Amity Shlaes’ interesting book, Coolidge, revived a “Coolidge is cool” movement among conservatives.  Ronald Reagan may have started the revival when he replaced Harry Truman’s portrait with one of Coolidge in the Cabinet Room.  Michele Bachmann reflected a Tea Party sensibility about Coolidge when she proposed adding his visage to Mount Rushmore.  What conservatives like about Coolidge, whom they see as the last of the non-progressive presidents, is his personal and political sense of self-restraint:  Shlaes refers to him as “the great refrainer.”   They also like his tax-cutting and expense-reducing policies that accompanied the robust economic growth of the roaring 20’s.

Two other new books place the origin of modern American conservatism in the 1930’s with the New Deal and Herbert Hoover’s prophetic attack on its excesses.  Indeed, we argue in The New Deal and Modern American Conservatism: A Defining Rivalry that, just as Edmund Burke defined modern conservatism in his response to the French Revolution, the New Deal is our French Revolution and Herbert Hoover is the early prophet speaking against it.  The New Deal is still the paradigm for American domestic and economic policy today, 80 years later and going strong.  And the arguments Hoover made about the growth of government, its role in central planning, and the corresponding loss of personal liberty all ring true today.  Indeed, Hoover’s chief biographer, George Nash, has recently found Hoover’s “lost” manuscript about his fruitful post-presidency called “The Crusade Years” which will be released shortly and confirms this thesis.

Modern American conservatism is fundamentally a response to the New Deal.  And conservatives should continue in the spirit of Hoover’s critique to crusade against it.  When President Obama campaigns for income equality, he seeks to extend Franklin Roosevelt’s battle for increased taxation of the rich.  When Democrats pass Obamacare, they are adding to the entitlement network begun by Roosevelt.  When government grows to peace-time highs in regulation and spending, and takes over more aspects of our lives, it builds on the New Deal.

Oliver Holmes said he would not give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but would give his life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.  While Coolidge’s self-restraint was admirable, and a tempting model for Tea Party simplicity, conservatism must deal with the complexities of today’s New Deal-style government.  For this project, Herbert Hoover has pointed the way.

Link to Real Clear Books:  http://www.realclearbooks.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2013/12/12/coolidge_or_hoover_and_why_it_matters_73.html