FOR GOD’S SAKE, NEVER HOLD YOUR NOSE!

By Edwin Cooney

You shouldn't be surprised that in this topsy-turvy political era, I have a friend who tells me he may well…hold HIS nose and vote for Donald Trump! I guess I should be grateful that he's even considering holding his nose, but I'm desperately hoping he'll forget his nose and follow some of his individual principles which are both admirable and perfectly grand.

This is a gentleman who's a registered Democrat and a dedicated Christian. Insofar as I know, he hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since he abandoned Jimmy Carter for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I'm grateful that he's considering politically stutter stepping this November 5th!

Both decency and individual equity require a distinction between Reaganism and Trumpism. Reaganism is principled and contains goals and rules for application. Mr. Reagan tried to use government only for the ultimate military defense of the public. Other uses of government must be limited but primarily used for the benefit of business magnates and bankers whom FDR used to call "economic royalists.”

Trumpism uses government to settle scores with all sorts of people, big and little, including ethnic minorities. Trumpism denies past sins by glorifying Jim Crowism as "states' rights" and demonizes current efforts  such as climate purification as a socialist conspiracy or as a political hoax.   

As a student of history and a voter, I'm fully aware of the foibles most politicians display from time to time.

Nixon seldom told the truth when a quality lie would often do just as well. Jerry Ford, solid citizen that he was, was too politically collegial to have allowed Nixon to resign without a catch-all. (Nixon aide John Ehrlichman insisted that Richard Nixon never knowingly "stepped into darkness as he would have done minus a pardon escape tunnel dug by ‘good old Jerry.’") Jimmy Carter, although a wonderful humanitarian, was derelict in not preparing himself to handle Congress before seeking the presidency. (Besides, presidents don't wear sweaters when giving major addresses nor do they carry their own bags.)

Ronald Reagan's ignorance of the needs of those who lacked his resources was deliberately arrogant and demeaning of others.

George H. W. Bush, though grand in many ways, was a fool to ask the people to "read my lips. No new taxes."

Bill Clinton was an emotional teenager when it came to personal conduct and he was deceitful even in federal court.

George W. Bush was both careless and reckless when anticipating and carrying out foreign policy.

Barack Obama may have been exceedingly articulate socially and even culturally wise, but he wasn't thorough enough when dealing with the Taliban!

Joe Biden's presidency occurred at a time in his life when he couldn't handle it as he once might have!

Donald Trump's fundamental fault is that his ambition is about himself and little else. His ongoing promise to "make America great again" lacks both timeline and definition. Is America great because we are sinless, always tolerant, and richer than any other nation? What makes a nation great or not so great?

Other circumstantial questions come to mind. Who was the last Republican presidential candidate to identify with a former member of the Soviet KGB? If some nations are “shithole nations,” is that due to their culture, their religion, or their social values?

If voters are to judge the Harris/Biden administration, wasn't there once a Pence/Trump administration? After all, wasn’t it Mike Pence rather than Donald Trump who upheld the Constitution of the United States on the afternoon and throughout the evening of Wednesday, January 6th, 2021?

As for how long or often Mr. Trump would be a dictator, I can't know or even guess! However the idea that "dictatorship" is in Mr. Trump's social, emotional mindset or vocabulary disqualifies his candidacy as I see it! Even more significant are the names of the 90 plus people who are insisting in writing, on tape or on video that he is unfit for the office. That can hardly be brushed away by any genuine patriot! These are men and women who’ve been associated with and often appointed to high office by Mr. Trump.

Adlai Stevenson once observed that neither political party has a monopoly on either virtue or rascality. It has been possible from the very outset of our republic that we could choose a very, very bad president!

Keep in mind that the alternative to Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be neither. Of course, “neither” isn't on the ballot! Hence, I insist it's got to be Kamala Harris!

Unlike my nose-holding friend and considering who is running, I'm going to let my nose do what's natural to it! After all, noses — like political candidates — both run without my consent!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

 

BEYOND THE REASON WHY

(updated from February 18, 20008)

By Edwin Cooney

Like most everyone else, almost any time I hear of a tragedy, the first reaction that enters my mind or crosses my lips consists of the word: why? Very often, however, the question “why” just isn’t enough.

The tragedy that has recently gripped my attention happened during the third week in January in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania about six miles from Center City, Philadelphia.  Fifty-three-year-old Barbara Killian -- blinded from an accident when she was a baby -- and her little white lap dog A-Rod died in the basement of their home by the hand of Barbara’s eighty-four-year-old father Robert Killian who then turned the gun on himself.  Mr. Killian had just been released from a local hospital having been treated for advanced cardiovascular disease.  Convinced that he didn’t have long to live, Mr. Killian apparently believed he had to provide a permanent solution to what he perceived would be Barbara’s struggles in his earthly absence.  Thus, believing as he did that Barbara would be both alone and helpless in this world of expectation, cruelty and demand, he decided that her life should end with his.

Hence, sometime between Tuesday, January 15, when Killian was released from the hospital, and Saturday evening, January 19 at six pm, Robert Killian shot Barbara, their little dog, and himself to death in the basement of their home on Cheswold Road. 

According to the sum of all reports out of Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania,  Barbara and Robert Killian had lived alone since the death of Shirley, Barbara’s mother and Robert’s wife, in 2001; the Killians “minded their own business;” Robert Killian was extremely protective of Barbara; and, finally, there was a lot of love in the Killian home as evidenced by Mr. Killian’s constant devotion to Barbara.
So there you have it: the who, the what, the where, the when, and, only superficially, the why of the story. Surely, however, knowledge of these guidelines which every news reporter knows brings one no satisfaction. If you’re anything like me, perhaps you need to pause and take it all in before reading on.
In the emotional wake that occurs as one learns of this tragedy, there is the natural tendency to be outraged, not only with Killian’s murder of his daughter, but even more with what was clearly his demeaning attitude about Barbara’s very existence as a person with blindness.  There are reports that neighbors called area social services from time to time to complain that Barbara was being “held captive” by her parents in her home, the response to which caused the Killians to retreat further into seclusion with their daughter. Inevitably, one wonders what exactly went on in that household upon Mr. Killian’s January 15th return from the hospital. How long had Robert Killian contemplated this irrevocable deed?  What religious or moral matters did Mr. Killian consider before taking Barbara to the basement of their home to meet her death?  Did Killian tell Barbara in advance of his intention or was there a reasoned or even gentle pretext to the basement visit? Did Robert Killian see his act as one of love or one of despair?

Information out of greater Philadelphia regarding Barbara Killian’s existence is sketchy but still revealing. A 1973 graduate of Overbrook School for the Blind, Barbara was shy, intelligent and fun-loving.  She was a baseball fan of the Yankees, especially Alex Rodriguez whom she had met through an organization for the blind.  Thus, she named her little dog A-Rod.

What happened to Barbara Killian has to be very personal on some level to everyone who lives with a disability — especially those who live with blindness.  All of us, whether born able-bodied or disabled, are vulnerable to our parents’ individual environments, values, and attitudes.  Even more relevant to the Killian family tragedy is the strong parental instinct, the overwhelming need to protect our children from the world’s many outrages.

While we’re certainly justified in our righteous anger toward Robert Killian, that anger alone is as destructive to you and me as Killian’s thirty-eight caliber pistol was to Barbara. It would be more helpful, I think, for us all to re-examine what it means to love and protect one another as well as one’s children.

It would be arrogant for any of us to question Mr. Killian’s love for his daughter.  However, Robert and Shirley Killian’s love for Barbara was clearly misdirected as evidenced by their decision to reject a college scholarship, choosing to have her stay at home instead of broadening her horizons. Their legitimate mission was to protect her life and to empower others to ensure her security after they were gone. It’s quite apparent that Mr. Killian was more overwhelmed by his fears than he was sustained by “the better angels of his nature.”

Nothing we can say or write, no wish we can wish, no prayer we may pray, can undo what was done to Barbara Killian by her father. Love is a powerful force. As such it can nurture, sustain, encourage, and therefore foster growth and even greater love.  However, if love is administered with jealousy or fear, it can destroy. It appears that the Killians’ powerful love for Barbara went awry and, hence, it destroyed.
Sadly, Robert Killian believed that the world wasn’t sufficiently trustworthy to match his love for Barbara. Hence he took her with him for her own protection.

Happily, most of us know that the world is worthy because you and I are worthy of the kind of love that sustains and nurtures.

So, in the words of a hit song from the 1970s:  “Let your love flow…”


Ah, but that's what Mr. And Mrs. Killian did, or thought they did!

The broader deeper question is: How did this happen?

First the babyhood accident: what was its cause and nature? I grew up with a friend who was blinded at age two when his mother accidentally dropped him on his head. My friend Fritz, never tried to explain, blame or excuse the cause of his blindness or his mother's role in it. The causes of illness and/or disability are numerous and even undetectable   and lie beyond the power of the inquiry of “why?"

Blindness itself possesses its own set of causes and effects! Most of us tolerate our disability even as we're forced to observe the advantages of others who live with no life-altering disability. Another person I know becomes angry with their disability when experiencing frustration, denial, or especially dependence on the sighted.


Hence, how did Mr. or Mrs. Killian feel about Barbara's blindness? Did they feel guilt or even embarrassment as to their daughter's existence? What was their overall reaction toward human physical, emotional, or even spiritual weaknesses?

Every Fall, new boys and girls were admitted to our sister and brotherhoods at the New York State School for the Blind. One Fall, two boys, Bob and Stan, joined our little brethren. Both had been blinded for about two years. Bob was wounded by a shotgun accident. Even while his family desperately sought a cure for his malady, Bob cheerfully accepted his lot. Stan, on the other hand, sulked and complained to the disgust of many of us including myself. Stan's blindness was the result of a brain tumor. He died in 1965. Insofar as I know, Bob became a lawyer for the state and still lives. (Shame on us blind boys!)


The National Federation For The Blind is right when it asserts blindness is what you live with — it's not who you are!


If only the Killians had been gifted with that perception!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AMERICAN GREATNESS: DOES IT CHANGE? DOES IT MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

Atop my desk sits a three and a half inch medal depicting the twenty-eight men and two women regarded at the time as the 30 greatest people in American History. It includes seven presidents, one sports hero, two explorers, three writers, one Supreme Court justice, one civil rights figure, two social leaders, four inventors and, of course, several military heroes. Hence, my question: since it was an official Bicentennial medal, these are supposedly the 30 greatest Americans throughout our first two hundred years. It's important to keep two things in mind. First, some pretty special people aren't included on this medal, such as Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Frederick Douglass, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. Second, throughout the decades and centuries, challenges and values change. Adlai Stevenson pointed out that during pioneer days, candidates used to accuse each other of being “part Indian.” One candidate asserted while standing on the stump: my opponent insists that he's not part Indian and I believe him, because the Indians deny it, too!

Here's a list of those people on this large medal: Washington, Franklin, Jane Adams (who established Hull House in Chicago to assist the poor), writer Carl Sandburg, Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John Kennedy, John D. Rockefeller, Robert E. Lee, John Paul Jones, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, explorers Lewis and Clark, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, Woodrow Wilson, Babe Ruth, Martin Luther King, Franklin Roosevelt,  Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Thomas Edison, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Charles Lindbergh.

I’ve also read that on the 150th anniversary, the treasury struck a medal of George Washington and of Calvin Coolidge.

Now for the puzzle: As we approach our country’s 250th anniversary, who would we add or eliminate from the top 30? Here's my list of subtractions and substitutions.

I'd replace Carl Sandberg with Eleanor Roosevelt. I'd remove Henry Ford for Alexander Graham Bell. I'd replace John Kennedy with Ronald Reagan (although I personally prefer JFK). Betty Friedan would replace John D. Rockefeller. Robert E. Lee chose his state over his country and that's treasonous so I would replace Robert E. Lee with Harry Truman. For Woodrow Wilson, I'd take Theodore Roosevelt. Babe Ruth would be replaced by Willie Mays and, finally, I'd replace Lindbergh with John Glenn. These changes would keep the number to 30 great Americans.

As I see it, greatness has to do with the care for and commitment to the safety, well-being, and prosperity of the widest number of people in our republic. Anger toward minorities does not result in greatness. Even though society requires spiritual principles including the Golden Rule, society generally does not benefit by punishment or rejection of the lawful. Nor do we benefit from the criminalization of political candidates or their constituents.

There are, of course, no right or wrong additions or subtractions to this list, but changes do reflect our personal values because we govern through our values!

How significantly have we changed since that glorious Bicentennial Sunday, July 4th, 1976 as bells rang, fireworks roared, and the tall ships sailed into New York Harbor?

Of course, it matters because everyone matters!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

OKAY, MADAM VICE PRESIDENT, WHAT'S NEXT?

By Edwin Cooney

Now that you've impressed millions of your fellow citizens of your ability to tie Donald Trump in knots, what's your next act of political mastery?

No matter what one is doing: eating apples from a forbidden tree, building an ark, consuming rice with chopsticks, or running for President of the United States, you've got to master your task!

There are many strategical paths to the presidency that if taken can bring forth victory.

Last Tuesday, Vice President Harris manipulated former President Trump so cleverly that he had to concede the popularity and even the practicality of "Obamacare." The Affordable Care Act was essential, Trump insisted, as a framework of a Trumpian health care plan which he deliberately maintained in order to build his own health care plan.

As for Mr. Trump's foreign policy, Kamala Harris told Mr. Trump that both Presidents Putin and Xi by using personal flattery will "...have you for lunch!"

Harris was sufficiently successful throughout the debate that those who haven't yet made up their minds who they ought to vote for, want to know more about the challenger and her plans in a way they were once curious about Mr. Trump's policies and plans.

Now the former president says that he won the debate and doesn't need to debate Ms. Harris a second time. He even implied that there's no need for a Vance-Walz debate in October. In 2016, Hillary Clinton already had a reputation which Donald Trump's audacious behavior eventually overwhelmed.

It's increasingly apparent to this observer that Donald John Trump is becoming exceedingly boring! Thus, 2024 marks the third presidential campaign the public has been fed Mr. Trump's insistence on his capacity to "make America great again!" American greatness is an ongoing expectation that ebbs and flows at home and abroad. American greatness is a judgment rather than a continuous degree of perfection.

Greatness is about achievement applicable to the continuous well-being of a majority of Americans.

David Brooks, writing in The New York Times last week, believes that we're passing through a positive culture change that is about to succeed Donald Trump’s culture of exhaustion and indignation into a new culture of expected togetherness and personal connecting.

Now that the former president, for his own both political and personal protection, is abandoning direct political combat, it's up to Kamala Harris to construct and travel her highway to victory.

Although there's seldom any doubt as to whom this observer favors, seldom do I offer an assurance. Hence, here's a certainty as of today. Should sudden illness overtake President Biden, Kamala Harris would not only succeed constitutionally to the presidency, she'd easily be elected President of the United States in her own right. Up until last Tuesday, September 10th, 2024, such was not the case. Today, minus a major error on her part or a major discovery of Biden-Harris administration "skullduggery," Kamala Harris could be "in like Flynn."

If Vice President Kamala Harris becomes "President Harris" before November 5th, 2024, she'll remain President Harris until Saturday, January 20th, 2029. Hence Mr. Former President, it's in your political well-being to pray for "Old Sleepy Joe!"

Early in 1942 with the United States now in the war with the Axis, Winston Churchill observed:  "This is not the end! It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. "

Kamala Harris, the rest is up to you!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN CLOONEY

A NEW CONCEPT CALLED “THE STINKIN’ TRUTH”

By Edwin Cooney

One of the most fertile institutions in 21st Century society today is the podcast, a program available in a digital format over the internet. I think of these podcasts as mini broadcasts of stories and ideas designed to take the public where it's never been — and sometimes doesn't really need to go.

One of the most intriguing podcasts is called "The Stinkin' Truth,” largely encompassing real possibilities that are true, but that you or I would rather not experience, especially as sports fans.

Here's one set of simultaneous stinkin' truths:  One: Trump might win this November fifth election. Two:  Harris might win this November fifth election. (Keep in mind that all of us must own and handle stinkin' truths!)

A stinkin' truth I've had to face since 2009 is that the Yankees haven't won the World Series.

The world is bathed in truths: relative truths, partisan truths, personal truths, ideological truths and, this fall, Trump and Harris truths.

The most dangerous stinkin' truth is that it's possible that a world leader might miscalculate and bring on a nuclear explosion or that humanity's carelessness and selfishness might permanently poison the earth so that it might not be habitable. (Come to think of it, as bad as that would be for you and me, it might be good for the planet, thus enabling it to replenish itself for the next ten or twenty thousand years of habitation, human or otherwise.)

Sometimes we create our own "stinkin' truths" due to our personal insecurities or doubts about the capacity or veracity of others.

I once had a landlord who insisted that he hated lawyers. According to him, they too often lied, misrepresented, and schemed to make a buck. One Tuesday, early in November of 1980, I insisted that his doubling of my rent was way too much while being unfair at the same time. By Thursday, his lawyer was knocking at my door to serve me with an eviction notice. Oh! I forgot to mention that my landlord was the head of a citywide organization designed to control rent increases. Additionally, I learned that this gentleman actually had a direct telephone line to his lawyer.

Although some "stinkin' truths" are really stinky, some are actually funny. How about the Idaho man, David Rush, who spit 47 ping pong balls from his mouth against the wall in just 30 seconds to set a world record! Rush wasn't as proud of his spitting prowess as he was of his tenacity and persistence in the attainment of his crazy record!

Here's a wondrous truth: UPI recently reported that a Texas cat that had been missing for 3 years was found in Massachusetts. The cat had been loved so much by it's Texas owners that a chip had been inserted beneath its skin and was discovered during  an examination in Massachusetts. The cat, missing since January 2022, is Shoto. Her owner Karla only by chance answered the call from Dakin, Massachusetts and drove the 2,000 miles to retrieve Shoto. Only Shoto knows how her trip began, how she was treated or even how it ended.

Here's still another truth, this one personal. It occurred back in the early 1990’s. My son's cat went missing for about six weeks. One day, my son's mother and her boyfriend came home and there was Cinnamon meowing on her porch, thin as a rail and malnourished. At the vet that afternoon, they discovered that Cinnamon had been trapped in a garage that she had wandered into just before the people who owned the garage went on vacation.

Stinkin' truths are found everywhere: in the grocery store; at the barber or beauty shop; even in the “sack” with your significant other! History books are loaded with stinkin' truths. While it's true that the Electoral College distorts the popular vote, the final stinkin' truth is that we would never have been the United States of America without it. (In fact, still another stinkin' truth is that most every truth demands a price!)

Stinkin' truths possess an integrity. They can't be manufactured. They can only be realized. They can be funny, ironic, even boring, but they just might be the only genuinely real truth on "God's green earth."

Enjoy the idea. There's a lot in it!

No bull!


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IS DONALD TRUMP A POPULIST?

By Edwin Cooney

Those who have come to love and respect Donald Trump because of his willingness to propose radical changes to government policy insist that he's merely in the tradition of late 19th and early 20th century social reformers or populists in the tradition of such leaders as Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, four time Cleveland Ohio Mayor Tom Johnson, William Jennings Bryan and perhaps Clarence Darrow who was called "the attorney for the damned.” However, the examples of the above are precisely what Mr. Trump is not!

America's populist movement occurred in the late 18th and early 19th centuries between 1885 and 1915. It was led by women and men determined to alter the relationship between the public and their government to the overall advantage of the people.

The cornerstone of populism was the legislative initiative, the power of political referendum and even the privilege of the removal of some public officials. The cry was for public “initiative, referendum and recall.” Twice while I lived in California, between 1979 and 2013, voters invoked their capacity for initiative, referendum and recall.

The first time was in 1983 when some San Franciscans sought to recall Mayor Diane Feinstein over her veto of city employee benefits to gay domestic partners Their initiative against Mayor Feinstein badly missed its mark!

The second time was in 2003 when Governor Gray Davis was recalled due to unresolvable budget, social and energy differences. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the result of that 2003 recall.

Although FDR hasn't been considered a populist by historians and political science academicians, several laws passed via FDR were populist in nature. They include the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933 because it established a government corporation that competed with private enterprise, creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission because it regulated banking and trade through the government, and the adoption of Social Security in 1935 because it established government pensions thus changing the reliance of retired workers from private to government pensions.

Keep in mind that not all populist reforms are progressive. Prohibition was a populist movement that altered the relationship between the government and the people.

Angry or resentful presidents, governors or mayors may reject or institute a new policy issue, but in order to be populistic, one must introduce a structural process in a way that alters government's interaction with people which previously didn't exist. Farmers, factory laborers, miners, and some social minorities were affected by the populist movement. Populist leaders included Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Despite TR's New Nationalism and Wilson's New Freedom during the 1912 campaign, both were regarded as populists regardless of their Republican and Democratic Party affiliations.

Although former President Trump may be exceedingly popular, his social programs and policies lack much coordination or widespread national support. Another difference between Mr. Trump and most populist leaders is that government solutions were front and center to their method of problem solving.

Hence, Mr. Trump can't, by this observer, be considered a populist — not even close! The ultimate question then is obvious: can Donald Trump be elected?

Unfortunately, of course he can. Just ask Hillary Clinton!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

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