Calvin Coolidge

Coolidge: An American Enigma by Robert Sobel

Tier 5

I did not like this book. Apologies to Robert Sobel. I know it takes a long time and a lot of effort to write a book, but I did not like this one. It was slow and dull and did not spend nearly enough time depicting the times that Coolidge lived through. Even a biography of a boring person (I’m not saying that Coolidge was boring, just using it as an example) can come to life with supporting characters and descriptions of the time. This book fails in those regards, and, quite frankly, I couldn’t wait to finish it.

Coolidge is a bit of a litmus test president—some fight to restore or rehabilitate his historical reputation, and others condemn him for his policies. Where you land on this debate is quite telling as to where you land on the modern political spectrum. Those who defend him are often conservatives (Reagan, for example, was an admirer), and those who dislike him are often liberal.

In my reading, I found that while my politics can affect my enjoyment of a biography, they are not solely responsible for whether I like a book. I have thoroughly enjoyed biographies of individuals whose politics I abhor and have hated biographies of people I align with. A biography is not simply agreeing with everything a subject said or did. It is, in fact, never about that. Even the great presidents and historical figures of history failed. That is why biography is fascinating. It is the struggle to comprehend the totality of an individual that makes for a great book.

I say all this to simply note that my political disagreements with Coolidge did not lead to my dislike of Sobel’s book. It is, instead, how the story is told.

Coolidge rose to national prominence due to his handling of the Boston Police Strike of 1919. This is a fascinating historical moment worthy of a book of its own. It’s a story that’s been told countless times. Police wanted to form a union to ensure better pay, working conditions, and the like, but management refused to acknowledge their right to form a union. This was a particularly contentious debate as Police Commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis seemed to worry that if the police unionized, they might side with other unions instead of capital, city officials, and business leaders. After rejecting their right to unionize, the police went on strike, which led to several nights of lawlessness in the city. Labor leaders argued over whether this strike and the anarchy it set loose on the city was helping or hurting labor’s national profile. The strikers were denounced as communists and deserters. Boston’s mayor was ineffectual in his attempts to mediate a settlement. When Commissioner Curtis refused to rehire the striking police officers, Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge supported him, earning him a national reputation as a decisive individual. In the end, nine people died, they put down the strike, restored peace, and hired a new police force.

This should’ve been a fascinating section of this book. It is such a wonderful reflection of the time and place. Labor versus capital was the dominant issue of the age (some would say it still is), and this strike allows one to analyze the many complex issues at play thoroughly. Sobel does not delve into this complexity. He does not spend time building out Curtis, Mayor Peters, or the strikers. He simply demonstrates how Coolidge’s decisive action earned him a national reputation.

And that handling is emblematic of the book and Coolidge himself. It was a missed opportunity on both their parts.

As for Coolidge, I think this moment shows who and what he was. He was not a bad man. He was not full of spite or hatred or evil plans to oppress. But neither was he a brilliant leader. He wasn’t someone to inspire hope or devotion. He wasn’t a political wonk who would build a policy that could shape the nation. He was friendly to capital and the establishment and sought to maintain and continue the status quo.

When he took office after Harding died, he was intent on continuing his predecessor’s policies. He saw that as his responsibility and carried it out as such. He continued to do whatever was possible to encourage and enable big business while rejecting the growth of the government or spending.

After winning the presidency on his own, he continued many of the same policies. He was known for trusting his appointments (something that doomed Harding’s administration to corruption). For example, when it came to taxation and government spending, he went along with his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon—a wealthy son and banker and industrialist who, as you could guess, favored business and opposed government spending and taxation.

This is just one of many examples of Coolidge’s governing style. He did not seem to have any concrete vision for his presidency aside from keeping the government small and trusting his appointees.

During his presidency, the nation prospered, but as is so often the case, that prosperity was imbalanced. The wealthy did very well under Coolidge, and the poor suffered. His successor, Herbert Hoover, would catch much of the blame for the Great Depression, but he didn’t diverge much from Coolidge’s economic policies. A tried truism of American politics is that the president receives too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one. The onset of the Great Depression can be seen in the same light as the 2008 financial collapse. The responsibility for that collapse is placed on George W. Bush’s shoulders. He deserves much of that blame. He was president for eight years and doubled down on all the issues that caused that catastrophe. But his economic policies were not much different from Clinton’s, George H.W. Bush’s, or Ronald Reagan’s. Bush simply was the one holding the bag when the check came due. The same is true of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. They all did the same things, and in the end, after years of unchecked and irresponsible economic expansion and deregulation, the bill came due.

In this book’s defense, it was comprehensive. It covered all of Coolidge’s life. Some other biographies fail because of brevity, this is not one of those. At times, Sobel seems too intent on rehabilitating Coolidge’s reputation. At times, he seems indifferent to his subject. I believe there is a great biography here, one that demonstrates how a lack of leadership can shape history. It does not need to be overly critical of Coolidge, but it should illustrate how his years in office shaped the nation and its future. Unfortunately, this is not that book.