, which was a very regulation happy, the fcc set up the post office. Thats a nice theory go pound sand but you can imagine what would have happened. The fcc said youre right. Im sorry. You know, you cant sell fax machines commercially. They have to be limited to post offices. You can see what would have happened to the roll out that technology if, by the way, the final irony here is, is ill mention machines to College Students and they say, whats a fax machine . Its now obsolete. Right. But there you go. That is the mentality of government that will decide it wants to going on and on with those examples. And you know, john mentioned, whats our future now with a. I. And biotechnol . All kinds of problems, stuff of how people want to get it and, control, all that back. Just im just free associating here. I just read yesterday that theres a world government conference going on right now in doha. I didnt know we had such a thing and meets year its the same people the World Economic and there was klaus schwab saying we need to have some world institutions to govern artificial intelligence. So there we go. It. So the point is the rest of coolidge, which has been commented on several times, counts as an achievement of its own, thats of high statesmanship. Think. And again, it wont ever get treated fairly by the historians because it doesnt have the drama of a crisis, doesnt have the drama of some dramatic intervention that may or may not have been effective or counter productive. Right. So had to have great quotes from off from matthew, from which i was going to repeat, but i wont use them since he just did from great Bar Association addressed. The point is if we think instead about what we want in statesmen what qualities of character, what depth insight about our constitution and how our Society Works we would say we want more like coolidge. I say again, matt, this i put it this way coolidge was the last of our president s in the model. The founders every, other president since him has been in the Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson mold of an activist to one degree or another in both parties. And so coolidge was the last the statesmen who would have fit comfortably alongside jefferson and madison and and so and the point is could use more president s today with that disposition. And if we oriented to seeking that out. I think the case coolidge is i call small r republican greatness means hed be the person who would go up first on the new Mount Rushmore of modern president s banks also. Our cleanup batter this afternoon is cal thomas. He author and syndicated columnist and has written and written and written and written. Many column books. Im going to keep at it until somebody reads and is a man of great wisdom, observation about american life. Hes actually related to Grace Coolidge and is going to share his thoughts after in the words of ross perot, his running mate admiral stockdale. Why am i here . Younger people will have to Google Ross Perot and admiral stockdale. Do you older people get all right well im here is because of family relationship that my grandfather and Grace CoolidgeFirst Cousins i met her her northampton home and when i was 14 i didnt know any better so. I was more interested in the elevator in her and the buick in her garage. Sadly but she was a wonderful and beautifully named woman full of grace and i am named after the coolidges two sons, john and calvin. And i remember my mother who said that she had gone to john and florences wedding. I remember this because kept a piece of the wedding cake in our freezer for years, along with a frozen and chicken and. I said, mom, i think this has been in here long and needs to be deeded to the smithsonian so that that thats my relationship with the coolidge family and its my grandfather me a great story. They they used to double date years and years ago and then when he became president my grandfather to visit the president in the oval office and he said coolidge took a nap and after he woke he looked at my grandfather and said thanks for the visit arthur. I exchange words. The problem with going last is that a lot of people have already quoted some of the things that i was going to quote. But just in case, some of you werent paying attention. Im going to plow forward. In 1995, i wrote this column after a visit to this library of congress, the other building by the great and unfortunate late british historian paul johnson. It was mentioned earlier his speech was called Calvin Coolidge and the last arcadia the visit was timely coming, as it did in the heat of the war between Clinton Administration and the Republican Congress over whether and how to balance budget. My how ancient that seems today we have too much legislation by clamor, by tumult and by pressure, said coolidge more than seven decades ago, who could disagree in normal times, coolidge believed minimal government must be the he spoke of restoring lincolns principles by insisting on government of the people for and by the people. The chief task before us, he said, is to repossess the people, their government and their property. Now you can see why Ronald Reagan loved him so much. One of reagans great lines among, many, many of them was the only proof of eternal life in washington. Is government program. I like to say that easier to kill a vampire than a government program. But the analogy is a good one because both suck lifeblood out of their homes. So what i make up for an intellectual death, i try to cover up with humor, property and, profit, coolidge believed were keys to national prosperity. When government attacks, such things would weaken nation and government itself. Dont expect to up the weak by pulling down the strong, he said in his 1914 inaugural address as president of the massachusetts state senate. Oh, if that philosophy were only embraced today in our age of envy, greed and entitlement it remains a powerful rebuke to the current welfare state which believes in punishing the rich by ever higher taxation in order to subsidize the poor and thus perpetuate them in their poverty, the normal must take care of themselves. Serves coolidge believed whats normal today right selfgovernment means selfsupport ultimately Property Rights and personal are the same thing. History reveals no civilized people among whom there is not a highly educated class and large aggregate of wealth. Large profits mean large payrolls. It was essential coolidge believed to judge political morality not by its intentions, but by its effects. By that standard, the welfare state Big Government are dismal failures. It is 1925 inaugural address as president coolidge said, economy is idealism in its most practical form. Coolidge held the line against encroaching government while it expanded nearly everywhere else. Those came to power. At the same time, coolidge as coolidge. Paul johnson said. All the most notable were dedicated, expanding the role of the state. Mussolini, supreme in italy from 1922, put it bluntly, everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Stalin in power from 1924, began his great series of five year plans for the entire from turkey to china, saudi arabia, said mr. Johnson. All of them took government into corners their countries. It had never before penetrated. Even france and belgium were rampant interventionists to those who slight the coolidge as an early version of looking out for one. Paul johnson has rebuke this new material advance was not gross and felicity as the popular historian of the 1920s, has it. Middle class intellectuals a little too inclined against, poor people acquiring for the first time material and especially luxuries of a kind. They themselves have always taken for granted in a democratic and selfimprovement society like the United States. When more money becomes available the First Priority for both local governments and for families, is to spend it on more and better education. That is certainly happened in the 1920s. Total education spending in the United States rose fold. Illiteracy. From 7. 7 to 4 . Book clubs. Americans voted for the top men in history. They included shakespeare, longfellow, tennyson and dickens, who are now course expunged from many english and other literature in our socalled Institute Solutions of Higher Learning, more institutions. I would argue that Higher Learning colleges final rebuke to modern times, noted paul, was this he was not exactly popular, but he was hugely respected. Well i would disagree, of course. I think he was highly popular as others have out how out of joint though is hard when popularity is, everything and respect is an Aretha Franklin song. Thank you. Academics america could do a lot worse to recall the wisdom of Calvin Coolidge and politicians of all stripes might, consider this pithy thought. The things i never say, never got me in trouble. So grab little discussion here for a few months before we open up you. You might have some thoughts on our comments as well, but i want to begin by picking up on something, Steve Hayward mentioned, the top president s that usually come out in listing of most of the rankings. The one outlier, of course, that he both mentioned, but also we didnt quite fully address was actually reagan, which is that we commented that when you commented that all the modern his his president s past coolidge really are themselves progressives or at least are to the modern progressive view of how we look at polity x. Does that include reagan . Youve obviously written on him and. How do we assess that in as well . I draw your great your reagan wrote a lot of his own things urban how do we assess is this is is there anything there can work with because at some point the question then is can we have another Calvin Coolidge like in the modern era. But back to about reagan. What how would you assess it . Well, yeah. I mean, oh, boy. I on one hand, i want to say how much time we and that would be the wrong way to start out. Yes, exactly. Look, i just said he was the closest to. It of course, you know, he said his travels were coolidge and eisenhower. I left out as well. I put him in the you mentioned the the second his it is not an accident. I that the initial evaluations coolidge and that say in the fifties and of eisenhower during his presidency after were very similar as a do nothing guy didnt talk very much you know not unimagined and eisenhower reputation has risen in many of the similar ways as coolidge at a certain amount selfrestraint and reagans little tricky because like we call him the great communicator and. So he was not silent. He was not shy he was very gregarious guy. But i think partly that was the necessity, the matter. He understood that we do live in a time of these various low grade crime, the cold war is a crisis and the economy is in a crisis when he comes to office. And that requires, unfortunately, an amount of that kind of president ial leadership that you hint at. I agree with you about this. We didnt develop it. That is of doubtful character when late next to the founders understanding of how the presidency ought to be conceived and operated. But it might an essential quality of prudence yes in the moment right . Yeah, thats right. I mean you know reagans initial model, of course, was fdr. Yes. Yeah, right. Although Marty Anderson said, jimmy once said, you know, my long years with reagan, i never him once approve of any specific new deal policy. He liked the fdr style. Right. And theres some be said for that. Right now, ill just jump in here to say that. First of all, with reagan and talk about executive power in that. And you certainly listed the right president s to talk about the rise of that. But we cant forget Foreign Policy that reagan was had a very expansionist view of the president s roles in that realm, if not domestically. But the other thing would say thats so interesting to me is i always try to bring it back to president s as writers and wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, two president s, he probably did more anybody to start this kind of modern call it activist presidency, call it executive power, however you want to frame it. Whats so fascinating is you can see this in the writing because they both wrote to really good books. It was their first books. And so lets use Teddy Roosevelt as an example. His first book was about the naval war of 1812, and he actually wrote it when he was an undergraduate or at least started it. And in that, you will not find a more ambivalent view of heroism if you look at his treatment of all rick the war 1812 and the naval conflicts. Its not that perry was some great leader or was able to give speeches or was able to motivate his soldiers that he had more cannons. And Teddy Roosevelt did the work to prove this. He did all the research to look not just at the cannons, but on american ships. They could point more cannons in the same direction to create a better broadside and things like that. So it was a very logistical book that talked about and the kind of boring stuff it wasnt a book about heroes. By the time Teddy Roosevelt, close to being a hero himself and thinking about how could the president be heroes . His books were quite bad because he all he wanted to talk about was how great people had changed history and not many cannons arrived were. But who was giving the speeches on on the ships . Right. On the ships themselves. So same thing is true of wilsons first book, which quite good, but again has a very pragmatic view and sort doesnt emphasize the individual, even in these president s in the writing. The closer they get to power, the more they want to talk about how you how. Guess what . Im an individual whos about to be president did you know that individuals through the presidency change the world . How can whats cool about coolidge and whats fascinating about coolidge is that though he got closer to power, he never flip that switch and had that consistent view about the individual and his role in in power at that point, Teddy Roosevelt had not gone over and spent his summer reading. Herbert crowley and so hadnt gone insane yet. When i would write what i read coolidges comments at mt. Rushmore about the four president s, i had to say brief. His comment was about teddy, and i wonder if whether he already thought of that time that Teddy Roosevelt doesnt deserve to be up there because of some of his more progressive insanity. So i if coolidge is to go there. I would vote that he replaced teddy. Okay. Other thoughts in this direction. I mean the the model of coolidge is as a modern president i think you all kind of touch on in a way he a president in times of peace which unfortunately shades how hes hes looked at. But it truly is unfortunate. Right. I mean the model of of a a smaller republican president should be within a Constitutional Government at the federal level opposed to his governorship in which he was actually quite much more active. Strikes me as the correct model is it is it lost. At yeah i think well i think somebody mentioned earlier today that coolidge vetoed a couple of farm subsidy bills and then somebody asked a pretty good question about the volatility of the farm. Right, the farm economy being a factor in the depression. So in his veto messages, its worth going back and reading them because he thinks theyre bad policy. Okay. But then the last thing he is im paraphrasing, he says, oh, and by the way, i think these are unconstitutional. What what a quaint idea. The contrast that with modern times is one, it still bugs the heck out of me as. George bush. George w bush in signing the mccainfeingold bill 2003, whenever that was. And he says in his oral comments, i this bill is unconstitutional. But that is a subject for the Supreme Court to decide and i thought, you know, if lincoln were his tutor link would say you flunk right or coolidge would have said the same thing. You know what . Okay, let me let me take crack at this, because i was just thinking that, i think the real difference between coolidge and modern republican is that he consists entirely stuck with his principles at every level of his life, especially in the presidency. Modern republicans are intimidated by the media, by some of the business that the democrats continually promote about. Republicans who only care about the rich, dont care about granny. You saw when paul ryan came up with a plan to Reform Security and medicare, the left came up with an ad that showed paul ryan not exactly a look alike, pushing granny in a wheelchair over a cliff. Now, that just was. And republic was run in fear. Reagan is as he was did preside over increases. Bush 41 in his inaugural address, he reached out the hand of friendship speaker jim wright who promptly cut it off and led bush to violate his read my lips no new taxes pledge. And bush said he made the deal because right promised to cut spending. Well, i were president. God help us all i would say no go first. Okay, because thats where the problem is, its not in the revenue, its in the spending as was pointed out on several other panels but when you got an era of envy and entitlement as opposed coolidges philosophy of inspiration followed by motivation by perspiration, its pretty to defeat that. You know if you look at last years open enrollment on medicare supplements, i in florida now, a lot of retired people, theyre im not but anyway every ad had three words in it every one benefit free and entitled the unholy trinity of the secular envy created entitled. Now, if you sell that long, youre going to addict people to Big Government envy of other peoples wealth, complete reliance on outside of yourself, which was an anti apathy to Calvin Coolidge. And thats why i think he was so successful and. His principles actually worked in some of the greatest prosperity this country has ever seen. But we forget the past. You know, we i like to say that the only politicians convictions in washington now are in prison. And, you know, you know, if we do forget history, we will be doomed to repeat it, because the principles never change. You know, carl, you remind, me, stan evans, great line that its a good republicans are prolife since they spend so much time in the fetal position. Ooh you didnt know one. Thats a good one. Well, thats one of his greatest. I that one. Having said that, i am a pushback against steve a little bit. I think we can conclude that its over and i that would be the wrong the wrong lesson here. Its one thing to say that a Calvin Coolidge today just like a lincoln today or a washington today might well not even get elected or get a nomination or be successful, but actually is precisely the that i value most in coolidge, washington, lincoln, which is the prudential of the statesman that we need most and, that will require certain of political accommodations to begin a movement to recover the constitutionalism of Calvin Coolidge. It i think were aptly right that he is the model in the modern era. Its a deeper understanding of the political questions that i think we are that we have gone awry. But it seems me that there are a lot of people, a lot of americans, a lot of voters who are looking around for an alternative to the modern leadership that. We are getting from both political parties. It makes an opening for someone of that statesmanship like quality. Yeah, i dont i dont think it was quite clear. I dont think over either. Well, i think he has it will require a person of rare insight and talent so combining the inside of coolidge. And the talent of reagan to then make a case for a restoration of constitutionalism thats thats a hard thing to do i think its necessary but i dont im you know an antique historians i never think that something i dont believe in the galea unfolding of history thats irreversible and so forth you dont see many people like that around. And as i say. But again circumstance i mean, i want to get off on this because it takes a sideways, you know, reagan on taxes quite right acquiesced in tax increases bring even understand that not all kinds of taxes created equal so he was rocks against income tax increases and then he would give on you know, excise taxes and lots of other things. He did later say that his biggest was thats 82 tax deal, which should been a signal of george h. W. Bush, not fall down that same trap. And he didnt write up. Yep. So we about minutes left to take some questions from. The audience, i am told there are some microphones and, and if you raise a hand we would like theres something right here. Theres. A place. Hi, my name is audrey carmena. Im from san francisco, california. This question is for mr. Carlton. Ms. So you mentioned the Great Success of calvin colleges education, but our current education is decidedly lacking. How would you suggest that we combine both coolidges prudence and thriftiness with money, with his Great Successes, with Education Programs . This your fifth question . Your next one is free cash. I would employ two words school choice. 26. I think by last 26 states now have some form of school choice. Jeb bush, the former governor of florida, was a leader in this of the unions course are are against it because. This is how you train a new secular humanist Big Government high tax you know in the were all racists and all this other business in our government schools dont call them Public Schools because they no longer serve the public theyre government schools and most of them are indoctrination centers. The history books are all written in a way that that is endemic. The secular progressive left. So i think, you know, its its always amusing to me that some of my friends on the left who are prochoice when it comes to abortion are or those fortunate enough to have been born as to where theyll be educated. So i think competition works in everything, whether its the post office, fedex, ups or anything else, but this is the monopoly in america. So many other monopolies, at t, many others have been broken up to the public benefit, i would argue. But Public Education is the last monopoly. Its left over from the the dewey era. Weve gotten rid of any kind of moral foundation, as the mcguffey readers taught for years in our Public Schools, respect for parents, love of country, all of these things. And now we have saluting all sorts of flags. We have the black anthem at the super bowl. Were all parts of tribes now. Were hyphenated americans. This is not healthy for. A nation that is going to move into the future with kind of values that coolidge had. Thank you. Five question very good. Sir. Heart courtesy. Hello, my name is caleb and im from south carolina. And my question is for dr. Hayward regarding essentially the regulation of business, right . So like free market. I was wondering to what extent does the exploitation of the consumer perhaps through predatory pricing or, planned obsolescence, what role does that play within the regulation of business . Oh, my goodness. That that would be a sign up for the course. I dont teach on antitrust and related issues. Im yeah its a so there. All right. Lets try and see if i can sort this out its kind of unprepared to think about this today where you have genuine monopolies even. They tend to not endure that long. And, you know, it turns out if you go back to the trusts really started the you the antitrust enthusiasms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries a lot them before you had robust antitrust law starting really in the wilson years with the federal trade commission a lot of them tended to fall apart all the time. Its like the oil cartel, which can be very effective in prices and limiting output in the short run. But they are always falling apart and lacking discipline. We found out with a sugar trust steel. Now when you consolidate all the Steel Companies as was done 1911, whenever that happened and thats a different matter and so you know today we look we still do we change antitrust but the huge revolution that it would take too long to go through but we still do block Airline Mergers when the when it looks like youd lock up one airport for just one airline and theyd have no competition. We still do that. And thats reasonable. But i think as a general matter and like i say, this is a long and intricate subject that i havent studied closely for quite a while. But generally the idea of exploitation is exaggerate it and overestimated most of the time, not always, but most of the time. And that free competition is the best way to break that down again as a general principle. So thats my short on version of it. Yeah. Thats of. You just get the greatest crosssection of students here. Whats most interesting anyway, really . Hi there. My name is camden, im from colorado and. So today on the panel, you guys talked a lot about how we need principal leaders, leaders that reflect the values of coolidge. But when we have such an acidic that when no matter what, you know, no matter what side of the youre on, the media just trashes you for whatever values you do have. How do we create an environment . We can have politicians who, you know, are moderate or who are at least able to stand on their values and, stand on their principles, and still be elected and not just dissolve into this partizanship that has been wrecking the country for past couple of years. Well, this is why ive always favored term limits. You need recycle congress and for the same reason because both left in one place begin to emit a foul smell. You had people like Patrick Leahy of vermont who was bragging just before he left. And ive been in this town for 40 years. You know, thats the problem. And ill tell you my favorite story on that, my late friend George Mcgovern, the 1972 democratic president ial nominee. And he was a good friend, World War Two of bomber pilot, not a pilot, but a tail. And he lost in the reagan landslide of 1980 and hadnt done anything about Public Service since he came back from World War Two and decided to do something totally different, went up to connecticut and bought an inn and tried to run it after a couple of years. He went bankrupt. A wall street journal reporter called him up. Want to know what happened . And the only thing you need to know about what happens to people who too long in washington is George Mcgovern said, gee, if id known how difficult was to run a business, i might have voted differently in the senate. Well, there you have it. You know, you got to get these people out. The founders never intended this to be a career. You were farmers, you were lawyers, you were business people. Youd come washington. You do Public Service, not self service. It wasnt career. You didnt get all these benefits. If you just win two terms to get a salary life or you get a transition, which jim wright, i think occupied for 20 years with free postage, all kinds of other perks, you know, my mother said, dont put out a us or a milk for the stray cat or youre never get rid of it. Well, you got more than a saucer of milk in this town. They come and they never want to leave. And thats the problem. And you solve that problem. You solve a lot of other problems. So the other thing i would say to answer that or to speak directly to your question is that you can just go around the media. I mean, what elevated coolidges national profile. It was strike and it was his telegram that responded the strike. And the telegram was so short but so well written that it just got reprinted full. So the way the media spearheads vote you know whether telegrams or the new technology your twitter is you can if youre a really good you can find a way to get around that and i mean most journalists are writers and theres writers love more than good writers. So if you can write well and communicate well, you can at least for time, get the media on your side and also get your message aired directly. I think thats one reason coolidge was so effective. And one of the problems with that, if i could just interject, is that too many people only tune into those channels or those newspapers that reinforce. They already believe nobody talks to each other in this town anymore. There are no gatherings where republicans and democrats eat over the shrimp bowl, share drinks together, whatever. If youre seen with somebody in the other party, somebody will take a picture on their cell phone, put it on snapchat or instagram something, and accuse you of being a compromiser so that the whole media atmosphere is completely different. In coolidges era, when you know, there were many, many newspapers of different points of view. Instead of what weve got now. I always to say i read two things every day. My bible in the New York Times so i know what each side is doing. So quickly. Its look, i think theres an art to handling the media day. I mean, its been huge in the media, most of them bad, i think. Im not sure. I cant remember if coolidge ever said anything pithy about the news media. He did. And i dont remember it, but i do think he would have brilliant at twitter and he might have liked it right. Because it was twitter, twitter, too many characters. But i do think youre. Right, right. As i think Ronald Reagan would have been trending on twitter if wed had a thin show without getting it. The whole media landscape already been hinted at. There are some examples of president s who understood how to handle the media. What . Great. Thats an excellent idea. And the reagan people thought of this. Quit talking to the National Media. Make president available to talk to the local tv affiliate fort wayne, indiana. A lot of work goes into all that but go around him to local media who may not be very knowledgeable. Theyre going to the discourse going to be more sensible and respectful than the braying hounds of the White House Press room. Second one is this. You know . The really good ones knew kind of how to handle the media and deflect them. Eisenhower by being deliberately incoherent. Kennedy wit and i you know if coolidge but doing the kind of press conference i bet hed have been glad to offset by just no the next question my favorite reagan moment was the day was a quick when Sam Donaldson stands up in 1982 and i remember sam i was not i wont say when i called him sweet man, by the way, but i got to know him some. But hes all in reagans face. You know, you criticize the mistakes, the past of democrats for our big deficits. Do you take any of the blame for the deficit . And reagan is not his says, well, yes, sam, i do, because for a long time i was a democrat. But told me i asked about that since that my i had many humiliations at the hands of Ronald Reagan but that was my biggest one. So it takes some art and deliberate. You know craftiness to think how to do that and sadly say a lot of politician just dont think about that in practice and then think it through a little thing. But not. But ill make a perhaps slightly contrarian, which is i think we need more, not less politics. And i think perhaps one of the things we should be looking at more is less about coolidges presidency and more about his governorship, which is say that what strikes that we need today, which coolidge understood at the federal level, where you have a more limited constitution at the state level, where you actually have powers at the constitutional level, including over education, which is a constitutional responsibility. Governors and state legislatures, where you can actually take Civic Education and, actually take over colleges and, universities in your university system. That strikes me as the model and that strikes me as what Calvin Coolidge do, given his constitutional. And you redefine the very immediate environment in which you that strikes is the way to go. And thats what i how a statesman would think about it and i think thats know were too nationally focused the point of the media would go right along with that we more aggressive governors and i think Calvin Coolidge would one and i think weve got some brewing today which means there is potentially a revival of Calvin Coolidge like statesmanship last last couple my wifes. In Tyler Burkhart from reno, nevada. Youve mentioned sort of the evolution of the presidency from this idea of the statesman president to the what role has the primary system played in that, especially today . And how do we fix that . Who is that for me . You do think . Well, i mean, i could i mean, the primary system goes back a hundred years ago, but really take off until the 1972 cycle. If dont know this, Hubert Humphrey got the 1968 democratic nomination entering a single primary. You still had the party back rooms and caucuses and so forth. Its mentioning somebody asked this morning, how did coolidge end up being selected as vice president. He was actually among the six or eight candidates that the the convention was actively considering in the Old Fashioned smoke filled room way. So he was already thought of as a person of national prominence. Reasons already mentioned. You know, i if you make a time machine and drag coolidge in today maybe he doesnt have the or charisma in the ordinary sense that we now demand of our president ial candidates which a mixed bag at best and but yeah is a problem although on the other hand i like to say that if we had the old system we probably wouldnt have gotten Ronald Reagan as president because the Party Establishment did not like him. It did not want him in 1980. And it was only because he could win the new system where the primaries determinate long by the way, donald trump would never obviously would never have gotten the nomination in 2016 if it was up to the party bosses right. Im not quite sure what to make of it at the end of the day, my own sentiment is id like to go back to some mixed system where you have some, you know, party bosses. Democrats had superdelegates to keep from left wing nominees in the eighties and that they kind of abandoned all that under pressure. But i think Something Like that and i think both ought to have a bit i think thats i havent made up my mind on it. Let me add to that or. Well i pick up on the word charisma, the modern leaders have to have. I mean, who better examples of that than joe biden and kamala harris. Just following . Yep, thats right. Thats very good. Thats very good. I you know, i thought i thought joe biden campaigning from his basement was a brilliant strategy for him. I just need to govern that way, too. But he has to win back. Yes. Im daniel. Right from jacksonville, florida. And i wanted to first of all, thank you for all your being here. This afternoon in closing the sessions. Well, i would say that to dovetail on what has been shared in this session about making good readers working on what we do well model and guide toward good reading propaganda seeks present a part of the facts to distort relations and to force conclusions which could not be drawn from a complete and candid survey of all the facts it has been observed that propaganda seeks to close the mind well. Education seeks to open it. This has become one of the dangers of present day from january 1925, when he spoke to the Newspaper Editors Association modeling good reading and just like de said, if youre studying good reading or good writing, you become better by studying those established forms. So one way to go around, model it and, share it, and a good example of, of of great reading that be mentioned is autobiography dream. What a beautiful autobiography. Coolidge its a wonderful book. And theres a story there where he talks about our franklin and how much he enjoyed reading and how he would come home from school and just copy franklins writing out. Just to kind of internalize the rhythms and kind of see what good writing felt like. And then his dad came in and said, i dont know why youre wasting your time. Youre not at school right now. Its time to go work on the farm. So you can you could see both sides of it. I tended to side with calvins more than an calvin. More than his father. But but yeah, it was there. Reading adam seaver. Yeah. I dont need to. Hi. My name is sophie share. Im from north carolina, so a lot today. I really enjoyed hearing about sort of the values that made Calvin Coolidge and the founders so as stewards our nation. But a lot of times youve talked about how those values are becoming incompatible with our modern society and modern political stage. How would you propose that we as the upcoming generation of leaders integrate these core values of our most prominent founders and their successors into a increasingly modern and changing world, bring some of those values into world as we come into leadership. Hmm. The ill make a general comment just as a, as framing the answer, which the others will actually give. I think part of it is going back to this question about good reading and why coolidge is important in lincoln. What we have to understand the distinction here and when we use the word values, we are talking things that i value or you value what coolidge about with lincoln and the washington about were things that were endured and true. So just rhetorically theres an important distinction to make postmodernism the world in which we work. There are no truths. We need to learn how to talk in that environment and coolidge is great to read and and and lincoln is that they they understood good that and the claim of the founding which Calvin Coolidge i think is the best modern expositor is that is an enduring truth there and there is no progress from that so first we need to completely absorb absorb that because. Then you can make a distinction between the truths and the practical things we have to deal with, where we can accommodation and change, even. But holding those two things in place, i think is the key to figuring out how to proceed. But remember you remember about that . Yeah, we have to speak differently, but we have need that. We need to know what to say. And that requires a lot of hard work and connected. The previous question about real reading and real learning. One of the practical problems we have these days is and i think theres decent social science as opposed to most of the stupid is their attention are shorter which is one fact in the media it turns that in 1968 what . Well, i write i got no respect. I cant write in one little interesting fact in. The 1968 tv coverage of the president ial race, the average sound bite from nixon, humphrey was 45 seconds long. So you actually get several complete sentences and. The german argument by 1988, just 20 years later, the average sound on the network news was 8 seconds long. So just two sentences. This is probably a precursor to twitter in some ways. Right . Right. I and and i think you know so you know you ask somebody i mean the kind of dialectic i mean that in the serious socratic way you saw in the debates where they arguably shutter for an hour, hours in front of live audiences, of people, you know, several thousands of people would travel their wagons to hear this. Remember that none them got to vote directly for either man in that contest. They were there because they thought it was important to take these arguments and form Public Opinion around them. Today, that was unthinkable. And so i dont know all the ways to break all that, but on the substance, ill just pick one thread for you and everybody else to think about. Were a wash these days in rights to everything of all kinds and one of the things that i mean, i know, you know, matt and i both we try to teach the students is understanding what has gone wrong the promiscuous use of the idea of rights today and how the founders thought about it. Natural rights and so forth. The kind of rights talked about the declaration of independence under embodied in the bill of rights and that takes a while really grasp that and understand that thats one task among many that i think for you know your generation needs to be a matter of urgent study and thought and patience because its not something you can learn quickly and the only other thing id say is that reading and especially reading things in print can make it make a really big difference. The time slowing down, theres Great Research by cognitive psychologist that reading in print helps you be able to balance multiple perspectives in mind. And i would advocate not just for reading, but for reading things that people who are different than espouse. Ive very different politics than, anybody else whos sitting up here but im still happy to be here and so go read Teddy Roosevelt speechwriter do national i read Woodrow Wilsons first inaugural read in print read in depth and form your ideas and your values for yourself and the index in that point read them. To take to extend that point which i completely read them in their original form. If you about coolidge you read coolidge when you read roosevelt you know lincoln read lincoln. Your obligation is to understand them as they understood themselves. Then we can have a discussion about what what we like about him or not. Our country is not that. And one of the great things about it is, that we have a common language and you can go back and read washington and its not its not like youre having to read chaucer or anything like that. So its a real benefit. Its worth taking the time to do it because itll make you a better reader and a better citizen to well, i mean, i dont really disagree when you say it. I actually think, well, i actually believe this, that the federalist papers are too political. What shakespeare is to literature. Now, shakespeare is hard when you first start out reading it. And i think the i mean, i remember finding the federalist papers very daunting as an undergraduate and i read them and i see this enormous subtlety beauty to them. And even though the 18th century idiom in the prose is not familiar to us. So thats why this weve to take time. So, i mean, i say it is like chaucer a little bit, although not in the middle english, but so so i agree with you fundamentally, but do think that people need to patience. But by the time you read your 10th federalist paper, thats when you start to understand it, you dont need a class. You dont a biography. You keep reading, youll figure it out. Let me make this one point quickly in answer to your question. Its a great question, by the way, human nature never changes modes of transportation change, hairstyles, clothing styles, the way we live in our housing changes. But human nature never changes. Thats why mr. Jefferson wrote in the Philosophical Foundation of the constitution that all are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among them are life, liberty and the pursuit, happiness. And then the next clause, he outlines the purpose of government and. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Why is that necessary . For government to do . Because as James Madison wrote, if men were angels. But men are not angels, you see . And so we need to be constrain from our human nature either from within by a power and presence higher than ourselves or from without either government acting. Importantly, under god or it becomes tyrannical. And thats why id like to announce today. Oh. Carried away. There. Thank you. Join me in thanking panelists and thank you for joining us. Our skies hi, everybody. Afternoon. Im john obrien from the department of english and im happy to kick things off. Todays lecture is part of English Department lecture