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