The High Tide of American
Conservatism: Davis,
Coolidge, and the 1924 Election.
By Garland S. Tucker, III
(Emerald
Book Company, 306 pages, $29.95)
The last time Democrats and Republicans matched
ideologically in a presidential campaign was 1924, according to
Garland S. Tucker, III, president/CEO of Triangle Capital
Corporation, a publicly traded specialty-finance company.
Republican Calvin Coolidge and Democrat John W. Davis shared the
traditional American ideals of “limited government — minimalist in
Coolidge’s case — individual freedom and low taxes.” After that
election, “the Republicans remained on a rightward course, while
the Democrats steered leftward; and there has been no major
realignment since.”
In his book, High Tide of American Conservatism:
Davis, Coolidge, and the 1924 Election, Tucker observes that
limited government made its last stand during Coolidge’s term in
the White House. Beginning with his successor, Republican Herbert
Hoover (whom Coolidge derisively dubbed “Wonder-Boy”), a fateful
series of legislative actions would spur the encroachment of the
federal government into virtually all areas of life. In the ensuing
years, the essential conservatism of the Founders, Hamiltonians and
Jeffersonians alike, has made only brief and limited appearances —
in the unsuccessful 1964 campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater,
and under Ronald Regan, beginning in 1981.
This is the kind of a book only a capitalist and
practitioner of the American dream could write. Tucker longs for a
return to those days when individual freedom allowed for the
creation of personal wealth and American business thrived in an
atmosphere of low taxes. Wistfully, he quotes Coolidge: “I want
taxes to be less, that the people may have more.” (He also passes
along another of Coolidge’s withering comments on Hoover: “That man
has given me nothing but advice, and all of it bad.”)
Tucker’s first-hand knowledge of business obviously makes
it painful for him to watch the current drift toward socialism in
America which undermines self-reliance and market productivity. The
Federal Government’s recent involvement in the auto industry and
student loan programs, increased financial regulation, and
mandatory health insurance coverage are just a few examples. The
malign influence of government becomes strikingly evident when
present conditions are contrasted with the strength and growth of
the American economy as well as the spectacular climb of stock
market, reported by Tucker, during the Harding-Coolidge
administrations from mid-1921 that culminated in late
1929.
The Great Depression, which began with the stock market
crash in late 1929, has been invoked regularly to justify
government intervention in the economy. But Tucker attributes that
episode to human nature, rather than to any flaw in the capitalist
system. “Always, in the final stages of a bull-market,” he writes,
“greed becomes the primary motivator; investors are loath to
consider caution, and the result is a precipitous
correction.”
Tucker notes that Coolidge himself raised a warning about
overheated expectations on the part of investors. And he quotes the
observation of historian Paul Johnson that “Business turndowns
serve essential purposes. They have to be sharp. But they need not
be long because they are self-adjusting.” The financial
interventions of Herbert Hoover and, later, Franklin Roosevelt
interfered with those natural adjustments, effectively delaying
economic recovery, and making the turndown that became the Great
Depression excessively long and agonizing. (Tucker would, no doubt,
be pleased if his readers see any parallels with the Bush-Obama
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or the various stimulus
packages, all of which have thus far proven futile in relieving our
current economic woes.)
One point of disagreement between Coolidge and Davis was
tariffs. Davis was against the Fording-McCumber Tariff (1922),
which imposed the highest duties in American history. Davis
believed that “the government was protecting special privileges —
those of manufacturers,” and pressed for a return to freer trade.
Industrialists, the beneficiaries of tariff protection, supported
Coolidge, and “preached to their workers that the tariff
safe-guarded their jobs.”
Given recent experience with the North American Free Trade
Act (NAFTA), passed in 1994, it would appear that Coolidge and the
industrialists were on to something. Reform Party candidate H. Ross
Perot predicted that NAFTA’s elimination of most trade barriers
between the U.S., Mexico and Canada — a step supported by the
leaders of both the Republican and Democratic Parties — would
result in American jobs being sucked down to Mexico. That happened,
and American industry has never recovered. Likewise, the low
tariffs and high import quotas which China enjoys through its
Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Status have decimated American
manufacturing jobs and contributed greatly to our national debt.
Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan had no
problem restricting imports to promote our national interest.
Because of present realities some social scientists believe that at
least 10% of the blue-collar workforce will not be employed at any
given time. In fact, this group is becoming more and more dependent
on government largess for survival.
Tucker offers critical insight into how third-party
movements — such as Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party and
Robert La Follette’s Progressive Party — have reshaped both the
Republican and Democratic parties. He charts the realignment of
liberal Republicans with the Democrats and the defection of
conservative Democrats to the GOP because of the progressive
policies of Democrats Woodrow Wilson and William Gibbs McAdoo
(McAdoo had been the party’s front runner at the 1924 Convention,
though Davis was eventually nominated as a compromise).
The leftward drift of the Democratic Party so disturbed
Davis that he stated in a 1953 interview, “the greatest changes
I’ve seen in law stem from the relationship between the citizen and
his government, with an ever-widening field of government
interference.” A renowned Wall Street lawyer, who often argued
before the Supreme Court, Davis also deplored judicial activism.
Tucker believes that, had he lived another 20 years, Davis would
have joined his fellow conservative Democrats in defecting to the
GOP.
Tucker seems to be preparing us for a coming restructuring
of the two major parties in light of the Tea Party movement that so
effectively swept Republicans into office this last election cycle.
An acronym for “Taxed Enough Already,” and infused with
revolutionary connotations, the word “Tea” expresses a widely
shared desire to curb federal spending, reduce taxes and deficits
(which Coolidge accomplished in the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s),
and return to stricter constitutional interpretation.
The Tea Party follows the pattern of past third-party
movements in giving voice to the strivings and frustrations of the
“common man.” Many liberals and old-line party stalwarts fear such
populism as an attack on the governmental and technocratic “elites”
heavily represented among the ruling classes of both parties (60
percent of Tea Partiers identify themselves as Republicans, the
other 40 percent disaffected Democrats or Independents).
The essence of this conflict was captured in an exchange
between former First Lady Barbara Bush and Sarah Palin, the 2008
Republican vice-presidential nominee. Reacting to the popularity
that could make the former Alaska Governor a contender for the 2012
GOP presidential nomination, Bush commented that Palin “is very
happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.” Palin’s retort
echoed a widespread weariness with the “ruling class”: “I say it
with all due respect — because I love the Bushes — but the
bluebloods want to pick their winners instead of allowing
competition to pick and choose the winners.”
As average Americans see their personal freedom evaporate
under the ever-growing “nanny-state,” the Founders’ spirit of
independence and self-reliance is reasserting itself. A return to
the America of “non-elites” like Calvin Coolidge and John W. Davis
seems to be just what Garland Tucker both prescribes and
foresees.
We can only hope!
