POLITICAL AMBITION AND NATIONAL FATE: HOW DO THEY COMPARE AND CONTRAST?

By Edwin Cooney

As a Democrat, I enjoyed the hopefulness and even the joy apparent in the acceptance addresses of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz last week in Chicago.

The year 2024 marks the 16th national presidential campaign I've followed since 1960. Twice, in 1968 and in 1972, as a Nixon Republican, and five times as a Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden Democrat, my side has prevailed.

Beyond the participation and hopes of the voters lie the presumptions and expectations of each. How reasonable are our hopes and expectations?

For my personal guideline, I try to keep in mind the purposes stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note well, please, that in the above mentioned goals you'll find no political or ideological prescriptions for achieving these goals. Conservatives may stress the importance  of the national defense, liberals often point to the assurance of our domestic tranquility, and some may even emphasize the ordination of the Constitution, but there's nothing about balanced budgets, deficit spending, or the prevalence or lack of religion.

Of course, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris represent vastly contrasting views and interpretations of both the purpose of government and even the interpretation of the Constitution, but beyond those views and interpretations, the genuine goals of the Founding Fathers remain.

Between 1789 and 1932 during the administrations of George Washington through Herbert Hoover, the primary ongoing government obligation was the protection of the public by the military. Since 1933, the primary (though not total) responsibility of government has been the privileges and priorities of our domestic obligations. Up until Franklin Roosevelt, Democratic presidents from Andrew Jackson through Woodrow Wilson opposed direct assistance to either manufacturers or laborers. Grover Cleveland, a personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt’s father James, asserted in his Second Inaugural on March 4th, 1893 that it is the obligation of the people to support their government, not the obligation of the government to support the people.

As is his right, Mr. Trump will make his case to return to the presidency and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, just as the above mentioned Grover Cleveland returned for a second term. However, I believe that Vice President Harris's ambitions are sufficiently significant to justify her election. More specifically, human rights ought to take precedence over property rights.

Human rights must always take precedence over human ambition in order to be legitimate. However, human ambition and human rights must always equal government's obligations to the whole of the people.

Back in 1964, as a very young and naive Republican, I was convinced at the close of the convention that nominated Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller that they were the answer to the security and safety of this free people as it struggled against the threat of Soviet Communism. Practically everyone remembers the phrases for which Goldwater was famous: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” (I suspect but can't of course prove that the phrase Barry Goldwater originally hoped would be remembered goes like this: “The Good Lord raised this republic to flourish as the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave,’ not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bullying of Communism!” The only problem is that in his deliverance of that phrase he stumbled, thus throwing off its rhythm.)

Here are just a few of the promises versus the outcomes since the mid 1960s:

In 1964, voters looked to stay distant from the Vietnam War. In 1968 and 1972, voters hoped for an honorable end to that widened war. In 1976, voters looked toward an administration that would successfully overcome misgoverning inside Washington. By 1988, voters expected the budget to be balanced by the administration that had promised that achievement in 1980. In 1992, voters expected their taxes to remain the same as promised by a president who encouraged the public to "read my lips." In 2008, voters hoped a Black presidency would bring about a dramatic reconciliation of race relations throughout the country.  

As for 2024, however legitimate or outrageous Mr. Trump's or Mrs. Harris's ambitions may be, our national fate is what ultimately will matter.

The rest is up to you, as well as to me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

SPIRO WHO? DJ WHO? TIM WHO?

By Edwin Cooney

To the disgust of most Trumpites and perhaps to the happy shock of many Democrats, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, her newly minted Minnesota running mate, appear to have gone from the politically lonely to potential popularity since that July Sunday when "Elderly Joe” announced he was stepping aside in favor of his then beleaguered vice president. Even more likely is that the Harris/Walz ticket, unless they stumble during their convention, may well benefit from the political bounce many newly nominated candidates experience at the close of their party's public business.

Governor Walz' biggest weakness appears to be that because Minnesota doesn't equal Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin Nevada, and Arizona as key electoral college states, many will insist that DJ Vance, because he represents Ohio, almost automatically a “Trump state,” will be more helpful to the former president than Walz may be to Vice President Harris.

Of course, mere speculation can be worthless, but history does bring forth significant past political realities.

In 1948, Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren represented mighty New York State and California in the electoral college. President Truman named  Kentucky Senator and Senate Minority Leader Alben Barkley for Vice President thus representing Missouri and Kentucky. A brilliant orator and storyteller, Barkley, during his keynote speech to the convention, defined a bureaucrat as "a Democrat who holds an office some Republican wants." The Truman/Barkley ticket, although surrendering New York to Dewey, snatched California away from Governor Warren. However, President Truman demonstrated true political mastery by calling the GOP Congress back into special session forcing it to demonstrate that it both couldn't and wouldn't support social legislation promised in its platform.

In 1952, Richard Nixon represented both youth and the anti-Communism movement emphasized by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Additionally, at age 39, the second youngest Vice  Presidential candidate in history, Nixon had a beautiful wife who only wore "respectable Republican cloth coats rather than mink coats.” He was lawyer and debater enough to turn a gift of a dog named Checkers to his two little girls into a pretty national political asset.

In 1956, Adlai Stevenson dropped his 1952 VP choice, Alabama Senator John Sparkman, and invited convention delegates to select their own vice presidential candidate. They selected Estes Kefauver of Tennessee over young Jack Kennedy of Massachusetts.

In 1960, Vice President Nixon chose U.N. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge as his running mate, not because he was any part of the Boston Brahmin set, but because Lodge represented respectable Eisenhower diplomacy.  JFK chose Lyndon B. Johnson because he was running for two offices in his beloved Texas. He is the only man in American history to run for re-election to the United States Senate and for Vice President simultaneously.  Historians generally agree that LBJ is likely the only Vice Presidential candidate to have made a difference in the electoral outcome.

In 1964, William E. Miller's Catholic faith and partisan oratory made him Barry Goldwater's running mate. Hubert H. Humphrey, a civil rights champion and President Johnson's former Senate colleague was raised to the second highest officer in the land by LBJ personally.

In 1968, Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew had announced to the world that he'd be supporting New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller for president and lined up his supporters to listen to Rockefeller's announcement of his candidacy. However, when Rockefeller announced he wouldn't seek the nomination, Agnew turned against Rockefeller and proceeded to bring his real anti-liberal outlook into the “Nixon for President” camp. “Spiro Who” became "outspoken candidate” and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

Mild, elegant Edmund Muskie as Hubert Humphrey's 1968 running mate, impressed so many voters by the end of the campaign that millions of Americans appeared to champion a 1972 Muskie  presidential candidacy over even Hubert's possible effort.

Abandoned by many usual Democratic constituencies in 1972, George McGovern chose as his running mate Senator Tom Eagleton who did have good relations with traditional Democrats. However, within almost days of his nomination his struggles with depression and other nervous conditions forced McGovern to shift from a one thousand percent position of support to no support at all. Eagleton's successor turned out to be Sergeant Shriver, representing the Kennedy family's party prominence.

Jimmy "who?" Carter and Walter Fritz Mondale as "Grits and Fritz" were very compatible, but Ford and Robert Dole, Ford's VIP choice, sufficiently muddled their message to come in second to the Georgian and the Minnesotan during the Bicentennial year.

In July of 1980, some GOP leaders were sufficiently concerned about nominee Ronald Reagan's lack of foreign policy experience that he might need to require the services of former President Gerald Ford. However, it became clear during a joint meeting between the two men that merging the two offices would neither be practical nor desirable. Thus, George H. W. Bush received a late night call to service. He accepted and the rest is history.

James Danforth (Dan) Quayle was chosen for second place ins 1988 by presidential candidate George H. W. Bush because Quayle was neither Robert or Elizabeth Dole who might well challenge President Bush for re-election in 1992. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's choice of Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen was so popular that by the end of the campaign many were sorry that a winning ticket of Bush and Bentsen would be unconstitutional under the Twelfth Amendment..

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were very compatible until President Clinton's personal conduct became most questionable in 1998. The distance both Vice President and Tipper Gore established between the couples, many believe, cost Gore the presidency in 2000 even more than hanging chads in Florida cost the Gores. In 2000, Richard Bruce Cheney had to move back home to Wyoming to comply with that Twelfth Amendment which prohibits presidential and vice presidential candidates to come from the same state even if that state is Texas!

In 2004, it couldn't be said that John Edwards vice presidential candidacy hurt John Kerry's presidential candidacy very much, but Dick Cheney's debate with John Edwards helped President Bush's re-election effort.

In 1984, Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro and in 2008 John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their potential vice presidents. Mondale would have been better off had he chosen San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and 24 years later McCain would have been better off had he chosen Joseph Lieberman, Al Gore's 2000 Vice Presidential candidate, but neither candidate made those choices. Thus, the Mondale and McCain presidencies are forever imaginary!

The Obama Biden team lasted eight years and even outshone the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan team in 2012.

Stunningly, the Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine 2016 ticket stumbled and bumbled its way toward high office thus allowing Trump and Mike Pence to prevail.

As for the 2020 campaign, we're still in it since former President Trump insists it was stolen. However, Joe Biden's Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris helped more than she hurt and thus she and Tim Walz of Minnesota may well prevail this fall.

Of course, much will depend on Trump's and Harris's attitudes and moods this fall. If Harris duplicates Hillary Clinton's contempt and indifference towards even some potential constituents, she's in trouble. However, to the degree that she comes off knowledgable, reflective regarding her mistakes, and above all likable, she and Tim Walz will prevail. Walz may in fact not be of electoral benefit but his substance and likability may enable him to rake in the votes come November 5th, 2024.

One of the lessons great orators know is that if they press issues too often or stridently, they lose their appeal to the public. What few seem to realize is that in 2020, no other Republican loser complained that they'd been cheated out of political office.

As for 2024, no excuses, not even the electoral college is acceptable. It's all really up to you and me!

I assert that next January 20th, Kamala Harris and Tim Walls will be President and Vice President respectively!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

IS AMERICAN POLITICS MERELY A SPORT OR IS IT DEADLY?

By Edwin Cooney

A mere fortnight ago, the 2024 presidential campaign appeared to be almost a cinch in favor of a former president who'd just barely escaped assassination. Today, it's possible that a part Black, part Asian woman currently serving as our Vice President is slowly but inevitably surging forward towards her historic glory! Vice President Kamala Harris is little known to most Americans, but you can be sure that former President Trump will attempt to identify her to the people according to his personal interests just as she will attempt to do it to him.

Between 1960 and 1988, most presidential and vice presidential candidates had much in common: economic depression, World War II and the dawning of the atomic age, the cold war, together with all of the hopes and fears of each situation. Hence, they generally faced their realities within the mores of mid Twentieth Century American practicality and good sense.

Beginning in 1992, presidential candidate President George H. W. Bush and Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton served differently. President Bush, a hero of WW II, had served proudly in war. Young Clinton altogether avoided serving in his generation's Vietnam conflict.

Presidential campaigns have differing moods and even flavors. Throughout the fifties and into the sixties, presidential campaigns with all their contentions and sharp edges were pretty conventional affairs. Beginning in 1968, assassinations and angry demonstrations took center stage.

In 2004, John Kerry, who had served in that very war and regretted his service, was made to appear unpatriotic in comparison to the sitting president, George W. Bush, who hadn't served at all during the Vietnam War.

In 2008, we finally elected a Black man who told America that “yes, we can" pass an affordable Health Care Act, while his administration would successfully pursue Osama bin Laden.

As a spectator sport, American presidential politics invites comparative Trivial Pursuit questions. For example:

Who was the most obscure vice presidential candidate during this period? My choice would be Idaho Senator Glen H. Taylor who was former Vice President Henry A. Wallace’s Progressive Party Vice Presidential running mate. You might pick Bill Miller, Senator Goldwater's 1964 vice presidential candidate, or Sarah Palin, the Alaska mom and politician, who could “see Russia” from her Alaskan front porch. Perhaps you might choose Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale's 1984 pick, who was the first female vice presidential candidate.

Richard Nixon's name was on five national tickets three times for president and twice for vice president under Ike.

The year 2024 marks the third time Donald Trump has been the Republican candidate. Although he was elected president in 2016, he actually lost by more than 3,000,000 votes in 2016. In 2020, he lost the presidency by 8,000,000 votes. It's my guess that it will take the electoral college to give him another term in 2024. (For a listing of presidential and vice presidential candidates since 1948, see James DeGregario's Complete Book of Presidents although it only goes up to 1997.)

The ultimate question remains: how much does it matter whether we vote in 2024? No one, certainly not I, can answer that question. One thing is for sure: if you only suspect things might be better if you bother to vote, you damn well better do it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY