“Character is the only secure foundation of the state,” said President Calvin Coolidge, and our last two blog entries considered the meaning of that statement. Coolidge was “distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,” wrote a Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. In other words, Coolidge did not only talk about character, but also exercised character. He was able to speak freely about character because there was no dichotomy between what he said and what he did.
Let’s look at a few last comparisons between the behavior of character and the behavior of modern politicians in the U.S.
- Character agrees with President Coolidge’s exhortation: “Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.” He learned and exercised the character trait “love” in doing what was best for everyone, both weak and strong. He knew that we could never strengthen the weak and poor of our nation by taking from the strong and giving it to the weak. He knew that would only weaken the entire nation. The weak and poor had to build character. They had to exercise industriousness for themselves. They had to exercise persistence, efficiency, punctuality, responsibility, respect, and a host of other character traits that lead to greater success.
By contrast, many modern politicians want to achieve redistribution of wealth – as long as it does not redistribute what is in their own pockets. Contrary to the belief of Coolidge, they urge the pulling down of the strong (except for themselves) in a supposed effort to build up the weak. This is not character. This is not love. No character trait is exercised when we feed people who refuse to work. No character trait is involved in taking from those who work hard for a living and giving to those who reject hard work.
A government that is founded on and operates by character is a government that trains its people to know that no one gets a free ride. It is a government that makes it clear in actions as well as words that everyone must work for his or her food, clothing, education, health care, etc.
Character is not at the foundation of politicians’ promises to feed and clothe those who are oppressed – when that oppression is due to rejection of such character traits as: diligence, determination, dependability, resourcefulness, responsibility, respect, forgiveness, self-control, persistence, perseverance, etc. These character traits pave the road that leads out of oppression.
Character is not at the foundation of many political promises – when those promises are made in order to gain office and power. Character does not seek fame and power for self. Character does not seek change for the sake of self.
Character is not puffed up with its own importance. Character is not noisy. Calvin Coolidge was called “The Quiet President” and not the eloquent president.
If we were to found a government on character, that government would require far less money; far fewer government workers; and far fewer laws. A government founded on the secure foundation of character would not need a proliferation of politicians with large staffs. It would have no use for lobbyists who strive to influence those politicians. It would never produce laws with earmarks and pork barrel spending. It would have very low, reasonable taxes to fund its minimal size.
If we were to found a government on character, that government would expect its people to operate on character also, learning and exercising character traits that lead to financial independence. Yes, there would still be poor people. The poverty would not be due to lack of character, however, and needs would be met by individuals with character rather than by big government.
As President Coolidge said, “Character is the only secure foundation of the state.”
That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?