RUNNING THE DEMOCRATS! - WHO WOULD IF THEY COULD?

By Edwin Cooney

Only three men, two of them jointly, have ever successfully run the Democratic Party.  The two were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  The two aristocratic Virginians defiantly started the Democratic-Republican Party under the noses of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington back in the 1790s.  Their reign as national party bosses was over with the close of the War of 1812.  The next and last national Democratic boss was Andrew (some called him “King” Andrew) Jackson.  As the crusty old general and former president lay dying on Sunday, June 8th, 1845, he said that his only regret was that he had not hanged his first Vice President, John C. Calhoun, for treason. (Calhoun was perhaps the major force behind South Carolina’s threat to leave the union over high tariffs in 1833.  Now, that’s “bossism” at its bossiest!)  Though the national Democratic Party has contained many fascinating rogue municipal and state level bosses, it has been nationally boss-less since that long ago 1845 Sabbath.

Some will argue that FDR clearly was the national Democratic Party boss during the 1930s.  However, his attempts to “pack” the Supreme Court with the assistance of the Democratic congressional leadership in 1937, and purge southern conservatives from their high positions from within congress and the party in 1938 were disastrous to his domestic leadership.  FDR wanted the Democratic Party to be the party of political and social progressives and see the GOP be the party of both industrial and agrarian conservatism much as it is today.  Hence, he sought to support liberal challengers over conservative incumbents during the party’s state primary season in 1938.  He failed miserably.  A short time later, Georgia Senator Walter George observed: “They say that Roosevelt was his own worst enemy in politics. Well! As long as I’m alive he isn’t!”

Lyndon B. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader (some say boss of the United States Senate) but he was hardly boss of the Democratic Party, especially as the depth of the Vietnam War and all of its social implications took hold beginning late in the first year of his full term in office.

The Democratic Party is the second oldest political party in history, second only to Britain’s Tory party.  Here’s an unvarnished truth for your consideration!  No political party, not even the Republican Party, has committed more political, temporal and moral sins than the American Democratic Party.

Post 1812 War westward expansion, Jackson’s resettlement of Native Americans, the party’s call for manifest destiny and the Mexican War were the forces that institutionalized Indian genocide and chattel slavery.  The Missouri legislature during the 1840s even authorized the murder of Mormons.  Ultimately, Mormons found peace and prosperity in the Great Salt Lake region of Utah.  Finally, there was treason.  As post-Civil War Republicans used to put it: “Not all Democrats committed treason, but all who committed treason against the union were Democrats!” (One might also remind today’s “moral majority” that they were also God fearing Protestant Christians as well!)

It’s equally true that no political party has striven to do more good, secure more justice, and above all, seek more opportunity and benefits for the people than has the twentieth century Democratic Party.  It all began with William Jennings Bryan’s “cross of gold” speech during the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  That speech carried Bryan to the party’s presidential nomination and into the unsuccessful but unforgettable silver campaign of that year.  Although he received the Democratic nomination three times and was undoubtedly influential in the party, Bryan never was a boss in the dictatorial sense of the word.

“I don’t belong to an organized political party,” asserted the popular cowboy, vaudeville performer and political columnist Will Rodgers of the 1920s and 30s. “I am a Democrat.”

Three realities appear to have been inherited by today’s Democratic Party.

The first reality is that if history reveals any political likelihood, it’s unlikely that 2016 Democrats will elect a president to succeed Barack Obama.  Should Hillary Clinton, Marvin O’Malley or Bernie Sanders succeed President Obama in office next year, that will be only the first time since the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was elected in 1860.  To put it another way, the last two consecutive Democratic candidates to be elected president were Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan in 1852 and 1856 respectively.  (Remember, Truman and Johnson succeeded their predecessors, FDR and JFK, via death rather than selection or election.  As for FDR, like Lincoln and Washington, his achievements and disappointments must generally be weighed on different scales than are most presidents.)

The second reality is that the Republican Party has the reputation of order and authority as masters of industry, commerce and the will to readily use the military industrial establishment immediately during an international crisis.  The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is the party of the Philosopher King.  The Democrat weighs and ponders over who may be left behind or even the benefits applicable to social problems.  Democrats are expected and expect themselves to effectively represent the legitimate needs of the less powerful.  When they can’t succeed in so doing, Republicans replace them and seek to feed the continuous appetite and the demands of the producers of wealth and authority.  History appears to show that Democrats generally succeed primarily when Republicans miscalculate.

The third reality is that the Democrats have been strangling their political structure since 1968.   The philosophic among us have a tendency to theorize and compromise.  For instance, following the disaster of the 1968 presidential campaign, the Democrats took the structure of their national party’s electoral process apart.  State and regional bosses were defanged by quotas of women and minorities.  By 1972, no group of party leaders had any authority over the party’s potential nominee.  Hence, Senator George McGovern, honorable, intelligent, and well-intentioned,

but lacking political judgment, fell to Richard Nixon’s Watergate lance.  Meanwhile, in response to Watergate-era abuses, mid-1970s Democratic “Turks” in Congress began destroying congressional seniority and the system of chair prerogatives in Congress.  Next came Jimmy Carter, the outsider, who was elected in defiance of politics and then lost in 1980 largely because he’d never adequately learned to play politics when politics must be played.

Today, the Democratic Party under President Obama’s leadership has much to say for itself: the unemployment rate cut in half, the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, and a healthcare plan that has brought assistance to millions who have subsisted without any healthcare whatever until Obamacare’s valiant but imperfect creation.  Additionally, the president has begun to respond to the demands of climate change at home and abroad.  Still, no one trembles at the sound of the Democratic donkey’s tread.  After all, donkeys, or, if you prefer jackasses, aren’t known for their teeth.  Once upon a time, powerful senators, congressmen, governors, and mayors assisted Democratic presidents in making the choices that had substance and commanded party unity.  Sadly, the days of Rayburn, Barkley, Mansfield, Johnson and even Humphrey are gone and their offices have been largely stripped of their authority and glory by the very party that once anointed them with the capacity to govern.   

So, can the Democratic Party win the White House in 2016?

The answer, I think, largely lies in the lap of the Republican Party.  After all, with their majorities in Congress, their vast gubernatorial and state legislature majorities in 2016, it would appear to be theirs to lose. After all, money, not men, is king in both parties - especially in the GOP. Then again, there’s the historic reality.  One hundred and fifty years have passed since James Buchanan succeeded “handsome Franklin” Pierce as the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C.  Ignore this bit of trivia as you will, but the record is there for the wise to take note and through unity and determination alter the course of history!

As to whether or not anyone can run the Democratic Party, the answer is: of course not!  Donald Trump might have, but he ultimately didn’t dare to even try it!

That may well be the most promising possibility the 2016 Democratic Party has going for it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SO, WHO ACTUALLY RUNS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

By Edwin Cooney

Back in the 1960s when I was young and Republican, people were always asking “who runs the Republican Party?” Of course, the reason why that question applied to Republicans was because from 1961 to 1969 either John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson was the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party.

Traditionally, the unsuccessful presidential candidate in the most recent election nevertheless remains the “titular” leader (or leader in title) of the losing party. However, not since the days of William Jennings Bryan (the Democratic presidential candidate in 1896, 1900, and 1908) has there been an effective, titular leader of either party. A month or so following John Kennedy’s 1961 Inauguration, Sen. Styles Bridges, a conservative Republican from New Hampshire who was the most successful senatorial vote getter in 1960, was asked on the national NBC program Meet The Press to name the actual leader of the GOP. Being the experienced politician he was, Senator Bridges wouldn’t answer that question. The proper answer, according to tradition, was Richard M. Nixon. However, Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater, as reflective of the GOP future, were definite leadership possibilities.

Since Willard (Mitt) Romney is more of a political trophy in Barack Obama’s political treasure chest than he is a political leader these days, the GOP, with all the Obama bashing it has been doing, appears to lack a rudder, let alone an engine, to propel it to victory this fall. Oh, it has plenty of fuel (money) and lubrication (anti-Obama and liberal indignation), but at present it is utterly leaderless and directionless.

One recent political commentator pointed out that with all the presidential candidates crisscrossing the country, not one of them yet has received the endorsement of a single sitting GOP senator. Even more, the party seems seriously split into two and perhaps even more factions.

The “establishment faction” led by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has the expected agenda such as rolling back Obamacare, repealing government regulation of businesses, and defunding Planned Parenthood. That faction was somewhat strengthened by Governor Nikki Haley’s admonition against the “siren call of the angriest voices” in her response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address last week. (One can reasonably categorize Ohio Governor Kasich and Jeb Bush in the establishment faction of the GOP.) Then there’s the socio/evangelical element of the party egged on by Senators Cruz and Rubio and Governor Christie of New Jersey. Next, there’s the Donald Trump faction of the party that, if not checked, could ultimately be the death knell of conservatism as practiced by Goldwater and Reagan. I assert that because a President Trump is very unlikely to gain power with the blessing of the GOP establishment, it is unlikely that he would follow their dictates should he assume ultimate power. There is little evidence thus far that Donald Trump will follow any idea or ideology except his own!

Finally, it must be observed that both political parties have largely obliterated their traditional moral influence that usually inspires a popular sway that is often generational. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan held considerable influence over the political direction of the Democratic and Republican parties throughout the mid and late 20th Century. No longer do party leaders hold sway over the moral direction of their party. As for the GOP, neither of its two living former presidents (father or son) has a sufficient grip on party glory to inspire the future direction of the GOP. If they did, then John Ellis (Jeb) Bush would be a lot further advanced in his effort to succeed his father and brother as the Republican candidate in 2016. Voter discontent, money, and religious orthodoxy have largely replaced the leadership role model that once prevailed in the Republican Party. Even Ronald Reagan’s shining star has begun to dim just as Franklin Roosevelt’s did in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Ronald Reagan and FDR had one thing in common: personal affability. Reagan’s and Roosevelt’s individual affability or, if you prefer, amiability often extended beyond their political parties. Sadly, there appears to be almost a total lack of either amiability or affability among the current roster of GOP presidential candidates.

As I see it, three elements run today’s Republican party. They are anger, ambition, and financially-fueled political institutional animosity! Furthermore, today’s presidential candidates appear to hold each other in little regard. Hence, how can John Doe and Suzie Q. Citizen expect any one of the potential GOP presidents to really and truly like “we, the people!”

As for the Democratic Party, I’ll offer my assessment of its leadership next week!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OF COURSE, IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

By Edwin Cooney

Last week, just as it appeared that Donald J. Trump and Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz were permanent political bosom buddies, Trump did the unpredictable: he challenged the Canadian-born, Texas-bred Cruz’s American authenticity. Ah, the year may be new, however, there’s little new regarding the tone of American politics!  In fact, Donald Trump’s latest political tactic toward Senator Ted Cruz goes back well over a century and perhaps even longer than that!

Of course, it’s only because Mr. Trump “genuinely loves” Senator Cruz, that he’s anxious to see young Ted sufficiently deal with the issue of his possible ineligibility to serve in the office of President of the United States!  After all, Mr. T. is bringing up the matter now because otherwise Hillary Clinton might unfairly and cruelly slap Senator Cruz across his handsome physiognomy with the issue during a presidential debate next fall.  That would be tragic for two reasons. First, should Senator Cruz be surprised by Hillary’s “wickedness,” it might indicate that he is less than well prepared to be president. Second, it is only right that he, Donald J. Trump (rather than Hillary Rodham Clinton), should benefit from any possible personal or political inadequacy on the part of Senator Cruz. 

What ought to be plain to the public by now is that in 2015 and 2016, all, absolutely all, is fair in American politics.  Even more, the key to political success in 2016 may well be something that is actually new.  (More about that later.)

History is bedecked with outrageous political slander.  In 1796, John Rutledge (who, at the time, was President Washington’s designee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) said during an after dinner speech that he would rather have seen George Washington dead than see him sign the Jay Treaty.  Of course, that derailed the good justice’s nomination.

Then there was the politically based duel between Alexander Hamilton and Vice President Aaron Burr that occurred on Wednesday, July 11th, 1804 at Weehawken, New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from New York.  Burr killed Hamilton and thus became the only sitting vice president wanted for murder in New York and New Jersey.

Four years earlier, during the 1800 presidential campaign, Federalists warned that if Vice President Thomas Jefferson were elected, all bibles would be confiscated because Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. 

In 1860 and throughout his presidency, Abraham Lincoln was described by his political and cultural opponents as a baboon or a guerrilla due to his awkward appearance and disproportional size.  During the 1930s, some of FDR’s worst enemies suggested that his paralysis was brought on not by polio but by a “social disease.”  Harry Truman’s enemies altered the expression “to err is human” to assert that “to err is Truman!”

  .

As for the birther issue, that goes at least as far back as President Chester Alan Arthur’s day when his opponents insisted that he had been born in Canada rather than in Fairfield, Vermont.

In 1968, opponents of George Romney wondered (out loud, of course) whether Governor Romney’s birth in Mexico meant that he wasn’t a naturalized citizen.  This was despite the fact that both Governor Romney’s parents were as American as apple pie.  In 2000 and 2008, war hero Senator John McCain’s Panamanian birth was offered up to suggest that he wasn’t a genuine enough American to be elected president.

Ted Cruz is far from being my candidate for 2016, but he shouldn’t be denied the presidency for the wrong reason.  Like Barack Obama, Ted Cruz was born to an American mother.  Her name is Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson Cruz.  She was born in Wilmington, Delaware.

President Obama’s mother was the late Ann Dunham. (Her given name was actually Stanley because her father Stanley Dunham wanted a boy.) She was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in 1942 and died in 1995 as her son sought his first elective office.  Ted Cruz will surely cringe from this comparison, but like President Obama, regardless of where he was born, his mother’s place of birth legitimatizes his presidential candidacy.

It’s increasingly evident that Donald Trump is successful largely due to a new political reality.  What Trump has going for him the most is his very unpredictability.  Americans may be sufficiently weary of both conservatives and liberals who, after all, have been indulging in the same political and cultural quarrel since Reagan defeated Carter back in 1980.

What has got to be scaring the 2016 GOP the most is the unlikelihood that a President Trump would be any more cooperative with the conservative establishment than he has been so far with his fellow presidential candidates -- Ted Cruz included!

George Washington became President so Americans could be united.  Lincoln’s presidency took the American Humpty Dumpty apart and put it back together when we were too quarrelsome to live peaceably in unity.  When we were both broke and hungry, FDR taught us to be dependent on one another.  Reagan made us feel good about ourselves at a time of economic insecurity and apparent international confusion.

What might President Trump do if elected by an angry and resentful people whose ideals have been swept away by their angry resentment of problems real and imagined?

Mr. Trump’s recent attack on Senator Cruz was inevitable.  That, however, doesn’t mean that Trump’s election is also inevitable -- does it?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

DOES THE “NEWS” BRING THE BLUES OR NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO BE USED?

By Edwin Cooney

Every 365 days a new year is born except when 365 gives way to 366 days!  As a man bedecked with countless imperfections, this newness offers a chance to redeem myself anew.  It’s another version of “tomorrow will be the first day of the rest of your life.”  Thus, last Friday’s first day of both the year and the month recharged, for a time at least, my physical, emotional, and perhaps even my spiritual energy.

Of course, every year brings a lot of sameness. However, some people live fascinating, unpredictable lives, hence sameness is merely a continuation of the unknowing and merely guessable.  What really matters is how the new year affects you and me!  Those who insist that there’s nothing magical about the dawning of a new year may be right, however newness is not merely new, it’s both the sum and substance of newsworthy change we read, listen to, and watch for every day of our lives.  The substance of the news is that it is news because it is unusual and it doesn’t happen to most of us -- very often, that is.  Of course, all of us are born and eventually die just as those who we read about in the news, but rarely is it in the same way or according to the same circumstances. Most of us are not born as princes or princesses, or married to royalty, or connected to high offices. Most do not sin against the trust of a national constituency or die as the victims of natural disasters, murder, or assassination.  We can be grateful that these things are still “newsworthy!”

The annual celebration of New Years has at least two controversies.  First, when you talk with someone about New Years plans, you invariably get into a discussion as to the relevancy of New Years resolutions.  Most people, it seems, agree that they’re pretty meaningless and silly.  Hence, they brag about their superior attitude of nonparticipation in making New Years resolutions.  Another bragging point is the question of the relevancy or need for a New Years Eve party.  The braggers in this instance are usually those who insist they don’t need to celebrate and are wise enough to stay home.  Partygoers, on the other hand, simply go and have a good time -- that is, of course if they recall the details of the evening.  New Years celebrations are a little like past birthday celebrations.  Most of us have experienced memorable as well as forgettable birthday and New Years occasions.

Of course, what makes every New Years worthwhile is what we are capable of doing with it!  Some people propose marriage while others announce wedding plans or even marry on New Years Eve or New Years Day.  (Note: two U.S. Presidents had marital plans around New Years Day.  Twenty-eight-year-old Thomas Jefferson married Martha Wayles Skelton, a twenty-three-year-old widow, on Wednesday, January 1st, 1772.  Legend has it that Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have married Mary Todd on Friday, January 1st, 1841 but suddenly opted out of the wedding.  He did finally marry her on Friday, November 4^th, 1842.)

As we get older, many of us lose the energy and optimism that was the gift of youth.  Some of us, however (and I hope and even expect that I’m in this latter group), are capable of shrugging off the shell of fears that brought about youthful cynicism and in our final years offer to society the best of our knowledge and capabilities largely free of charge.

With all the uncertainties 2016 and beyond may bring, allow yourself, if possible, to be energized by the following realities:

(1.) You have the right to be here.

(2.) Your very presence energizes others making their existence worthwhile.

(3.) You have the right to be loved.

(4.) You have the right to be acknowledged.

(5.) Acknowledgment of you bolsters the legitimacy of others.

(6.) Others are really and truly strengthened from knowledge of your existence.

(7.) Others invariably need the lessons that the experiences of your life potentially teach them.

(8.) Your life was designed to be a product of love, whatever the circumstances of your conception.

(9.) Love is the ingredient that brings substance to nature.

(10.) The essence of God is love and it is that love that creates and sustains the substance of humanity.

I profoundly hope that the above energizes 2016 for you as it does for me!

Even if 2016 primarily brings to you the “blues,” hopefully something here offers a thought or two you can use!

Happy New Year!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY