By Edwin Cooney
As those of you who read these pages regularly are fully aware, I confuse easily! So, you won’t be surprised to learn that I needed to consult with my two buddies Lunkhead and Dunderhead in the wake of President Obama’s State of the Union address last Tuesday night.
Lunkhead, chomping on a dead cigar as usual, was pointing his right index finger along the bar toward Dunderhead as I entered my local watering hole. Dunderhead had a defiant scowl. I got right between them.
“It’s just as I predicted,” said Lunkhead sipping from his scotch. “Obama’s exactly at the halfway point of his administration and he’s spending us into the ground. He’s a socialist, Dunderhead! You might as well admit it.”
“Nuts!” shot back Dunderhead, “If he’s a socialist, where’s my single payer healthcare plan? Where’s the government nationalization of banks and public utilities? Where’s free public education covering prekindergarten through graduate school? The last time I heard, it was the banking industry that pleaded for government bailouts. You “conservatives” have it both ways. You’re against government bailouts and yet you‘re emotionally dependant on Wall Street. You anxiously set aside part of your lunch period to check your cell phones to see what’s shaking in the stock market. You don’t object if a company you hold stock in gets a government contract. You use government as regularly as any liberal does so long as the activity pays stock dividends that puts money in your pocket. You don’t punish corporations that do business with the government so long as they pay a stock dividend. Relax, Lunkhead, you’ll benefit from Obama’s liberal light ideas.”
“Look!” growled Lunkhead, “Understand that goods -- not services -- create wealth. Reap a profit from a home or an automobile and you’ve created wealth. We’d be a prosperous, manufacturing industrialist, international trade creditor nation today if the high cost of labor hadn’t forced business to go overseas to make a profit. Now all Obama can do is predict government financed prosperity. Nobody believes him -- and they shouldn’t: he’s a one-termer!”
“Why’s that?” I asked. “I thought it was a pretty powerful pep talk to both Congress and the American people.”
“There’s a very simple reason for that,” asserted Lunkhead. “First, the public finally gets it that the 2008 recession was a government-created recession rather than a Republican recession. Even more, Conservatives believe in their philosophy of “less government is the best government” while liberals lack passion for their beliefs. In fact, I don’t think liberals believe in anything as much as they theorize about possible approaches to government. They’ll wimp out on Barack Obama just as they did Jimmy Carter and
splinter party candidates John Anderson in 1980 or Ralph Nader in 2000. Another thing they do is stay home pledging to be good boys and girls and to stay out of politics forever,” Lunkhead concluded with a big grin.
“Nice try, Lunkhead,” Dunderhead shot back. “The truth will soon ‘set you free’,” Dunderhead insisted, setting down his Mexican beer. “In the first place, weren’t Republicans governing when most businesses headed for more prosperous shores? Second, wasn’t it Republican Party government that was running both Congress and the Executive Branch during 2002 through 2006 when fiscal policy was being set? Didn’t Republican government leaders named Phil Gramm and Dick Armey deregulate the banks thus allowing them to create low interest home sales and speculate in loan purchasing? Third, doesn’t money which is used to pay the salaries of small businessmen and workers who engage in such things as internal reconstruction have the same value as money that pays for homes, cars, green energy and all the rest? Why is it that you see no value in investing in American jobs? No, Lunkhead, we’re not joining the circular firing squad in 2012. Call me a socialist and you’re not far off. Call President Obama (who’s putting capitalism back on its feet) a socialist and you’re kidding yourself as much as 1936 Republicans kidded themselves. How many states did they win in ’36—Maine and Vermont?”
“How many states did your man Mondale win in 1984?” asked Lunkhead. He continued, “In fact, Mondale barely won his home state of Minnesota. If President Reagan had had just 3,500 more Minnesota votes, he’d have cleared the national decks!”
From there, the discussion went rapidly downhill. Nevertheless, I felt much less confused than I’d been when I walked in. As sure as they were of themselves, I just knew that the future would be brighter than either one of them could possibly foresee!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
REMEMBERING WHEN
By Edwin Cooney
Yes, indeed, I actually remember that far off time Fred Foy (The Lone Ranger’s radio announcer) used to refer to as “yesteryear.” Fifty summers have passed since a youthful New Englander named Kennedy took the presidential oath of office at age 43 years and 236 days. It’s one of those bittersweet memories that, except for how it dates me, I’m nevertheless happy to recall.
January 20th, 1961 occurred on a Friday and there was snow everywhere. To borrow a phrase from singer Brook Benton’s 1970 hit “Rainy Night in Georgia,” it seemed to be snowing all over the world. Certainly, it had snowed heavily in Washington, D.C. and in Western New York State where I, at age 15 was attending the New York State School for the Blind.
Using my teenage “lingo,” President Kennedy was a “curious” person—which meant that I was curious about him. He was, as a number of my schoolmates reminded me with pride, “…the first Catholic ever elected president of the United States of America.” Even though I wasn’t a Roman Catholic, that was alright with me. However, I had to adjust to two factors about him.
I was a Republican who had very much wanted Vice President Richard Nixon and UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to be elected president and vice president, so I was naturally disappointed on that ground. However, even more personal, since my image of a man’s worth was audio rather than visual, I was overwhelmed by the new president’s combination Boston/Harvard accent. How, I wondered, could America pick a guy who sounded like that to be their president? The very idea stunned me. (Perhaps if I’d heard a recording of Calvin Coolidge at that time in my life, I wouldn’t have been as surprised. Mr. Coolidge’s accent was thicker and less polished than either JFK’s or Franklin D. Roosevelt’s — which I hadn’t heard back then, either).
Thus, I listened with fascination, but with little comprehension, as our new president promised to “…pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
That part of the inaugural address even I understood. Even more, I was pleased that our new president, like Vice President Nixon, was dedicated to our national safety. Perhaps President Kennedy might be as determined and as capable as outgoing President Eisenhower to keep us safe from the clutches of “Godless Communism” as advanced by that “devil incarnate” Nikita Khrushchev! I could only hope.
Adults who couldn’t watch the inaugural during the day surely tuned into NBC’s
Huntley-Brinkley Report or CBS’s Evening News (anchored by Douglas Edwards) to catch details of the inaugural.
Some will recall how the sun, reflecting off the snow, got into poet Robert Frost’s eyes making it difficult for him to see his script and how Vice President Johnson attempted to obstruct the glare with his top hat.
Years later, Thomas (Tip) O’Neill in his memoir “Man of the House” told an amusing story about JFK’s Inauguration. Pointing out that people often wonder what’s going through a president’s mind as he takes the most important oath in his life, O’Neill recounted the story, explaining that as JFK stepped forward to take the oath from Chief Justice Earl Warren, out of the corner of his eye he noticed that sitting in the Kennedy box was one of his father’s “gofers,” George Kara. The president knew his name, but as far as he knew, the man wasn’t that important. Hence, as JFK was becoming America’s Thirty-fifth President, what was on his mind was: “how the hell did that guy get that seat?”
Young as he was, Jack Kennedy received, for the most part, the respect he needed to fulfill the duties of his office. His legislative achievements were substantially less than some presidents, but he carried himself with poise and substance whether he was addressing an annual Gridiron dinner or reminding the nation that civil rights was primarily a moral issue.
Fifty years ago last Thursday, youth, vigor, and commitment in the person of John Fitzgerald Kennedy strode into the national spotlight to lead us for 1,036 days. Jack Kennedy was young enough to have both of his parents at his inaugural. Although Ulysses S. Grant’s parents were alive at both his 1869 and 1873 Inaugurations, they attended neither. Sadly, JFK was the first president to be survived by both his parents.
John Kennedy’s personhood and presidency, imperfect as they were, streaked across America’s historical firmament like Halley’s Comet only to be quashed like a candle at midnight.
As for those immortal words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country”…my adolescent awareness didn’t even take notice of them!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Yes, indeed, I actually remember that far off time Fred Foy (The Lone Ranger’s radio announcer) used to refer to as “yesteryear.” Fifty summers have passed since a youthful New Englander named Kennedy took the presidential oath of office at age 43 years and 236 days. It’s one of those bittersweet memories that, except for how it dates me, I’m nevertheless happy to recall.
January 20th, 1961 occurred on a Friday and there was snow everywhere. To borrow a phrase from singer Brook Benton’s 1970 hit “Rainy Night in Georgia,” it seemed to be snowing all over the world. Certainly, it had snowed heavily in Washington, D.C. and in Western New York State where I, at age 15 was attending the New York State School for the Blind.
Using my teenage “lingo,” President Kennedy was a “curious” person—which meant that I was curious about him. He was, as a number of my schoolmates reminded me with pride, “…the first Catholic ever elected president of the United States of America.” Even though I wasn’t a Roman Catholic, that was alright with me. However, I had to adjust to two factors about him.
I was a Republican who had very much wanted Vice President Richard Nixon and UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to be elected president and vice president, so I was naturally disappointed on that ground. However, even more personal, since my image of a man’s worth was audio rather than visual, I was overwhelmed by the new president’s combination Boston/Harvard accent. How, I wondered, could America pick a guy who sounded like that to be their president? The very idea stunned me. (Perhaps if I’d heard a recording of Calvin Coolidge at that time in my life, I wouldn’t have been as surprised. Mr. Coolidge’s accent was thicker and less polished than either JFK’s or Franklin D. Roosevelt’s — which I hadn’t heard back then, either).
Thus, I listened with fascination, but with little comprehension, as our new president promised to “…pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
That part of the inaugural address even I understood. Even more, I was pleased that our new president, like Vice President Nixon, was dedicated to our national safety. Perhaps President Kennedy might be as determined and as capable as outgoing President Eisenhower to keep us safe from the clutches of “Godless Communism” as advanced by that “devil incarnate” Nikita Khrushchev! I could only hope.
Adults who couldn’t watch the inaugural during the day surely tuned into NBC’s
Huntley-Brinkley Report or CBS’s Evening News (anchored by Douglas Edwards) to catch details of the inaugural.
Some will recall how the sun, reflecting off the snow, got into poet Robert Frost’s eyes making it difficult for him to see his script and how Vice President Johnson attempted to obstruct the glare with his top hat.
Years later, Thomas (Tip) O’Neill in his memoir “Man of the House” told an amusing story about JFK’s Inauguration. Pointing out that people often wonder what’s going through a president’s mind as he takes the most important oath in his life, O’Neill recounted the story, explaining that as JFK stepped forward to take the oath from Chief Justice Earl Warren, out of the corner of his eye he noticed that sitting in the Kennedy box was one of his father’s “gofers,” George Kara. The president knew his name, but as far as he knew, the man wasn’t that important. Hence, as JFK was becoming America’s Thirty-fifth President, what was on his mind was: “how the hell did that guy get that seat?”
Young as he was, Jack Kennedy received, for the most part, the respect he needed to fulfill the duties of his office. His legislative achievements were substantially less than some presidents, but he carried himself with poise and substance whether he was addressing an annual Gridiron dinner or reminding the nation that civil rights was primarily a moral issue.
Fifty years ago last Thursday, youth, vigor, and commitment in the person of John Fitzgerald Kennedy strode into the national spotlight to lead us for 1,036 days. Jack Kennedy was young enough to have both of his parents at his inaugural. Although Ulysses S. Grant’s parents were alive at both his 1869 and 1873 Inaugurations, they attended neither. Sadly, JFK was the first president to be survived by both his parents.
John Kennedy’s personhood and presidency, imperfect as they were, streaked across America’s historical firmament like Halley’s Comet only to be quashed like a candle at midnight.
As for those immortal words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country”…my adolescent awareness didn’t even take notice of them!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 17, 2011
AMERICA’S SIXTH CRUCIBLE?
By Edwin Cooney
A crucible has been defined as a refractory container or oven in which a substance is heated to achieve its maximum degree of usefulness. A kiln for clay, a smelter for iron ore, and an oven for baking or roasting food are all examples. Liberty--America’s most precious gift--has passed from time to time through crucibles that test its strength, flexibility, its durability and even its lasting applicability.
The years 1775 through 1789 marked our first great crucible. Its elements, war, political independence, divisive political confederation and economic dislocation, constituted its uncertainty. Adoption in 1787 and 1788 of our Constitution demonstrated that independent states could join in union for their mutual protection and prosperity. Thus, national unity under the nonpartisan leadership of President George Washington brought our first crucible to a close.
The 1800 election of the Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson over the Federalist John Adams brought about Crucible Number two. This crucible, substantially milder though politically contentious, demonstrated that Americans could be sufficiently energized to master difficulties and even expansion “…from sea to shining sea” even under partisan leadership.
The fiery and devastating Civil War, 1861-1865, was America’s third crucible: its elements were hatred, family division, violence and death. Nevertheless, it answered in the affirmative Abraham Lincoln’s great challenge at Gettysburg. Out of its turmoil there would evolve -- ever so slowly --“a new birth of freedom.” This “new birth of freedom” would eventually include, in the full flower of its gift, the participation in our national affairs of all the people regardless of race, religion, station or gender.
Crucible Number Four, “the Great Depression,” occurred between 1929 and 1941. Its elements were economic restriction and dislocation, unemployment, home foreclosures, bank and business failures and even near starvation. At its zenith in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt reconstructed governmental and social institutions for the benefit of a greater number of Americans than ever before.
Crucible Number Five, from 1941 through 1990, constituted America’s most formidable international threat. Its elements were hot war, “cold war” (limited war), international treachery and, most dangerous of all, the threat of nuclear annihilation by the world’s two ideologically driven superpowers. Through a combination of economic, political and military pressures, presidents named Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush demonstrated that “collective security” could bring to an increasing number of socially democratic nations that essential physical security against marauding dictatorships. By the end of this period, America was the world’s uncontested “superpower.”
Two events occurred on Monday, January 22, 1973. First, former President Lyndon B. Johnson suffered a fatal heart attack at his ranch on the Perdenales. Second, in Washington, the Supreme Court decided by a five to four vote (Roe v. Wade) that women had the right to an abortion since it was a private decision between a woman and her doctor. The decision was somewhat obscured by LBJ’s death as well as by the impending peace agreement that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger were arranging in Vietnam. Encompassing as it did both political and moral implications, Roe v. Wade would be morally and politically potent enough to shape the agenda and thus the future of American politics.
Since for thirty plus years, Americans have been dividing themselves into conservative and liberal, social, political--and even more significantly--religious camps, it is tempting to conclude that January 22nd, 1973 could be regarded as the birthday of America’s sixth great crucible! Its elements are the predominance of moral conclusions over practical assessments when it comes to public issues, the blatant intensification of partisanship in the media, and, most of all, American’s increasing intolerance for authority, especially when that authority is in the hands of one’s political opponents.
Hence we’re plagued today, it seems to this observer, by a crisis of the spirit, too often exploited solely for political advantage by the most articulate party and media personalities. Name calling, historical, and economic finger-pointing all dominate our political, social and religious intercourse. Too often, a sense of personal victimization prevails in constituency groups whether they be white, black, gay and lesbian, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, or even disabled. Of course, no one can ever satisfy the taxpayer!
Tragic as it was, the shootings in Tucson are almost an American tradition. After all, four presidents have been assassinated; five others in the twentieth century have come close: Theodore Roosevelt in 1912; FDR in 1933; Truman in 1950; Ford twice in a two week period in 1975; and President Reagan in 1981. Additionally, fistfights, canings, drawn pistols and even shootings have occurred at least twice in the halls of Congress. The real tragedy of today’s incident may well be America’s name-calling, finger-pointing partisan response. As I see it, the most vital component of continuing liberty is the recognition of and the respect for political diversity.
If indeed we’re living in Crucible Number Six, it’s obvious that our passage through its white heat will not be up to elected or self-appointed and commercially sponsored celebrity “leaders.” Nor will it ultimately be in the hands of our clergy. Clearly, we alone must find the way!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
A crucible has been defined as a refractory container or oven in which a substance is heated to achieve its maximum degree of usefulness. A kiln for clay, a smelter for iron ore, and an oven for baking or roasting food are all examples. Liberty--America’s most precious gift--has passed from time to time through crucibles that test its strength, flexibility, its durability and even its lasting applicability.
The years 1775 through 1789 marked our first great crucible. Its elements, war, political independence, divisive political confederation and economic dislocation, constituted its uncertainty. Adoption in 1787 and 1788 of our Constitution demonstrated that independent states could join in union for their mutual protection and prosperity. Thus, national unity under the nonpartisan leadership of President George Washington brought our first crucible to a close.
The 1800 election of the Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson over the Federalist John Adams brought about Crucible Number two. This crucible, substantially milder though politically contentious, demonstrated that Americans could be sufficiently energized to master difficulties and even expansion “…from sea to shining sea” even under partisan leadership.
The fiery and devastating Civil War, 1861-1865, was America’s third crucible: its elements were hatred, family division, violence and death. Nevertheless, it answered in the affirmative Abraham Lincoln’s great challenge at Gettysburg. Out of its turmoil there would evolve -- ever so slowly --“a new birth of freedom.” This “new birth of freedom” would eventually include, in the full flower of its gift, the participation in our national affairs of all the people regardless of race, religion, station or gender.
Crucible Number Four, “the Great Depression,” occurred between 1929 and 1941. Its elements were economic restriction and dislocation, unemployment, home foreclosures, bank and business failures and even near starvation. At its zenith in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt reconstructed governmental and social institutions for the benefit of a greater number of Americans than ever before.
Crucible Number Five, from 1941 through 1990, constituted America’s most formidable international threat. Its elements were hot war, “cold war” (limited war), international treachery and, most dangerous of all, the threat of nuclear annihilation by the world’s two ideologically driven superpowers. Through a combination of economic, political and military pressures, presidents named Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush demonstrated that “collective security” could bring to an increasing number of socially democratic nations that essential physical security against marauding dictatorships. By the end of this period, America was the world’s uncontested “superpower.”
Two events occurred on Monday, January 22, 1973. First, former President Lyndon B. Johnson suffered a fatal heart attack at his ranch on the Perdenales. Second, in Washington, the Supreme Court decided by a five to four vote (Roe v. Wade) that women had the right to an abortion since it was a private decision between a woman and her doctor. The decision was somewhat obscured by LBJ’s death as well as by the impending peace agreement that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger were arranging in Vietnam. Encompassing as it did both political and moral implications, Roe v. Wade would be morally and politically potent enough to shape the agenda and thus the future of American politics.
Since for thirty plus years, Americans have been dividing themselves into conservative and liberal, social, political--and even more significantly--religious camps, it is tempting to conclude that January 22nd, 1973 could be regarded as the birthday of America’s sixth great crucible! Its elements are the predominance of moral conclusions over practical assessments when it comes to public issues, the blatant intensification of partisanship in the media, and, most of all, American’s increasing intolerance for authority, especially when that authority is in the hands of one’s political opponents.
Hence we’re plagued today, it seems to this observer, by a crisis of the spirit, too often exploited solely for political advantage by the most articulate party and media personalities. Name calling, historical, and economic finger-pointing all dominate our political, social and religious intercourse. Too often, a sense of personal victimization prevails in constituency groups whether they be white, black, gay and lesbian, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, or even disabled. Of course, no one can ever satisfy the taxpayer!
Tragic as it was, the shootings in Tucson are almost an American tradition. After all, four presidents have been assassinated; five others in the twentieth century have come close: Theodore Roosevelt in 1912; FDR in 1933; Truman in 1950; Ford twice in a two week period in 1975; and President Reagan in 1981. Additionally, fistfights, canings, drawn pistols and even shootings have occurred at least twice in the halls of Congress. The real tragedy of today’s incident may well be America’s name-calling, finger-pointing partisan response. As I see it, the most vital component of continuing liberty is the recognition of and the respect for political diversity.
If indeed we’re living in Crucible Number Six, it’s obvious that our passage through its white heat will not be up to elected or self-appointed and commercially sponsored celebrity “leaders.” Nor will it ultimately be in the hands of our clergy. Clearly, we alone must find the way!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 10, 2011
NATIONAL MORALITY—MYTH OR REALITY?
By Edwin Cooney
“As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often …we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere…”— from President John F. Kennedy’s Commencement address at Yale University Monday, June 11th, 1962.
Sure, I’m like everyone else: I certainly enjoy the comfort of opinion more than I do the discomfort of dispassionate thought. (Sorry, Jack, I just had to add “dispassionate”!)
As I see it, one of today’s most powerful myths is that America was born “moral,” but recently has been disintegrating into amorality or even worse -- immorality brought on by secular humanist materialism aided by big government.
Question: What constitutes national morality or the lack of it? Is it government policy or is it primarily cultural? If it’s cultural, ought the central government be empowered to root out unhealthy elements from the body politic? The most effective government in rooting out crime, as far as I’m aware, was the former Soviet government. Now that evil and godless communism is gone, many say that the Russian mafia has taken over. Finally, who decides whether a nation has or hasn’t lost its soul—if indeed it even possesses one? Can you name a single nation throughout all human history -- monarchical, democratic, socialistic, communistic, autocratic, or even theocratic -- that has passed the morality test? I confess I can’t!
According to Holy Scripture, Ancient Israel, although founded under providence by Moses, was destroyed by Babylonia and by the Romans due to its wickedness. Another way of looking at the twice-destroyed Jewish theocracy is that twice the riches of God’s earthly kingdom were awarded to the materialistic societies of heathen Babylonia and pagan Rome. Apparently, not even a theocracy is sufficiently moral to stand the rigors of international greed.
Of course, what has to matter most to you and to me is American morality. What forces in our society ensure American morality or immorality? Was America more purely moral at its founding than it is today?
Traditionalists might argue that a government by and for “the people” constitutes moral government because it automatically reflects their values of family, church, and liberty.
Fair enough, but even at our founding when most states were linked to official churches, native Americans lived in the sights of soldiers’ muskets and occasionally snuggled under cholera-contaminated blankets distributed or, even worse, traded to them by greedy land speculators. Blacks at that time dwelt under chattel slavery—obviously an immoral institution. Yet America’s future was as golden as nineteenth century California and as noble as the charity of the American Red Cross.
As I see it, the tendency to label American society as moral or immoral constitutes one of those “myths” JFK referred to on that bright June day nearly forty-nine years ago. Our task as citizens is to conscientiously and objectively recall the numerous occasions when we’ve applied our best national traits -- patience during international crises, courage and bravery during wartime, generosity to others during natural disasters, and honesty, conscientious equality, and generosity in both our domestic and international relations. Application of such awareness will, in my view, effectively guard against the adoption of immoral laws.
If yesterday’s sins -- Native American genocide and black chattel slavery -- have been exchanged for religious degradation, abortion rights, and secular humanism, that’s a hell of a deal, if you ask me. Their existence may be more valuable as political issues than as dangers to you and to me. America has had issues such as the restoration of prayer in the public schools on its political agenda since 1964. Additionally, since 1991 the Supreme Court has had a “strict constructionalist” majority. Since 1995, liberals have had control of Congress for only five years. (There was a majority split in 2001 and 2002.) Self- proclaimed conservatives have occupied the presidency twenty of the thirty years that have passed since 1981. You may well ask why secular humanism’s “immoral” agenda has yet flourished? My guess is that it’s due, in part, to the fact that it is too valuable as a political issue on media talk shows as well as on the stump. It’s just as FDR once said to his aide Tommy (“the cork”) Corcoran back in the 1930s: “Tommy! I’ve decided that this matter can wait. I want it as an issue next year.” Even our sins can be politically useful!
Now, that’s no myth -- that’s bare knuckles political reality! In politics, voter indignation, if your side controls it, is more effective and longer-serving than voter satisfaction.
Come to think of it, if mythology distracts us everywhere, that’s just plain good politics!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
“As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often …we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere…”— from President John F. Kennedy’s Commencement address at Yale University Monday, June 11th, 1962.
Sure, I’m like everyone else: I certainly enjoy the comfort of opinion more than I do the discomfort of dispassionate thought. (Sorry, Jack, I just had to add “dispassionate”!)
As I see it, one of today’s most powerful myths is that America was born “moral,” but recently has been disintegrating into amorality or even worse -- immorality brought on by secular humanist materialism aided by big government.
Question: What constitutes national morality or the lack of it? Is it government policy or is it primarily cultural? If it’s cultural, ought the central government be empowered to root out unhealthy elements from the body politic? The most effective government in rooting out crime, as far as I’m aware, was the former Soviet government. Now that evil and godless communism is gone, many say that the Russian mafia has taken over. Finally, who decides whether a nation has or hasn’t lost its soul—if indeed it even possesses one? Can you name a single nation throughout all human history -- monarchical, democratic, socialistic, communistic, autocratic, or even theocratic -- that has passed the morality test? I confess I can’t!
According to Holy Scripture, Ancient Israel, although founded under providence by Moses, was destroyed by Babylonia and by the Romans due to its wickedness. Another way of looking at the twice-destroyed Jewish theocracy is that twice the riches of God’s earthly kingdom were awarded to the materialistic societies of heathen Babylonia and pagan Rome. Apparently, not even a theocracy is sufficiently moral to stand the rigors of international greed.
Of course, what has to matter most to you and to me is American morality. What forces in our society ensure American morality or immorality? Was America more purely moral at its founding than it is today?
Traditionalists might argue that a government by and for “the people” constitutes moral government because it automatically reflects their values of family, church, and liberty.
Fair enough, but even at our founding when most states were linked to official churches, native Americans lived in the sights of soldiers’ muskets and occasionally snuggled under cholera-contaminated blankets distributed or, even worse, traded to them by greedy land speculators. Blacks at that time dwelt under chattel slavery—obviously an immoral institution. Yet America’s future was as golden as nineteenth century California and as noble as the charity of the American Red Cross.
As I see it, the tendency to label American society as moral or immoral constitutes one of those “myths” JFK referred to on that bright June day nearly forty-nine years ago. Our task as citizens is to conscientiously and objectively recall the numerous occasions when we’ve applied our best national traits -- patience during international crises, courage and bravery during wartime, generosity to others during natural disasters, and honesty, conscientious equality, and generosity in both our domestic and international relations. Application of such awareness will, in my view, effectively guard against the adoption of immoral laws.
If yesterday’s sins -- Native American genocide and black chattel slavery -- have been exchanged for religious degradation, abortion rights, and secular humanism, that’s a hell of a deal, if you ask me. Their existence may be more valuable as political issues than as dangers to you and to me. America has had issues such as the restoration of prayer in the public schools on its political agenda since 1964. Additionally, since 1991 the Supreme Court has had a “strict constructionalist” majority. Since 1995, liberals have had control of Congress for only five years. (There was a majority split in 2001 and 2002.) Self- proclaimed conservatives have occupied the presidency twenty of the thirty years that have passed since 1981. You may well ask why secular humanism’s “immoral” agenda has yet flourished? My guess is that it’s due, in part, to the fact that it is too valuable as a political issue on media talk shows as well as on the stump. It’s just as FDR once said to his aide Tommy (“the cork”) Corcoran back in the 1930s: “Tommy! I’ve decided that this matter can wait. I want it as an issue next year.” Even our sins can be politically useful!
Now, that’s no myth -- that’s bare knuckles political reality! In politics, voter indignation, if your side controls it, is more effective and longer-serving than voter satisfaction.
Come to think of it, if mythology distracts us everywhere, that’s just plain good politics!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 3, 2011
TAKE IT BACK—IT DOESN’T FIT!
By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know as much as I used to know about Christmas shopping since I do so little of it these days. However, only a short time ago, the days immediately following Christmas were gift exchange days, especially at America’s biggest department stores.
Since millions of Americans insist that the best of America is a gift from our forefathers, I’ve been taking note of some of the “gifts”-- ideals, laws, and actions given for our betterment -- which we’ve historically exchanged or would like to “take back” for a more comfortable fitting.
The first concept that comes to mind is Thomas Jefferson’s insistence in the Declaration of Independence that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Critics of the “equality concept” find two flaws in it. First, they’ll tell you that since we have different talents, men (and women these days) are obviously not all created equal. Their second criticism is found in the “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” phrase -- which they consider acceptable, but it omits private property as the dearest right. “Life, liberty and property” is how the Declaration of Independence should read. Tie a red bow around this famous concept of “equality” and, for God’s sake, take it back! cry the critics.
As for laws that didn’t fit and needed to be exchanged, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (or, if you prefer, Prohibition) was subsequently sent back for refitting by the Twentieth Amendment. Even though Prohibition was somewhat effective in preventing vehicle accidents, spousal and child abuse, and also satisfied the public’s
clamor for social responsibility and morality, its failure was monumental! “Law abiding” Americans refused to stand for a law they felt so severely limited their personal behavior. Raids on speakeasies invariably unmasked the behavior not only of society’s “riff raff” but of an embarrassingly significant number of elected officials. Worse, this behavior tended to support the observation that we are more a government of men than we are a government of laws. Obviously, the law needed to be governed rather than having it govern us. Hence, back it went in December 1933 in exchange for the Twentieth Amendment which allowed for alcohol manufacture and consumption which would be governed locally and regionally where it could be more easily managed.
As for historic actions millions would take back if they could, the number is incredibly daunting. The further time passes from the emergency and urgency of World War II, the greater the number of people who wish we hadn’t dropped the atomic bomb.
Conservatives would throw out almost the entire New Deal except, of course, for the money the government gives Social Security beneficiaries. They’d love to play with that money -- purely on your behalf of course!
Civil Rights laws which deploy the power and authority of government behind their enforcement should, in the opinion of increasing numbers, be modified if not repealed.
As a people almost guaranteed the right of self-indulgence, we’ve invariably taken emergency steps, such as the internment of the Japanese in World War II. It was an action forced on FDR in early 1942 by civilian and military officials in the politically powerful west coast states -- California, in particular. This idea may have given anxious and determined voters a sense of security in wartime, but history eventually gave America the slap on the wrist it deserved.
As for presidents, Americans have sent, thus far, ten incumbents packing: John Adams (1800), John Quincy Adams (1828), Martin Van Buren (1840), (Steven) Grover Cleveland (1888), Benjamin Harrison (1892), William Howard Taft (1912), Herbert Hoover (1928), Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush in 1992.
Our political parties have refused to renominate nine incumbents: John Tyler (1844), Millard Fillmore (1852), Franklin Pierce (1856), Andrew Johnson (1868), U. S. Grant (for a third term - 1880), Chester A. Arthur (1884), Theodore Roosevelt (1912), (Thomas) Woodrow Wilson (for a third term - 1920), and, some insist, Lyndon Johnson in 1968 -- although this last is debatable!
Vitally important as this exchange option is, effective use of it is highly dependent on workable alternatives. Statute repeal changes are invariably the best exchanges to make because they mostly respond to our personal dissatisfactions. Exchanges involving human principles and human beings are inevitably more risky since they have the power to alter the lives, for better or worse, of people whose well-being matters so much to so many people.
As jealous as we are of our right to make changes, such changes are often more destructive than we realize, especially when they are governed by impatience rather than by balanced consideration. Balanced consideration is a vital element of wisdom. Wisdom is a gift we can certainly never afford to exchange!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I don’t know as much as I used to know about Christmas shopping since I do so little of it these days. However, only a short time ago, the days immediately following Christmas were gift exchange days, especially at America’s biggest department stores.
Since millions of Americans insist that the best of America is a gift from our forefathers, I’ve been taking note of some of the “gifts”-- ideals, laws, and actions given for our betterment -- which we’ve historically exchanged or would like to “take back” for a more comfortable fitting.
The first concept that comes to mind is Thomas Jefferson’s insistence in the Declaration of Independence that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Critics of the “equality concept” find two flaws in it. First, they’ll tell you that since we have different talents, men (and women these days) are obviously not all created equal. Their second criticism is found in the “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” phrase -- which they consider acceptable, but it omits private property as the dearest right. “Life, liberty and property” is how the Declaration of Independence should read. Tie a red bow around this famous concept of “equality” and, for God’s sake, take it back! cry the critics.
As for laws that didn’t fit and needed to be exchanged, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (or, if you prefer, Prohibition) was subsequently sent back for refitting by the Twentieth Amendment. Even though Prohibition was somewhat effective in preventing vehicle accidents, spousal and child abuse, and also satisfied the public’s
clamor for social responsibility and morality, its failure was monumental! “Law abiding” Americans refused to stand for a law they felt so severely limited their personal behavior. Raids on speakeasies invariably unmasked the behavior not only of society’s “riff raff” but of an embarrassingly significant number of elected officials. Worse, this behavior tended to support the observation that we are more a government of men than we are a government of laws. Obviously, the law needed to be governed rather than having it govern us. Hence, back it went in December 1933 in exchange for the Twentieth Amendment which allowed for alcohol manufacture and consumption which would be governed locally and regionally where it could be more easily managed.
As for historic actions millions would take back if they could, the number is incredibly daunting. The further time passes from the emergency and urgency of World War II, the greater the number of people who wish we hadn’t dropped the atomic bomb.
Conservatives would throw out almost the entire New Deal except, of course, for the money the government gives Social Security beneficiaries. They’d love to play with that money -- purely on your behalf of course!
Civil Rights laws which deploy the power and authority of government behind their enforcement should, in the opinion of increasing numbers, be modified if not repealed.
As a people almost guaranteed the right of self-indulgence, we’ve invariably taken emergency steps, such as the internment of the Japanese in World War II. It was an action forced on FDR in early 1942 by civilian and military officials in the politically powerful west coast states -- California, in particular. This idea may have given anxious and determined voters a sense of security in wartime, but history eventually gave America the slap on the wrist it deserved.
As for presidents, Americans have sent, thus far, ten incumbents packing: John Adams (1800), John Quincy Adams (1828), Martin Van Buren (1840), (Steven) Grover Cleveland (1888), Benjamin Harrison (1892), William Howard Taft (1912), Herbert Hoover (1928), Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush in 1992.
Our political parties have refused to renominate nine incumbents: John Tyler (1844), Millard Fillmore (1852), Franklin Pierce (1856), Andrew Johnson (1868), U. S. Grant (for a third term - 1880), Chester A. Arthur (1884), Theodore Roosevelt (1912), (Thomas) Woodrow Wilson (for a third term - 1920), and, some insist, Lyndon Johnson in 1968 -- although this last is debatable!
Vitally important as this exchange option is, effective use of it is highly dependent on workable alternatives. Statute repeal changes are invariably the best exchanges to make because they mostly respond to our personal dissatisfactions. Exchanges involving human principles and human beings are inevitably more risky since they have the power to alter the lives, for better or worse, of people whose well-being matters so much to so many people.
As jealous as we are of our right to make changes, such changes are often more destructive than we realize, especially when they are governed by impatience rather than by balanced consideration. Balanced consideration is a vital element of wisdom. Wisdom is a gift we can certainly never afford to exchange!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)