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