CHANGE—IS IT REAL OR SIMPLY POLITICAL?

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, here it is. Barack Obama is my favorite candidate for the office of President of the United States of America. Therefore, I was more than pleased with his eight percentage point victory in the Iowa caucuses last Thursday night. I’m also very encouraged as New Hampshire voters go to the polls tomorrow, January 8, 2008.

Senator Obama appeals to my desire to see changes in both our domestic and foreign policies. As an agent of change, his approaches and policies appear to me to be designed to be more inclusive and therefore more effectively beneficial to the greatest number of people throughout both America and the world community.

There are times when various ideological principles are applicable to what John F. Kennedy once called “…the unfinished public business of our country”—hence the election of: Thomas Jefferson in 1800 when the issue was government decentralization;
Andrew Jackson in 1828 when the issue was greater participation in democracy for working people;
William Henry Harrison in 1840 when the issue was the interstate financing of American business opportunities by the federal government;
Abraham Lincoln in 1860 when the issue was the containment of the slave-holding south;
Woodrow Wilson in 1912 when the issue was the economically responsible advancement of progressivism;
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 when the issue was the very survival of people’s homes, livelihoods and even American democracy;
and Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980 when the issue was economic “stagflation” and America’s perceived impotence in international affairs.

I believe that Barack Obama offers a responsive approach to a set of domestic and international priorities which is unique in his combination of intellect, vision, energy and personality. Furthermore, it seems to me, Senator Obama offers to include the input of ideological and political opponents as well as supporters in the prioritizing and the solving of domestic and international problems. Even more significant and powerful is Senator Obama’s goal to move us politically beyond the Conservative versus Liberal grab for culture supremacy.

Americans are, of course, entitled to expect that Senator Obama will be forthright and detailed on the subject of the changes he expects to bring about if successful. No presidential candidate can be expected to know what the final version of any proposal he or she makes will look like once it’s been accomplished since successful proposals and final legislation are almost always a compromise. However, Senator Obama no doubt expects to be challenged in the coming weeks and months on the substance of his ideas. That’s the way it should be. Nor do I, as a Barack Obama enthusiast, know or comprehend the details of all of his proposals.

For example, on the issue of health care, I haven’t studied the differences between his proposals and those of his fellow Democratic opponents’ proposals. However, what I do know is that Democrats are far more responsive than most Republicans to the reality that most Americans can no longer afford the quality of health care which they once could.

On the international front, I believe our struggle is against all international outlawry whether Islamic, Fascist, or Communist. Terrorism, after all, is a strategy, not an ideology or cause. What is needed is a worldwide intelligence and command force inclusive of many nations and bolstered by the highest level of technology to identify and prevent acts of terrorism by all nations or paramilitary political gangsters.

As for the historical significance of political change over the past 200 plus years of our republic, the outcome has been quite mixed.

Twenty times in our history, Americans have chosen to switch parties on national Election Day. However, only nine of our forty-two presidents have been defeated for re-election including:

John Adams in 1800 who felt both defeated and betrayed by his old friend Thomas Jefferson;
His son John Quincy Adams in 1828 who returned home and two years later was elected to the house where he became known as “Old Man Eloquent”;
Martin Van Buren in 1840 who later abandoned his beloved Democratic party and became an abolitionist;
Grover Cleveland in 1888 who got off the political mat and reclaimed the White House just four years later;
Benjamin Harrison who suffered the duel agony of personal bereavement and political defeat when First Lady Caroline (Carrie) Harrison died in the White House two weeks before the 1892 election;
William Howard Taft in 1912 who later served as Chief Justice of the United States;
Herbert Hoover in 1932 who earned the respect of future presidents and generations of Americans through his philanthropic works and service as a government reorganizer;
Jimmy Carter in 1980 whose service to humane causes and international peace has largely obliterated his past inadequacies And finally, George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992 who, though triumphant in the Gulf War, was dragged down by angry and disappointed citizens over high taxes and the economy.

Only four presidents, all of whom succeeded to the presidency from the vice presidency on the death of their party’s successfully elected nominee, have been denied re-nomination by their respective parties:
John Tyler in 1844; Millard Fillmore in 1852; Andrew Johnson in 1868; and Chester A. Arthur in 1884.

When political change has occurred it has meant both good and bad for the country. For example:
In 1800 when political change elected Thomas Jefferson, the result was a cut back in our Navy, an strengthening of the autonomy of the states as well as changes in the federal judiciary;
The 1860 political change to Abraham Lincoln meant a tragic civil war;
The 1932 shift to FDR meant a fundamental increase in the involvement of the federal and state government in the solving of national problems;
The 1976 change to Jimmy Carter meant bold personal presidential diplomacy in Central America and most dramatically in the Middle East;
The subsequent change to President Ronald Reagan in 1980 meant a bolder and more decisive front against Soviet Communism as well as landmark legislation in the area of tax reform;
The change to Bill Clinton in 1992 meant that there would be a balance toward the center in the wake of the increasing rightward shift in the American body politic;
Finally, the change to George Walker Bush in the year 2000 meant a determined “go it alone” policy in Iraq as well as in international affairs in general.

Whether you support or oppose the candidacy of Senator Barack Hussein Obama (and you can be sure the GOP will literally beat him over the head with his own middle name, especially during their late August convention!), political change is not only real—it’s inevitable.

My endorsement of Barack Obama is affirmative. It belittles no other candidacy. I can still admire John Edwards’ capacity and commitment to advocacy. I can still admire Hillary Clinton’s depth of knowledge and obvious brilliance. I can still pay tribute to Bill Richardson’s experience and energy. I can even reach across the political aisle and salute John McCain’s brave patriotism and occasional political independence, Mitt Romney’s smooth political agility, Mike Huckabee’s self-determination and Rudy Giuliani’s stubborn pugnacity. After all, that’s precisely what Senator Obama hopes to make it politically fashionable for all of us to do. As he assures us: There is no shortage of anger in Washington.”

Whatever change is implemented by our next president will be judged good or ill by the people. Our last best expectation however has to be that we will remain free to so judge.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY