The Politics of Normalcy

Robert Murray has written a 146 page, thin appraisal of what he calls Warren Harding's politics of "Normalcy." Harding, master and golden-voiced-orator of the Chautauqua circuit of the late 1900s, (who was so illiterate in writing substantive speeches, used only one speech throughout several summers on this Circuit) used an alterative speaking style. And it was from this, that he brought back the word "normalcy;" i.e., "America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy..."

There was no such thing as "Normalcy politics." It was a catch-phrase that his political handlers used to great effect in swaying the masses thusly: Harding's campaign promised a return to "normalcy," rejecting the activism of Theodore Roosevelt and the idealism of Woodrow Wilson. Voters responded to his genial nature, impressive stature, and bland message; he won by a landslide. It's like then-Senator Obama using the catch-phrase, "Time for Change" to win votes for those weary of the Bush-war years.

Harding, once in the job, didn't even think he should have been there....but Murray, an early devotee of Harding; trying to salvage the Harding reputation (which is altogether impossible), presents us here in 1973, with a very poor attempt at describing Harding's' limited White House years. He used some of the Harding papers that had just been opened for his inspection, after he assured the Harding Memorial Association, aka Harding family, that he would write a monograph that was not biased. Unfortunately he doesn't point out that Florence Harding took the trouble of burning/destroying about 2/3 of Harding's papers and letters. So, for instance, when Murray says he found nothing about one of Harding cronies Jess Smith in the papers, it's understandable.

I should note that within the last year, another revisionist historian (Phillip Payne) has made another attempt at revitalizing Harding's character, and in the process, cites the two Murray books on Harding as inaccurate and biased! Curiously, even Payne followed Murray's method for listing his cited bibliography in the last few pages...in reality, a "Bibliography Review." Murray (and later Payne) gives his own biased/revisionist interpretation of each book available up to 1973.

Murray's attempt to separate Harding from Albert Fall's scandals (Harding's Secretary of Interior) he used the biased and inaccurate Harry M. Daugherty autobiography (Harding's Attorney General) as the basis for reinventing Harding's character. Unfortunately, most historians have dismissed the Daugherty book as mostly self-serving fiction written by one who barely missed going to jail himself.

Finally, Murray castigates Coolidge as inept and ineffective as a President; simply riding on the coat-tails of Harding to election in his own right, and being the chief proponent of fulfilling Harding's "normalcy" program. He also states that some Coolidge biographers created a myth about him. What rubbish!

"Normalcy" was not a program...Harding never had an original idea in his life; he didn't even want the job...he stated that several times to eye witnesses..."Normalcy" was a code-word that the campaign managers latched onto to sway the masses of people who longed to be done with WW I and return to the "good old days."

"Normalcy" as an idea, was popular with the voters. But since it was a newly prominent word uttered by a politician, reactions to "normalcy" were mixed. Language purists sneered that Harding's word was a mistake for normality. They explained that -ity is the usual suffix for words like normal, while -cy is only attached to words that end in t, as in democracy from democrat. However, there were language purists among Harding's supporters too, and they found normalcy lurking in dictionaries and articles as far back as 1857, attracting no criticism (or attention of any sort) before Harding used it.

The normalcy debate of the 1920s is now long gone, and normalcy is now more normal than normality to describe the way things usually are or the way we think they ought to be.

It was an interesting but uninformative book. Other historians say he was a do-nothing president. Harding himself admitted it. He said that he was unqualified to be president.