The principles of lowering tax rates, reducing spending, reducing debt, and making state government more efficient are all policies that lead to making a state more competitive.
In presidential history, scholars place a higher value on American presidents who took an expansive view of their executive powers and increased the size and scope of government. As an example, President Franklin D. Roosevelt is usually ranked in the top five of our nation’s best presidents, while President Calvin Coolidge is ranked much lower. Roosevelt expanded government with his New Deal and used vast executive powers, while Coolidge did the opposite. The same is true when examining state governors. In Minnesota, the progressive Governor Floyd B. Olson is viewed as a visionary, while little known Governor Theodore Christianson is considered a conservative reactionary. But historian popularity contests don’t tell the whole story and Christianson deserves to be remembered as a conservative policy leader and should hold a place at the top of successful Minnesota governors.
Theodore Christianson was a lawyer, newspaper editor, and historian who wrote a five-volume history of Minnesota (Minnesota The Land of Sky-Tinted Waters); he also served in the Minnesota Legislature. He was elected Governor in 1924 and served three terms in that office. During his time as governor, Christianson made fiscal prudence, or “economy in government,” a priority. He campaigned on slogans such as “More Ted, Less Taxes” and was given the nickname “Tightwad Ted.” He described himself as a true “liberal” — that is, in the old-fashioned sense of the word. Later he would serve in the United States House of Representatives and was an unsuccessful candidate for United States Senate.
Christianson’s fiscal policies reflected those of Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, While Calvin Coolidge was cutting tax rates, reducing spending, and paying down the national debt at the federal level, Christianson was doing the same in Minnesota. In 1924, Christianson argued that the “demand for a halting of the increase in taxation and public indebtedness is making itself felt, not only in Minnesota, but throughout the nation.”
As a former legislator and chair of the Appropriations Committee, Christianson understood the budget and also the numerous special interests that were fighting for more spending. He believed two of the largest economic policy problems consisted of reducing the tax burden and cutting spending. Christianson argued in 1924 that “appropriations have been increasing in Minnesota—increasing at a rapid rate during the last ten years.
Although Christianson shared a similar belief in “economy in government” as Coolidge, he did have some progressive tendencies, especially when it came to agricultural policy. This was not uncommon for many Republicans from the Midwest. During a campaign speech in 1926, Christianson even described the Republican Party of Minnesota as a progressive party. Nevertheless, he was also concerned about the radicalism of the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota and the Nonpartisan League of North Dakota.
Governor Jacob Aall Ottesen Preus, who served in office prior to Christianson, spoke for many concerned Republicans that the Farmer-Labor Party and the Nonpartisan League represented dangerous ideas of “socialism — a political cult that would destroy the principles of private property, our religion, and our homes.” Further, in his farewell address to the legislature, Preus argued that “a large group of Republicans and Democrats” worked together to stop the establishment of “state socialism along the lines attempted before and since in North Dakota.”
Governor Christianson reflected a conservatism that placed a priority on fiscal prudence and resisting the radical political philosophy of progressivism that was a growing force in the Midwest. Reducing the size and scope of government was a top priority. In 1924 he stated that “not only has there been a marked tendency toward too much government, but an undue enlargement of the personnel of government.” In his Inaugural Address, Christianson urged the Legislature to refrain from excessive spending in the state budget by following these six measures:
These recommendations, or “principles,” were necessary for not just the fiscal health of Minnesota, but also protecting the interests of the taxpayer.
Christianson understood the pressure to spend money even on worthwhile projects and causes. This also included the demand for more public infrastructure spending. Nevertheless, he argued that “there has been likewise a tendency toward making too many and too elaborate public improvements, improvements which, however desirable, are beyond what the people can afford.” He argued that the executive branch should have more power “to limit and prevent the expenditure of public money” and that both the governor and the legislature had a responsibility to control spending. Christianson stated, “Giving the Executive power to limit expenditures in no wise relieves the Legislature of responsibility to hold down appropriations. The Legislature from time immemorial has been the taxpayer’s last line of defense. Its power to limit or withhold revenue it must not and cannot relinquish.” Although the Legislature often clashed with Governor Christianson over his use of the veto it was successful in limiting spending.
As governor, Christianson was the first executive to use the veto power extensively in an effort to limit spending. During his 1926 campaign, he celebrated his use of the veto that in one year — 1925 — saved taxpayers over $1.8 million. During the 1929 legislative session, Christianson vetoed three appropriations that accounted for over $15 million. These are just a few examples of his vetoes which totaled 76 during his time in office saving taxpayers close to $18 million.
It is often argued that reducing spending was a lot easier during Christianson’s time because state government was smaller. However, this argument is false because Christianson, just as with Harding and Coolidge at the national level, had to fight to limit spending. Some of his vetoes were applied to education appropriations, which created anger. Cutting spending is never easy whether it is in the 1920s or 2025.
One of the major government reform initiatives that occurred under his watch was the 1925 Reorganization Act, which made the state government more efficient by limiting bureaucracy. Christianson argued that reforming state government by making it leaner was a good policy, but it was even more important to in making it more difficult for government to spend taxpayer dollars. He stated that “it is not necessary to have three or four inspectors do the work that one can do,” adding, “It is not necessary to have 92 separate and distinct departments, boards, and bureaus operating in Minnesota when a smaller number would do as well.”
From Christianson’s perspective, government was not always the solution to every policy problem. “It is not necessary to create a new board or bureau to take care of every situation that can possibly arise especially in view of the fact that there are so many things that individuals can do so much better for themselves than any board or bureau can do for them,” stated Christianson.
Since Minnesota at this time did not have an income tax and relied on property taxes and other taxes Christianson argued that a fiscal conservative policy agenda should serve as an example for local governments to allow lower their property taxes. “Economy in state government should set an example for communities,” stated Governor Christianson. The New York Times reported toward the end of his time in office that Christianson has made tax relief a “chief undertaking of his administration.” Like President Coolidge, he argued that following “economy in government” and lowering taxes would benefit everyone in the economy. Christianson stated, “The best thing the State of Minnesota can do for the farmer, the laborer, or any other man, is to relieve him, so far as it may be done, of the burdens it has imposed on him. Reduce taxes, and farms will yield a larger net return. Reduce taxes, and the manufacturer can make goods and the merchant sell them at a lower price, and the laborer’s wage will have greater purchasing power.”
Governor Christianson advised the Minnesota Legislature not to be hasty in voting for legislation. “‘When in doubt, vote No,’ might well be emblazoned over the door of every legislative hall,” stated Christianson, foreshadowing the advice of a future conservative, Senator Barry M. Goldwater.
Throughout his time in office Governor Christianson considered the “interests of the taxpayers as of higher value than the wishes of the tax-spenders.” The principles of lowering tax rates, reducing spending, reducing debt, and making state government more efficient are all policies that lead to making a state more competitive.
In a prophetic statement, Governor Christianson said that the question of taxes was more than just money. “There is more involved in the problem of taxation than the money which we as taxpayers must pay, there is involved nothing less than the perpetuity of our social order, for if the superstructure becomes too heavy for the human civilization is doomed.” One wonders what he would think of Minnesota’s high tax rates today and a state government that has become a leviathan.
In our current era Governor Christianson seems obsolete. Fiscal conservatives in both political parties, especially at the national level, are an endangered species. Many would argue that society and our economy has grown too complex for a conservative philosophy of limited government to work. Progressives were of the same mindset during Christianson’s time in office. In 1924 Christianson told Minnesotans that “getting government back to first principles is the biggest political task of the present generation.”
Governor Theodore Christianson, a champion of limited government in Minnesota, is an example for state and local policy leaders across the nation. Iowa Senator Jason Schultz offers a timely reminder and a rule for legislators that reflects the conservatism of Christianson: “Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that tax policy is affected by spending. And when you start seeing spending creeping up…you can’t have good tax policy.”
This holds true today. The ideas of fiscal restraint are not obsolete. Reporting the death of Gov. Christianson, The Washington Post wrote that he was a “staunch Republican who devoted himself to curbing the mounting cost of state government and reducing state indebtedness.”
Print a PDF