Once more we go to the negative side of the scale for book reviews. I decided to return to a book that I fondly remember as the gold-standard of how to not write a biography—though, in this case, hagiography would be more appropriate: Amity Shlaes' Coolidge, which for some reason I remember seeing around a lot when I was a bit younger and assumed it must be a decent biography. Yeah, I was wrong.
Just for a starting point on her bias: Shlaes now chairs the board of trustees of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation. She's like Peggy Noonan if Noonan had only ever gotten wet for Reagan after he was dryer than a mummy. Shlaes' also gave her own damn book a five-star review on Goodreads, which is more a pet peeve, but to my understanding doing this as an author is a social faux pas a bit like that scene in Borat when he shits in a bag, brings it down to the dinner table, and asks what to do with it.
As a general rule in history, as in many fields, you should allow the evidence to determine your opinion instead of shaping your interpretation of the evidence around a preconceived conclusion. This is difficult to do, both in academia and in the larger world, however Shlaes does not even appear to give this an attempt. She is very clearly a huge fan of Coolidge and would like to see him lionized. A tall order for a man famously known as Silent Cal, not so much because he was chockfull of funny anecdotes like the "you lose" dinner table bet, more cause he was apparently just the kind of guy who found nothing more fascinating than watching paint dry and had conversations about that exciting, as well.
Now, I wrote my original review of this book in college years ago and lost it. And since I forgot how nightmarish this book is to flip through (I could only find a large-print copy, which might speak to the audience's demographics, I suspect a heavy Fox News overlap), I'm going to stick to the two primary points of contention I remember bugging the hell out of me.
First is the 1912 Presidential Election. In this election, Woodrow Wilson was elected to the presidency, in part thanks to a split republican ticket. Teddy Roosevelt had returned to the US and was not happy with the direction William Howard Taft, his successor, had taken as president. After trying unsuccessfully to get the republican nomination, Roosevelt stormed out and ran as a Bull-Moose or Progressive. And he did well. He carried 4.1 million votes, 88 electoral votes, and 6 states compared to Taft's 3.5 million votes, 8 electoral votes, and 2 states won.
If you were to read Shlaes, however, you would walk away with the impression that this election showed Taft coming out ahead of Roosevelt, the dissatisfaction voters had with Roosevelt, and voters' yearning for a more business-centric approach like that of Taft. The numbers show this to be a lie—this is probably why, if memory serves, Shlaes is very selective about which dribbles of information come through: that way, the reader cannot paint their own picture, come to their own conclusion, and realize what she's peddling is a crock of shit.
As a friendly head's up, I'm not aware if she still does editorials for them, but Shlaes was employed by the Wall Street Journal. Just something fun to keep in mind: I know I grew up seeing them as a respected and trustworthy source. Seeing that this is the kind of writer who they employ really takes a wrecking ball to their integrity as well as to hers. As I stated in my Constanzo post: if you want some really excellent journalists, the two that always come to mind for me are Lawrence Wright and Jane Mayer. Since we're in the political realm, Mayer's Dark Money has got to be one of the best books out there and I cannot recommend it enough.
Back to the point: Shlaes' portrayal of the 1912 election is incredibly disingenuous. Her next huge issue, in my eyes, comes toward the end of Coolidge's term and his decision to step down. For another quick little bit of context: prior to Eisenhower, presidents could run for a third term (or longer). FDR's breaking the two-term precedent led to the Constitutional Amendment we now have barring a third-term altogether. Coolidge could have run for a third term and Shlaes seems to suggest he considered it and should have.
As memory serves, the way she paints the picture is this: Coolidge could have run for a third term and won. If he had done so, the Great Depression would never have happened thanks to his steady hand. He had, after all, predicted that a market correction (10-20% loss) was imminent. However, he trusted Hoover to be able to handle this and keep a steady hand.
Now, I have been told I'm bad with STEM stuff and the Wall Street Journal has never hired me to look at stocks or write editorials, so maybe I'm just dumb. But I believe that 10-20% (a market correction) is a different number than "almost 90%" (89.2%, I believe?), the amount the Dow fell during the Great Depression. Any mathematicians who would like to correct me here, I would appreciate it, just to be sure.
Joking aside, Shlaes inadvertently paints herself into a corner on this one: 1) either Coolidge was wrong and didn't have the foresight to see this coming or 2) he did have the foresight to see a market crash/"correction" coming but chose to step down anyway. Which is, of course, why the blame gets shifted to Hoover (who, by all accounts was a very kind man even if unsuited to the presidency): Coolidge cannot let down. Coolidge can only be let down.
All in all, Coolidge reminds me of one of my last classes as a history major, where a professor asked us: if during the course of research, you find information that makes a very strong, very compelling argument against the one you're making, are you obligated to mention it or can you just tuck it away and play ignorance? I came down on the side that we shouldn't intentionally omit information. A read of Coolidge makes it very clear Shlaes falls on the other end of the debate and believes in distorting even publicly, easily available information.
I've yet to find a Coolidge biography I would recommend, but I do know I'd stay the hell away from this one.
Comments
Post a Comment