Another Perspective
Keeping Cool with Coolidge
Silent Cal would have been out of place in Obama’s America.
On this day, 76 years ago, Calvin Coolidge died at the age of 60. Shortly before his life ended and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt began, Coolidge reportedly told a friend, “I feel I no longer fit in with these times.”
If Coolidge felt out of step in the Era of Roosevelt, he would have been a truly lost soul in the coming Age of Obama.
We are entering a time when the American president is simultaneously the sole arbiter of good and bad in the universe, a fashion plate, a paparazzi-attracting celebrity and a pop art icon. His face graces public transit tickets. Schoolchildren numbly chant his campaign slogans. The notion that a simple and shy New Englander such as Coolidge could ever occupy today’s White House is absurd.
Though he was simple by our modern presidential standards, there was nothing simplistic about his life or career. For all his reserve and minimalism, Coolidge was an extremely skilled and ambitious politician. From city solicitor to the state house of representatives, to mayor to the state senate to lieutenant governor and then governor and then vice president and president, he ran for office 19 times and lost only one election in his life.
He was a shrewd manipulator of broadcast radio and the photo-op. Versed in Latin and a student of Cicero, Coolidge wrote his own speeches without the assistance or aid of bright young staffers. Those who have read his autobiography (which he penned after his presidency) are aware of his graceful writing and penchant for moving introspection.
His rearing in rural Vermont imparted in the future president the values of thrift (he never owned a car or even a house until after his presidency), a disdain for his era’s version of political celebrity. (“We need more of the Office Desk and less of the Show Window in politics. Let men in office substitute the midnight oil for the limelight,” he once said.) And strikingly to us in today’s era of the superstar chief executive and the revived hyperactive federal government, Coolidge understood that there are some things the government and its chief executive are not capable of doing. He considered the Constitution a limiting document to be adhered to, not adjusted.
Today, the faithful prepare to flock to the nation’s capital to participate in what increasingly seems like a coronation. Simultaneously, train trips are being planned and an ancient bible is being brought out, rather immodestly, to remind us of the supposedly uncanny similarities between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Before the president-elect takes the oath of office in front a crowd of millions, it is worth remembering Coolidge’s own assumption of the presidency. When news of President Warren G. Harding’s death reached Plymouth Notch, Vermont, Vice President Coolidge, out of necessity, was administered the oath of office by his father, at the family homestead, using a family bible by the flickering light of an oil lamp.
Coolidge took that oath and assumed the presidency without promises to heal the soul of the country, change the world, or make loaves and fish magically appear. Instead, when asked for his thoughts on assuming the presidency, Coolidge simply replied, “I think I can swing it.”
And despite the opinions of New Deal historians, swing it he did. A year after Harding’s death Coolidge was elected president in his own right by a landslide. He spent the next four years fulfilling his duty as he believed the founders had envisioned — cutting taxes, resisting and vetoing new spending, and generally minding his own business while presiding over a time of great prosperity.
He had no interest in saving or rescuing the American people — he possessed, what is today, an uncommon faith they could take care of that themselves.
Coolidge could have easily won a second full term in 1928 — a feat that, at the time, would have eventually made him the longest serving president in U.S. history. Instead, he willingly let go of the reins of power. Far from a messiah or a savior, he returned from whence he had come: “We draw our Presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again,” he reasoned.
Today Coolidge lies buried in a tiny Vermont village just a short distance from the house where he was born and raised. A humble headstone marks his final resting place; the word “president” is nowhere to be found on the simple marker. On the occasion of Coolidge’s death, H.L. Mencken said, “Should the day ever dawn, when Jefferson’s warnings are heeded at last, and we reduce government to its simplest terms, it may very well happen that Calvin’s bones now resting inconspicuously in the Vermont granite will come to be revered as those of a man who really did the nation some service.” Given the results of our recent election, the arrival of that day seems unlikely.
Indeed, Coolidge’s qualities — thrift, recognition of the limits of government’s responsibilities and capabilities, and presidential modesty seem positively antiquated today. This type of man could never be president in the 21st century. Yet, that does not mean that he cannot continue to inspire those who greet the coming epoch with more than a bit of skepticism.
No matter the passage of time or the changes to our government and political system, 76 years after his death, Coolidge’s ideals and beliefs still ring true.
About the Author
Ryan L. Cole writes from Indiana.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Ryan L. Cole
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/05/keeping-cool-with-coolidge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bud| 1.5.09 @ 7:31AM
Thank you .. a well-done and timely article. Mr. Coolidge stands in stark contrast to the unseemly narcissism we find in today's political class. We have managed to create a political system that rewards control freaks and near-megalomania. The incoming president is all too emblematic of what we've wrought.
v/r,
-- Bud
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 8:56AM
Let's not get too carried away with praising Coolidge. He is remembered as largely a caretaker president because he did the bare minimum while holding office, leaving the heavy lifting to successors. It is odd to praise a president for not solving problems.
Among the issues Coolidge did not act on was the epidemic of lynching of African-Americans during 1920s. That fact adds an unintended irony to Cole's effort to use Coolidge to malign President-elect Barack Obama. The next president represents the triumph of American democracy in a way a Coolidge did not. Obama's own humble multiracial beginnings presented him a much greater challenge than any white president has ever faced.
Chris| 1.5.09 @ 11:28AM
Thank you Mr. Cole for your outstanding column on one of my all time favorite people in American history, Calvin Coolidge. Like Reagan, as president, he understood that it was the American people who make this country great and he led accordingly. That stands in stark contrast to today's narcissitic do-gooder types like our current President-elect who think the whole world should revolve around them
Ammo Guy| 1.5.09 @ 1:04PM
Isn't it time for some posters to return to indoctrinating their sensitive students and stop wasting their electrons on those of us who have been reading Mr. Tyrrell's fine publication lo these many years? FYI, there were significantly more lynchings during Woodrow Wilson's two terms than during Cal's five years, but I guess that fact merely derails the narrative for some who have already made up their minds that this website is frequented only by redneck simpletons. Move along then, nothing to see (or learn) here.
elhombrelibre| 1.5.09 @ 1:30PM
Interloper, maybe Obama’s election is in keeping with our times where race trumps other factors (experience, knowledge, character, to name a few) as long as it helps push Liberal policies further to their risible limits. Also, it’s possible we’ve taken Affirmative Action (clearly a race-based policy, which remains typically in the Democratic Party tradition) to its logical conclusion by electing a man mostly on his race and how glib he is.
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 2:19PM
El, Barack Obama excels in experience, knowledge, character, scholarship and morality. One would be hard put to find a better specimen of America at its best. But for his race, you and those like you would not ignore his experience as a legislator, educator, successful writer and lawyer.
Less than five percent of the American public has comparable education and credentials. I doubt you are among that five percent.
elhombrelibre| 1.5.09 @ 2:38PM
As the esteemed Reverend Jesse Jackson pointed out, and I quote, Interloper, “Obama ain’t never run nothin’ except his mouth.” So you’re in awe of very little experience. It’s also highly likely his much-praised book was ghost written. And his speaking skills, are well, ah, ah, ah, well, ah, ah, they’re ah, not as great as advertized. How do you know how moral he is, by the way? Are you his confessor? I assume you were a Clinton supporter too. I bet he was plenty moral enough for you as well.
elhombrelibre| 1.5.09 @ 2:48PM
Oh, and as for the elitist Obama and his incomparable education credentials, I follow the wise words of William F. Buckley. "I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. "
elhombrelibre| 1.5.09 @ 2:51PM
Oh, and Interloper, here is another quote of Buckley's that will likely be appropriate for you. "Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view."
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 2:56PM
Well, unlike myself and the esteem-worthy president elect, Buckley was a Yale man. Those Elis can be rather dismissive of other members of the five percent.
elhombrelibre| 1.5.09 @ 3:04PM
Interloper, I know who you are. You're Michael Moore. And I agree with what P.J. O'Rourke said about you. "Moore's new book, Dude, Where's My Country?, contains ten chapters of fulminations convincing the convinced. However, Moore does include one chapter on how to argue with a conservative. As if. Approached by someone like Michael Moore, a conservative would drop a quarter in Moore's Starbucks cup and hurriedly walk away." So I'm done with you and your poseur gibberish about how you've a highbrow education. I don't believe you're educated at all.
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 3:07PM
I thought we were discussing the president-elect, not me, El. My point again, is that by any measure, Barack Obama is a very impressive person. Those not blinded by racism are able to see that, including some conservatives.
john mancini| 1.5.09 @ 3:15PM
It seems Interloper has, sadly like many, make that most, liberals, has missed the bus when it comes to CnC's such as Coolidge. They embodied what the presidency was and is supposed to be about, which was evident right from the start with the founding father- Washington. The president isn't supposed to be "all about the style" or fashion or celebrity. It is supposed to be about quiet but competent efficiency, about administrating and delegating authority, about leading the people without being weighed down with self serving promotion and legacy building. Sadly with FDR we saw the presidency start to erode into a position not preoccupied with results and quality but heavy rhetorically laden speeches more concerned with confusing the people rather than inspiring them. And this seems to be the Democratic way of governing, from FDR, to JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and now Obama. It isn't the recipe for greatness or even competency but seems to be the blueprint for star studded association that liberals in the press and entertainment find so richly rewarding and seem to correlate with greatness in a presidency. In the meantime, we as a society are saddled with more government and more bills to pay and in this case, wet nursing a man who seems to have risen to and cheapened the position based on affirmative action knee jerk responses by many in white America who seem to feel the guilt he is peddling. Not the groundwork for greatness but rather a disaster brewing in the making. Coolidge like Reagan and Eisenhower were great presidents who presided over low taxes, limited but effective government and stayed out of the way of progress and didn't let government get in the way and bog things down with mindless bureaucracy. That type of president is long gone and we will sadly see the reverse quite soon. And we, not Obama and his star studded buddies, will suffer for it while this inept idiot tries to win over the media.
Ammo Guy| 1.5.09 @ 3:25PM
And of course Coolidge only went to Amherst, a rather inferior institution compared to Veritas. God forbid that our Chief Executive would attend any college other than Hahvahd, such as Eureka.
elhombrelibre| 1.5.09 @ 3:46PM
Interloper, you're the one who brought up whether I was in the lofty top 5% with Obama and you. So that makes you a snob, a fool, and a buffon now to try to charge me with talking about you rather than your beloved Obama.
John| 1.5.09 @ 3:52PM
Actually Obama is not a completely new phenomena in terms of becoming an iconographic president. FDR was undoubtedly one and so was JFK. These guy's and their families' images were everywhere as I can personally attest from the Kennedy era and as is apparent if you take a look at any material from the thirties. Interestingly they all share another characteristic: they are incredibly hard to parody or demonize in cartoons. If you've seen any of the attempts on Obama they have all bombed and you can see the same effect with the attempts to demonize FDR. Even in the cartoons where he's the villain he looks commanding. Coolidge is one of those guys who would never have been first elected under his own steam. Truman is another. In Truman's case he turned into a star, while silent Cal remained a mediocrity. Every presidential poll I've ever seen has him in the bottom 25 percentile.
Michael| 1.5.09 @ 3:53PM
Interloper, you said that Coolidge did nothing to stop the lynching of Blacks (never mind that 10% of those lynched were not Black), neither did any other president including FDR. Coolidge was the first president to ban via executive order a form of segregation, that of the Washington, D.C. street cars. A small step you need to give President Coolidge credit for.
John| 1.5.09 @ 3:58PM
john mancini | 1.5.09 @ 3:15PM
People say the damnedest things don't they John Macini. No we don't want the president confusing people with great oratory like Lincoln or FDR. That's why Roosevelt was elected president four times and in every single presidential poll is either second or third. What is it with this new found Republican desire for mediocrity and incompetence. Is this supposed to be our rebuttal to Obama's undoubted star power. If it is god help us.
Martour| 1.5.09 @ 4:12PM
Cole makes some interesting points about Coolidge's seeming modesty. However, he misleads on at least two points. Mencken's overall tone in his essay on Coolidge is highly disparaging. One might think otherwise based on the passage that Cole quotes from Mencken's essay. Also, according to many biographers and historians, Coolidge apparently would indeed have liked another term but "chose" not to campaign for the nomination--hence, his famous, enigmatic declaration that he "chooses not to run" in 1928. Wasn't he hoping for a draft-Coolidge movement right up through the Republican convention?
Teleprompter Messiah| 1.5.09 @ 4:20PM
Interloper: If only your new messiah had one tenth the humility of Coolidge, he might make a good president. Unfortunately, he believes his own press.
We have just elected a man of a singular accomplishment: he got elected president of the United States. Contrast him with Coolidge who actually had a law career (as a practicing lawyer not law instructor; two years out of law school in a "civil rights" law firm does not count as an impressive legal career, nor does teaching a course for ten years count for much as "scholarship"), he was a governor, vice-president and then president. He was a very thoughtful and courteous man who always recalled his humble origins. He never promised to stop the seas from rising or told everyone that this was their moment (to do what, exactly, other than be in power one is left to wonder).
In fact, Coolidge would probably laugh at how risable some people were to believe in such rhetoric.
As for the lynching issue, what happened to all of Democrat governors, legislatures and county officials that enforced Jim Crow and continued the lynching culture. Oh I forgot, the original sin of racist demagoguery practiced by the Democrat party was washed away in 1964 even though the same racist peckerwoods in the Senate tried to filibuster it (Robert Byrd, call your office.). But oh yes, believe that part of Democrat party history that went down the memory hole because we all know that the party founded by abolitionists is irredeemably racist. Even ones from that hotbed of racism, New England.
Ammo Guy| 1.5.09 @ 4:23PM
"confusing people with great oratory like Lincoln or FDR"...or Hitler or Mussolini...sheesh, some people are so easily (mis)led. And polls, what would we do without them? The one aspect of W that I love the most is that he doesn't care what the polls (or some posters) say...he always did what he thought he needed to do to protect this country and uphold the honor of the office to which he was twice elected (hard to believe he graduated from both Yale and Harvard, isn't it :o). And now, I suppose my defense of the current occupant of the Oval Office will result in brickbats being tossed in my direction by those of little real accomplishment in life...so be it.
Bud| 1.5.09 @ 4:31PM
Interloper writes, "Let's not get too carried away with praising Coolidge. He is remembered as largely a caretaker president because he did the bare minimum while holding office, leaving the heavy lifting to successors. It is odd to praise a president for not solving problems. "
I want two things from a President, neither of which requires much in the way of "heavy lifting": [1] I want to be left alone - I will deal with my own problems, thank you. [2] A President swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution - that is more than sufficient.
The vast majority of the trouble presidents have had or created for the rest of us have had to do with extra-constitutional promises and meddling.
v/r,
-- Bud
delwonka| 1.5.09 @ 4:56PM
is this article serious? coolidge did nothing during his presidency but allow big business to control the nation. during coolidge's presidency 2/3rds of americans were making less than $2,000 which many economist have estimated would "supply only basic necessities."During coolidge's reign most of america was struggling, racism was growing and people like j.p. morgan were making millions and not paying taxes. Mr. Cole also failed to mention that Coolidge worked hard to make sure that women and minorities would not earn a decent living, by working with the supreme court and declaring it unconstitutional to have a minimum wage law for women in 1924. I find it funny that coolidge a guy that did nothing is now what republicans are pushing for. These are the same people that voted for an interventionists, warmonger, patriotic act/FISA passing, defict spending president in George W. Bush.
Thom| 1.5.09 @ 5:44PM
It is pretty clear that those that support Obama want an elected “King” like figure that does good deeds regardless of what the enumerated powers of the Presidency are while those that don’t support Obama want someone to stay within the limits of power given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution. That leaves 50 State Governors and countless City and County Administrators something to do along with the millions that work for State and Local government. Simply put the bulk of those that support Obama want to worship the man and expect godlike results in return. The first hint of this is equating a person’s schooling to his level of education and placing how well one appears to be “educated” over the importance of character and wisdom, neither of which come form schooling no matter how long or expensive it was. Worship of authority figures has never led Humanity to a place that most expected to end up… Fair warning.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.09 @ 6:47PM
Coolidge was the greatest.
the chattering classes don't know what it means to SHUT UP.
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 7:32PM
Some interesting insights.
I should have been skeptical of the Mencken citation because we know that Mencken was misanthropic, holding particular disdain for the mediocre. He believed in a class of superior men who should run society. Coolidge would not have qualified.
I also find it strange that some folks are criticizing President-elect Obama for being intelligent and articulate. No wonder they think his opposite, Sarah Palin, is marketable.
As for W., even his aides are having difficulty defending his insular and awful decision-making.
Birdalone| 1.5.09 @ 8:46PM
I chose Coolidge for my research paper in History of the Presidency graduate course in 2004, mostly because I wanted an excuse to visit Northampton, MA where the Coolidge library is housed in a lovely room at the Forbes Library. My research was a startling revelation into the bias of New Deal historians like Schlesinger.
Instead, I became a great fan of the last President we had who took the Constitution seriously, where the Presidency is deliberately weak, and all domestic policy comes from the House. Untold history is how Coolidge kept us from war with Mexico, pioneered the press conference and radio, and kept the virulent nativism that emerged with the Northern KKK from tearing the country apart.
When Obama ended his 2004 speech with "we are all in the same boat", I knew he had read Coolidge's 1925 speech to the American Legion.
If only someone would finally put Coolidge's "business of America is business" quote in context. He was speaking to the Newspaper Publisher's Association, and suggesting they include more business news.
Coolidge appointed Harlan Fiske Stone to the Supreme Court (another Amherst grad). It was Stone whose opinions persuaded enough other Supremes to acknowledge the inter-state commerce clause enabled much of the New Deal legislation. A grateful FDR elevated Stone to Chief Justice.
And Grace Coolidge will always be one of our greatest First Ladies. Take a look at her portrait in the China Room. They named their dog Rob Roy as a subtle dig at Prohibition.
Thanks for honoring anniversary of Calvin Coolidge's death. Last year, the Forbe Library was astonished at the standing room only crowd that showed up.
Harmiclir| 1.5.09 @ 9:24PM
The level of discourse on this page is proof-positive for the need for moderated comment sections connected even to eminently respectable websites such as The Spectator.
Len| 1.5.09 @ 9:35PM
Interloper you accused Coolidge of not stopping lynching and then praised Obama as a man of Morality. Is your point that murder is wrong only when we can see it? What about his excellence as an educator? Well he taught Constitutional law, or did he? If he did why does not understand the clear limitations upon the President and upon Congress, see Article !, Section 8 of the Constitution. Your propaganda statements show at best you're delusional, or insane as both refer to one who is not in touch with reality.
NJSoldier| 1.5.09 @ 9:54PM
The more I have studied and witnessed history, the greater my admiration for Calvin Coolidge has become. He really was the last Conservative.
On the other hand, I have also come to have a very low opinion of both Herbert Hoover and FDR. Their "stimulus" spending, taxes hikes, protectionism, and general government interference with the economy and markets turned a sharp recession into the Great Depression. A historical fact that I've had much occasion to reflect on lately.
If only Coolidge had run in 1928...
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 9:58PM
Len, your childish name-calling notwithstanding, I will address the powers of the presidency briefly in regard to the current president. No president has so ignored the limitations of the executive branch in modern history. I suspect President-elect Obama will repudiate much of the false aggrandizement of the Bush administration in regard to both the presidency and the vice-presidency. Both Obama and Biden understand the limitations of their offices.
Marjon| 1.5.09 @ 10:15PM
He proved that leaders require character to follow the Constitution. Now we have a collusion between the Executive and Legislative with no way for the third branch to ensure the other two follow the Constitution.
But that also requires citizens who have character.
We are doomed.
Len| 1.5.09 @ 10:18PM
Interloper I did not call you names, I commented on what you appear to be suffering from as your statements were lacking any factual basis. I note that you choose to ignore Obama's unwillingness to do anything about the mass murder occurring in this country under the protection of the government just as slavery was. You also claimed Bush as the most egregious violator of Executive Powers, which is also untrue, as both FDR and his crony LBJ both went further than Bush. Try reading Article 1, Section of the US Constitution. Though this refers to Congress, it pertains to the President as well, as he can make NO laws but only carry into effect those which Congress has, and Obama has openly campaigned as do all Democrats to violate the Constitution. Go ahead find me JOB CREATING authority, find me MANDATED health care, find me authority for any involvement by the Federal Government in education. You write as one trying to represent having attained some great degree of education, well parse Article 1, Section 8. There will be a test, a test of what kind of man you really are.
Interloper| 1.5.09 @ 10:40PM
Len, I am not aware of any "mass murder" occurring in the U.S. these days. Nor are other reasonable persons.
The issues you raise are empowered by the amendments to the constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, though you have a tendency to misstate things. Furthermore, Congress will be approving the President-elect's health proposal and has already approved the current economic rescue package. You are so confused you contradict yourself.
Len| 1.5.09 @ 10:59PM
Reasonable? Sir scientifically speaking life begins at fertilization. Sorry you have failed in that and in reading the Constitution. You refer to Amendments, particularly the Bill of rights empowering Congress and the President for what they do. Clearly you either choose to ignore the Constitution or you honestly are so lacking in intellectual capacity that you can't read or understand the Constitution. Prove me wrong, cite relevant sections of the Constitution and apply them to what we have today. Show me health care, Dept of Ed., Social Security. You can't because it's not there. Again CITE the sections pertaining to any of these.
Health Guy| 1.5.09 @ 11:25PM
Interloper, by way of an fyi, Congress will not be approving the President-elect's health proposal because 1) there is no bill to accompany the campaign positions Obama took regarding healthcare and 2) it is the Congress that passes laws - the president is the one who has the power to approve by signing bills into law. Obama's "proposal" on healthcare was sparse on specifics as would be expected in a campaign and rather touched on some broad themes that have been around in the public health literature for some time. As far as a mandate (in reference to your reply to Len) it was Hillary Clinton not Obama who proposed mandated health insurance (Obama oposes this - although it would insure almost twice as many of the nation's 55 million uninsured at only an additional 1/3 the cost as compared to a plan lacking a mandate).
Alan Brooks| 1.6.09 @ 12:09AM
I like Coolidge because he wasn't a carping liberal.
my favorite is the strong violent type i e George Patton.
Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 8:10AM
Len, the U.S. Constitution says absolutely nothing about when human life begins. Roe v. Wade is based in the right to privacy, emanating from the Ninth Amendment. And, you fail to grasp that the amendments are part of the constitution.
The scientific and legal consensus is that a fetus becomes viable at about six months of gestation. Roe protects the state's interest in viable fetuses by balancing that interest against a woman's interest in privacy, including protecting her health. It would be irrational to declare zygotes, which are incapable of independent function, human beings, as anti-abortion extremists would like.
The arc of history world-wide is toward allowing abortion as a way for women to exercise control over their lives. As societies become wealthier, contraception and smaller families become common, including in countries that discourage contraception and abortion.
Health Guy, there will be a health bill. It may be a combination of the Obama and Clinton proposals. However, I do not believe President-elect Obama will make health insurance a mandate. His philosophy is to allow people to opt in instead of opting out.
Health Guy| 1.6.09 @ 8:51AM
Interloper, if there is a health bill, it will likely resemble nothing proposed in the campaign since campaigns are basically wish lists when it comes to health proposals. The idea that we should, increase access, decrease costs and increase quality sounds great but those are goals not solutions. Those are hopes where true leadership would do much better. All three of those aspects to care influence each other and often in the reverse direction. Further, you must misunderstand a mandate - a mandate does not allow people to "opt out" while Obama would prefer to allow people to "opt in." A mandate means just that, you are required to have health insurance so that young healthy people subsidize an aging population. If Obama has any guts he will do what is difficult but probably not popular on health care. Mandated purchase of health insurance (or an actual opt out as opposed to an ineffective opt in policy) along with repealing the regressive tax levied against low income workers in the form of employer sponsored care purchased with pre-tax dollars (as McCain suggested and as even David Cutler, Obama's chief healthcare adviser, had supported until he started playing politics) would be a nice start. The country craves real leadership not partisan posturing for a second term - let's hope we get the former.
Ammo Guy| 1.6.09 @ 9:05AM
Oh please, spare me your "viability" claptrap - you obviously don't subscribe to Pascal's Wager and for that you have my pity...and scorn. "Emanations" from the 9th amendment indeed - you sound like a lawyer rather than the history professor your posts claim you to be. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" - where is the right to privacy stated therein? And how does that right apply to the decision to destroy another living organism...regardless of its supposed "viability?" Why did Lincoln interfere with the South's right to own slaves? Because the conduct of slaveholders affected other humans inhumanely? Damn right, which takes us back to the unborn, which apparently you don't care about as a life form. If SCOTUS had left it alone for the 50 States to decide individually, at least that would have had some connection to the 9th amendment...but what do I know since I didn't attend the finer institutions of higher learning like some pedants who post here - top 5% indeed!
Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 9:29AM
Health Guy, President-elect Obama is rather determined about opt in over opt out. It is a characteristic of his philosophy across the board, not just regarding health insurance. He is unlikely to change his mind. Obama wants to provide the citizenry with an element of choice. A mandate would preclude that.
Ammo Guy, one really cannot understand the abortion issue without understanding basic biology. You don't understand basic biology. A zygote is not remotely a human being, slave or otherwise. A zygote is potential. If it continues to develop to the point of viability, it may become a person. But, around 20 percent of embryos do not continue to develop without intervention. Others will result in seriously defective offspring if they continue to develop, or endanger women's health. That is when intervention to eliminate the embryo becomes compelling. Roe establishes that the decision about eliminating the embryo prior to viability is between women and their physicians. Most Americans agree with SCOTUS' decision.
Much of the anti-abortion's problem is the ignorance and zealotry of its extremists. The average American has no problem distinguishing between a zygote and a person. He or she takes umbrage with abortion zealots' attempts to ban even embryonic stem cell research.
LEN | 1.6.09 @ 9:35AM
Interloper it's not the viability that matters, life is life, that is an argument used to avoid dealing with the truth. The constitution doesn't need to say when life begins, only that it is protected. SCIENCE says it begins at fertilization. The child,not a zygote(which is merely a term placed on the child at a certain place in development, such as teenager, adult, what have you) which has it's own heart and distinct DNA begins to grow(one of the basic indicators of life) . You show a distinct lack of scientific understanding or you would not use independent function as a standard. How does the child grow if it's not alive? Consensus? WOW!! What an outright lie.
Len| 1.6.09 @ 9:48AM
Oh by the way, although the Constitution does not say when life starts, it is the form of government given to protect life, and the bring into being that government which is needed to actualize the Declaration of Indendence, which does say when life begins. Ask any geneticist when life begins and (assuming sexual reproduction) they’ll tell you it’s when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm. At that point the fertilized egg has the same genetic structure it will have for its entire life, and much of the course of its future life is set, unless interrupted by accident or violent attack. Life begins when the genetic structure is in place and the biological processes begin. It’s the same with a human as it is with a kangaroo or an amoeba. Life, human or otherwise, begins at the beginning. That is the instant of creation. The act of creation invoked in the Declaration is found at the beginning of life.
Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 9:54AM
Frankly, every sperm and every egg has the potential for human life. So, Len, in keeping with your beliefs, you should be policing all those 13-year-old boys who are 'destroying human life' every opportunity they get to lay hands on their Johnsons. While you are at it, demand girls and women stop menstruating, too.
What I am saying is be realistic. It is rational to speak of the viable fetus as being protected by the state because it is an entity that can survive on its own most of the time. The state has an interest in population replacement. However, that interest is not the only one at stake. Roe balances competing interests by considering the rights of women in controlling their own bodies.
No reasonable person says that most fetuses are not alive. What we say is that most fetuses are not viable, i.e., they cannot survive on their own. That is the dividing line.
Yes, consensus. Most scientists understand fetal development. They don't confuse zygotes with people. In fact, educated people now realize that even a stray cell can be the genesis of potential human life. A brave new world, indeed.
Ammo Guy| 1.6.09 @ 9:56AM
Thanks Len for pointing out what Interloper is too stupid to see - it's life that matters and it will be way too late when we find out which of us is right. At least I'm humble enough (for a zealot) to admit that I don't understand the mystery of life, but will err on the side of life rather than some murky conversation between a poor woman and her abortion doctor...an argument which has always peeved me since we're not talking about Dr. Huxtable here, we're talking about a doctor at an abortion clinic who has a vested interest in making a buck at her expense. And don't get me started on that worthless subject of "embryonic stem cell" research when adult stem cell research has proven to be much more promising. But, in the meantime, Interloper is needed on other postings.
Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 9:57AM
The Declaration of Independence also offers no guidance on abortion. The colonists had other things on their minds. It is bizarre that anyone would cite the document in support of opposition to abortion.
Len| 1.6.09 @ 10:00AM
Your logic fails, see above, it is not the potential for life as in sperm or ovum, but when the two come together. Also, you make legal error, in referring to the state interest concerning population replacement, government exists for the benefit of the people, otherwise not needed, see the Constitution, particularly the preamble, and take your socialism somewhere else.
Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 10:13AM
Len, you make me giggle.
Different justices came together in Roe for several reasons. Justice Blackmn, who had represented the Mayo Clinic, was interested in protecting physicians' right to practice medicine without the law interfering in the relationship between patient and doctor. More conservative justices gave significant weight to the state (and society's) interest in population replacement. To break it down, there needs to be enough births to replace those lost to death. Ideally, young and middle-aged adults will earn enough to contribute to Social Security and other protections for the infirm and elderly - creating a culture in which all our needs are met. Moderates saw the right to abortion as largely a matter of due process, with women being no less protected from unnecessary interference by the government's criminal law apparatus than men. All of this is, of course, to the benefit of the people.
Len| 1.6.09 @ 10:16AM
To add a little bit, and I will concede that the comparison here is between a plant and a person, but nonetheless it goes to the weakness of viability as being indicative of life. An acorn falls into the ground where it is nurtured and grows into a tree, we know it is alive, yet take it out of the ground and it dies. No viability, yet who would deny that it was alive within that sustaining environment?
Len| 1.6.09 @ 10:23AM
I'm sorry that you find cause to giggle concerning human life. I myself might giggle at your granting infallibility to the Supreme Court, I doubt you do this in decisions not to your liking. If I am wrong correct me in that. Unfortunately many justices throughout their tenure have resorted to sophistry in their reasoning, and departed from basing their decisions on Constitutional merit. As I said the Constitution does not make the benefit of the State the issue, Particularly if the question is human life. According to your logic Dred Scott should stand and blacks be regarded as property.
Ammo Guy| 1.6.09 @ 10:25AM
Oh great, I don't bring up the 9th amendment, but someone else does who then immediately busts my chops for attempting to have a conversation about said amendment. I hope your clever arguments about life and viability are merely a dress rehearsal for your eventual conversation with your Maker, but methinks he will not be as entertained as we mortals are. Furthermore, I don't know how anyone who has listened to the jackhammer heartbeat of their child in the womb or viewed the sonogram can possibly say that is not life and that is not yet my child. If you can, I pity your offspring and their upbringing.
Interloper| 1.6.09 @ 10:35AM
Well, this has been an entertaining conversation. But, the Macworld Expo, keynote, which is streamed live, will start at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time and I rarely miss it. I am convinced the law, Roe v. Wade, will continue being the law, without my being here to defend it.
riverfunk| 1.6.09 @ 6:18PM
Preposterous contextual juxtoposition. Poor silent Cal, what would he have thought of everybody being able to attach comments to everything. Hard to be thrifty with words these days.
Obama isn't even in office yet. Let us give him a chance to govern before holding him in judgement compared to other Oval Office holders.
Travis B| 1.10.09 @ 7:54AM
Mr. Coolidge was a natural US born citizen and he, wait, let's just stop there and mull it over.
RightofRush| 1.26.09 @ 2:32PM
When asked which President of the 20th century I most admire, I invariably mention Cal Coolidge.
The reponse I most often get is, "But he didn't do anything" to which I reply BINGO!
bvnvbn| 11.16.09 @ 1:01AM
M2TS Video Converter,
M2TS Video Converter
fghfgh| 11.18.09 @ 12:12AM
iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac
Trackback| 12.9.09 @ 9:52PM
credit repair vermont, on credit repair vermont, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
hggf| 12.29.09 @ 4:37AM
iPod to Mac Transfer,
iPod to Mac Transfer
hgff| 2.25.10 @ 3:21AM
DVD PAL to NTSC,
PAL DVD to NTSC
ink free shipping | 3.23.10 @ 2:45AM
nice article
wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 5:18AM
Blu ray Ripper for Mac- your best choice.
dery| 4.21.10 @ 11:22PM
Poptropica
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
hand lvbags | 4.26.10 @ 3:23AM
after i will read your article.thanks your article,
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 1:44AM
Hmm communism another delicate issue that causes dispute even between people that share the same opinion.
Loved the article and do agree with George's interpretation of it.
I come from a communist country so I guess my opinion is a bit blurred, but to be honest I believe that every social system has problems whereby the people suffer
Green car | 4.6.12 @ 12:57PM
Green Cars