ODonnell 1

Calvin Coolidge, in my opinion, is one of the most difficult presidents to study. I say his
because of his seemingly unprecedented approach to the presidency. It is no secret that Coolidge
preferred to stay in the shadows and lead passively. Amity Shlaes was most certainly one of
these people. She seemingly idolizes Coolidge for his relaxed approach to government. Shlaes
calls Coolidge, the Great Refrainer, meaning he understood his role as President and did not
over step his executive powers.
It is very apparent that Shlaes wants the reader to agree with her stance. She presents the
biography using a very one sided approach. She depicts Coolidge through a very nostalgic point
of view. Beginning with his humble Vermont roots. She explains that Coolidge was a somewhat
sickly boy, who lost his mother at a relatively young age. He was not a rich man and earned his
education and subsequently his reputation at Amherst College. He gained his reputation through
powerful and eloquent public speaking and eventually earned the position of Governor of
Massachusetts.
After impressively handling the Red Scare of 1919 in Boston he began to receive national
attention as a potential Presidential nominee. However, the powers that be, such as Henry Cabot
Lodge did not see his humble making a good presidential nominee. Lodge stated, a man who
lives in a two bedroom house cannot be president. For reasons such as that Coolidge only rose
to be a vice presidential candidate running alongside Warren G. Harding. Therefore when
Harding won the presidency, Coolidge became the Vice President of the United States.

ODonnell 2
Upon Hardings untimely death in August of 1923 Coolidge became president. People
coming from the same school of thought of Henry Cabot Lodge were appalled at this fact that
now a seemingly inept man was now the most powerful man in the United States. With that
being said there was nothing they could do about it. At that point a very serious shift of
government took place. Coolidge and his laid back approach to government became the way of
the Federal Government.
Coolidges outlook on taxation are what ultimately define his presidency and presently
remains a heated topic of discussion between right winged and left winged politicians. Coolidge
was a major supporter of tax cuts. He staunchly believed that cutting taxes created revenue and
cultivated enterprise. As a result the United States economy experienced a very apparent period
of prosperity. This period of economic prosperity earned the title of the roaring twenties.
Coolidge receives great praise as the architect of the roaring twenties.
Shlaes describes Coolidge as an economic icon, she truly believed that his approach to
the economy was necessary for the United States at the time. It put the money and power in the
hands of industrial powers and investment banks and proved to effective by the booming
economy. It is no secret that Coolidge lived by his economic philosophies. Coolidge believed
that a sound budget was among the most important of virtues. Shlaes agreed saying, cutting
rates increases revenue, so cutting even more rates would create even more revenue. I agree
with her very logically reasoning towards that approach. If it is not broke do not fix it. That is
my approach to just about everything regarding my life.

ODonnell 3
Coolidge believed in Supply Side economics. Meaning that tax cuts on the wealthy
would in turn pay for themselves. Which goes back to the theory that cutting taxes builds
enterprise. This is one of the main focusses of Coolidges critics. They blame his economic
policies and laid back policies for indirectly causing the Great Depression. It is these critics
stance that Coolidge put to much responsibility in the deep pockets of Wall Street men. Coupling
that with his laid back approach to government and lack of regulation gives their theory credit.
However, Shlaes disagrees because she adamantly contends that Coolidges presidency was a
success because of how quietly he approached it.
A quote from Coolidges writings that I believe supports Shlaes stance is if the Federal
Government were to go out of business, the common run of people would not detect the
difference. I interpret that quote this way, the common man does not find issues with
government until something catastrophically goes wrong. Commoners are perfectly fine with
sitting back and enjoying prosperity because when thats going on everyone is winning but as
soon as something goes wrong the finger has to be pointed somewhere. The Great Depression, as
terrible as it was, proves to be a perfect example of this. So why wouldnt people go back to the
prior president as the focus of their blame. He was the one that made decisions that made
everyone financially prosperous. Naturally it is his fault when things go wrong.
In my opinion that does not make any sense. The core argument behind such thinking is
nothing more than counter intuitive. The logic behind it is rooted in loose interpretation and for
that reason I staunchly disagree. I understand there is an obvious chain of events that lead to

ODonnell 4
major occurrences but using that logic a deeper investigation must be taken into presidents prior
to Coolidge and after him.
Coolidge receives some of the highest right winged praise for his ability to run the
government the way it was intended to be run by the Constitution of the United States. He
allowed the government to work in balance, rather than actively try to inflict his power over the
other branches of government. Things were going well during his administration so he simple let
it be. He let prosperity flourish and I along with Shaels commend him for that.
The fact of the matter is that his economic systems worked, therefore, he did his job to
the best of his ability. Shlaes goal in writing this biography was convey Coolidge the best way
she possibly could. Allowing opinions that grew out of failures occurring after his administration
had ended would not have successfully accomplished her goal of writing an accurate biography.
I do agree with her revisionist approach to this biography simply because she
accomplishes exactly what she set out to do. It blatantly apparent that Shlaes admired Coolidge
not only as a person but as a president. That is why she chose to write a biography, in my opinion
she would not have done if she did not have a vivid admiration for Coolidge. I thoroughly
enjoyed this biography for multiple reasons. One of which is because I am a huge fan of the
Reagan administration which idolized the Coolidge presidency. The attacks made by liberal
detractors are unsettling to me. They bring to light everything about politics that I despise.
Placing blame where it is not deserved bothers, in attempting to drag Coolidges presidency
through the mud to further support their opposing view is uncalled for and has no place politics.