By Edwin Cooney
Where were you that fateful night exactly forty years ago when LBJ changed America? Don’t be shy! It may even be cathartic for you to recall!
If you were driving through that snowy night back to college from a weekend of free love, consciousness-raising, pot smoking and beer drinking, your car probably was filled with cigarette smoke. You and your companions might have been listening to Otis Redding’s number one hit “Sitting on the Dock of the Bay” on the radio.
If you were Vice President Hubert Humphrey, you were in Mexico City attending an inter-American conference on behalf of your boss President Lyndon B. Johnson. If your name was Richard Nixon, you were on a plane between Milwaukee, Wisconsin and New York City after a weekend of campaigning. If you were Senator Eugene McCarthy, you were in Milwaukee hoping to improve on your New Hampshire showing against LBJ by actually defeating him this time in the Wisconsin primary which would be held that Tuesday. If you were Senator Robert Kennedy of New York, you were assessing your chances in the upcoming primaries in Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon and California after having announced your presidential candidacy on March 16. If you were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., you were spending the last Sunday night of your life giving a most eloquent sermon at the Washington National Cathedral in D.C. Finally, if you were Edwin Cooney, you were traveling by automobile and bus between Attica and Rochester, New York where you would begin a new job as a darkroom x-ray technician on the morrow.
Of course, forty years ago was 1968, a presidential election year. I was rooting very staunchly for the candidacy of Richard Nixon. I believed that Nixon’s greatest election hurdle would be President Johnson, although admittedly Robert Kennedy -- were he to get the Democratic nomination -- would also have been a formidable opponent.
I reached the Batavia bus station about five minutes before my Rochester bus would depart when the man behind the counter told me I had a phone call. It was a call from home telling me that President Johnson had just announced that he wouldn’t be a candidate for re-election. “Wow,” I said. “How could he make such a decision? Did he really mean it or was this a clever Johnson ploy to encourage a sympathetic party draft?”
Lyndon Johnson’s announcement was, as far as I was concerned, the biggest story since the assassination of John F. Kennedy nearly five years before. Even more, it meant uncertainty in the Democratic Party as well as in the nation’s immediate future. It wasn‘t that LBJ was much beloved by most Americans, but he was a powerful presence, whether advocating for civil rights legislation before a packed House chamber full of important politicians and diplomats or driving a car full of reporters at high speed around his ranch while simultaneously talking and sipping from a can of beer. His presence, although lacking the sophisticated Kennedy charm, had its own force. He could tell spellbinding stories all day about his political colleagues and he was also a great mimic. The one challenge he could never successfully meet however was being as appealing as the erudite John F. Kennedy. Thus, when he was overwhelmed by the Vietnam War, there was no image of “Camelot” to distract the public’s dismay or cushion his fall from grace. Even so, he was regarded by the most astute political and societal observers to be the central pivot in the most powerful if not entirely invulnerable political system in the world—and now, without even a warning, he was suddenly dropping out of it.
So the immediate question was “why?” The more long term question was “what does this mean?”
If LBJ were surrendering power merely because of his health, what came after him would probably have little significance. If, on the other hand, LBJ was leaving office because he possessed neither the energy nor desire to keep up with the changes he knew were just over the horizon, then America was indeed in for a rough time.
Within a year of LBJ’s March 31st announcement his party would be split asunder over Vietnam and thus defeated at the polls by its worst enemy at the time, Richard Nixon. Within four years, people voting in primaries would largely replace the political bosses when it came to choosing presidential and other candidates. The South, home of the Democratic Party’s most powerful and in many cases most bigoted leaders, was irrevocably lost to the new GOP “southern strategy”. Within six years of that fateful March Sunday night, seniority would be stripped of its previous authority when it came to selecting important congressional committee chairmanships and other leaders.
With that brief announcement by President Lyndon Banes Johnson that: “…I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President,” America became different than she’d ever been before.
Gone was the coalition between labor, small farmers, southern populists, and big city political machines that had controlled America. Gone was the balance between political rebellion, punishment and reward. Gone was the advocacy for a strong middle class -- replaced by the idea that people should strive to be rich rather than merely content. Some will say that since the night LBJ released his hold on power, America has steadily become freer. Others, however, this observer included, will assert that America (lovable as she is) has merely become wilder and more self-possessed. No longer is there a sense that America should use her government to raise all boats or to control her political, economic or business excesses.
Forty years have passed since LBJ has uttered those famous words “come let us reason together” and that’s simply forty years too long.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
TOWARD EVEN A MORE “PERFECT UNION”
By Edwin Cooney
I was as shocked, befuddled and disheartened as I’m sure most Barack Obama supporters were a week ago last Friday night when the video of Senator Obama’s pastor damning America was released by right wing talk television and radio.
Here, it appeared, at long last was the “red meat” Conservatives were looking for to cause Barack Obama to seriously stumble on his trek toward the White House. After all, hadn’t previous efforts to paint him as a “radical Muslim” been pretty much a failure? Now it seemed they finally had something to parade before the fearful.
Then, less than ninety-six hours later, there strode onto a Philadelphia stage this uncommon man to speak for himself.
Anyone who offers himself or herself for election to the presidency must be prepared to experience investigation, review and ridicule. Our history is loaded with embarrassed presidential candidates, but some have actually prevailed.
There was little tolerance back in 1828 for any political candidate who might be exposed as living in “marital sin”. Hence, as popular as he was, it was politically dangerous for Andrew Jackson when it was publicly disclosed that Rachel Jackson was a divorcée -- and that from August 1791 until January 17th, 1794 the couple had lived in a bigamist relationship. Due to the mistaken belief that her divorce had been finalized, Rachel Jackson was still the legal wife of Lewis Robards of Kentucky while living as the wife of Old Hickory. Ultimately, although it was said that the public scandal broke Rachael Jackson’s heart and led to her post-presidential election death, Old Hickory prevailed and served as our seventh president.
Embarrassing as it was for presidential candidate Grover Cleveland in 1884 when news of his fatherhood of an illegitimate child was revealed, Cleveland’s reaction was simple and direct. He instructed his political minions to “tell the truth”.
It was risky, too, for Vice President Harry Truman in January 1945 when he publicly attended the funeral of his old friend, the notorious Kansas City mobster Tom Pendergast. Pendergast had spent fifteen months in prison for income tax evasion in the early 1940s. However, he was a friend and loyalty to friends was more important to Harry Truman than possible political vulnerability in a future campaign.
John Kennedy didn’t run away from his religious heritage in 1960 even though there were those who were, at least initially, willing to make JFK’s Catholic faith a near crime. One of them, preacher Martin Luther King, Sr. (“Daddy King” as he was often called), had urged his Atlanta flock to support the Protestant candidate Richard Nixon --until the Kennedy campaign successfully intervened in his son’s October 1960 imprisonment.
Then, there was Jimmy Carter’s “lust in my heart” interview with Playboy Magazine during the 1976 presidential campaign. Additionally, there was an attempt by a black minister named Clement King to embarrass the Carter campaign by publicly integrating the Plains Georgia Baptist church, which, at that time—over the Carter family’s objections—was still segregated. Ultimately, Jimmy Carter remained in his church and won the ’76 election. Hence, even the most successful presidential campaigns have moments of crisis.
For nearly forty minutes last Tuesday morning, in a building not far from Independence Hall, the place where fifty-seven patriots from thirteen colonies put together -- though imperfect -- the world’s most perfectible document, our Constitution, Barack Obama told our National Story.
It is a story of promise, imperfection, struggle, legitimate misunderstanding and ultimate perfection. Specifically, Senator Obama acknowledged that statements made by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (statements with which he strongly disagreed) were distortions of the real America because they underestimated our people’s capacity to “change”. Even more, Reverend Wright’s angry words were divisive in a time when we need national unity.
Throughout the speech, Senator Obama blended his own story of multi-racial ancestry with America’s heritage and stressed, repeatedly, the significance of our commonality. Also, Senator Obama demonstrated both loyalty and understanding with respect to his community and to his church.
Asserting that if all he knew about Reverend Wright was what had been shown on television lately, he said that he too would have questions about his church affiliation. He explained that he could no more disown his church, which had been doing God’s work throughout his membership, than he could disown the black community or his white grandmother. Acknowledging that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, was his spiritual leader, he strongly agreed with those who were angered by what he termed Reverend Wright’s distortion of American society. He also acknowledged the legitimate anger within the white community over affirmative action advantages toward minorities. Finally, as the son of a black father and a white mother, he freely acknowledged that in no other nation on earth could he receive the honor that soon could be his.
So the question is: Did Senator Obama put the issue of his association with Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ behind him?
Probably not, but what this most magnificent speech may well have done was to demonstrate, for all to see, the powerful authenticity of Barack Obama. Even more, Senator Obama’s speech may well have put us on a road that can heal and eventually bring about “a more perfect union” than ever before.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I was as shocked, befuddled and disheartened as I’m sure most Barack Obama supporters were a week ago last Friday night when the video of Senator Obama’s pastor damning America was released by right wing talk television and radio.
Here, it appeared, at long last was the “red meat” Conservatives were looking for to cause Barack Obama to seriously stumble on his trek toward the White House. After all, hadn’t previous efforts to paint him as a “radical Muslim” been pretty much a failure? Now it seemed they finally had something to parade before the fearful.
Then, less than ninety-six hours later, there strode onto a Philadelphia stage this uncommon man to speak for himself.
Anyone who offers himself or herself for election to the presidency must be prepared to experience investigation, review and ridicule. Our history is loaded with embarrassed presidential candidates, but some have actually prevailed.
There was little tolerance back in 1828 for any political candidate who might be exposed as living in “marital sin”. Hence, as popular as he was, it was politically dangerous for Andrew Jackson when it was publicly disclosed that Rachel Jackson was a divorcée -- and that from August 1791 until January 17th, 1794 the couple had lived in a bigamist relationship. Due to the mistaken belief that her divorce had been finalized, Rachel Jackson was still the legal wife of Lewis Robards of Kentucky while living as the wife of Old Hickory. Ultimately, although it was said that the public scandal broke Rachael Jackson’s heart and led to her post-presidential election death, Old Hickory prevailed and served as our seventh president.
Embarrassing as it was for presidential candidate Grover Cleveland in 1884 when news of his fatherhood of an illegitimate child was revealed, Cleveland’s reaction was simple and direct. He instructed his political minions to “tell the truth”.
It was risky, too, for Vice President Harry Truman in January 1945 when he publicly attended the funeral of his old friend, the notorious Kansas City mobster Tom Pendergast. Pendergast had spent fifteen months in prison for income tax evasion in the early 1940s. However, he was a friend and loyalty to friends was more important to Harry Truman than possible political vulnerability in a future campaign.
John Kennedy didn’t run away from his religious heritage in 1960 even though there were those who were, at least initially, willing to make JFK’s Catholic faith a near crime. One of them, preacher Martin Luther King, Sr. (“Daddy King” as he was often called), had urged his Atlanta flock to support the Protestant candidate Richard Nixon --until the Kennedy campaign successfully intervened in his son’s October 1960 imprisonment.
Then, there was Jimmy Carter’s “lust in my heart” interview with Playboy Magazine during the 1976 presidential campaign. Additionally, there was an attempt by a black minister named Clement King to embarrass the Carter campaign by publicly integrating the Plains Georgia Baptist church, which, at that time—over the Carter family’s objections—was still segregated. Ultimately, Jimmy Carter remained in his church and won the ’76 election. Hence, even the most successful presidential campaigns have moments of crisis.
For nearly forty minutes last Tuesday morning, in a building not far from Independence Hall, the place where fifty-seven patriots from thirteen colonies put together -- though imperfect -- the world’s most perfectible document, our Constitution, Barack Obama told our National Story.
It is a story of promise, imperfection, struggle, legitimate misunderstanding and ultimate perfection. Specifically, Senator Obama acknowledged that statements made by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (statements with which he strongly disagreed) were distortions of the real America because they underestimated our people’s capacity to “change”. Even more, Reverend Wright’s angry words were divisive in a time when we need national unity.
Throughout the speech, Senator Obama blended his own story of multi-racial ancestry with America’s heritage and stressed, repeatedly, the significance of our commonality. Also, Senator Obama demonstrated both loyalty and understanding with respect to his community and to his church.
Asserting that if all he knew about Reverend Wright was what had been shown on television lately, he said that he too would have questions about his church affiliation. He explained that he could no more disown his church, which had been doing God’s work throughout his membership, than he could disown the black community or his white grandmother. Acknowledging that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, was his spiritual leader, he strongly agreed with those who were angered by what he termed Reverend Wright’s distortion of American society. He also acknowledged the legitimate anger within the white community over affirmative action advantages toward minorities. Finally, as the son of a black father and a white mother, he freely acknowledged that in no other nation on earth could he receive the honor that soon could be his.
So the question is: Did Senator Obama put the issue of his association with Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ behind him?
Probably not, but what this most magnificent speech may well have done was to demonstrate, for all to see, the powerful authenticity of Barack Obama. Even more, Senator Obama’s speech may well have put us on a road that can heal and eventually bring about “a more perfect union” than ever before.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 17, 2008
THROUGH MIDNIGHT TO THE DAWN
By Edwin Cooney
The sudden, shocking, sad and melodramatic prostitution ring scandal engulfing New York governor Eliot Spitzer has -- like many human tragedies -- its victims and its benefactors.
The victims are the governor’s daughters Elyssa (age 18), Sarabeth (15), and Jenna (13) and his wife Silda Wall Spitzer. Additionally, the governor (forty-eight-year-old Eliot Laurence Spitzer) is also a victim — but a victim of himself.
A brilliant student, investigator, and lawyer, a determined and successful prosecutor, and State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer had an almost limitless political future until it was revealed a week ago that he’d participated in a “prostitution ring.” Then it seemed, without warning to his political supporters, his associates, and most heartbreaking of all, to his family and friends, it all came crashing down. Far more important, the shattering sounds of a collapsing political career were muffled by the sound of the tearing fabric of the Spitzer family’s expectation of loyalty and love.
How such an energetic and righteous individual as Eliot Spitzer could possess such a hypocritical demon is beyond the ability of most of us to comprehend. Nevertheless, the public’s disillusionment with Mr. Spitzer’s inconsistent behavior surely pales in comparison to the heart rending befuddlement of his wife and three daughters.
Out of the Spitzer family’s midnight there has dawned the unlikely opportunity for public service and political glory for the family of David Alexander Paterson of Harlem, New York. Born into politics, New York’s fifty-fifth governor is the son of Basil Paterson who served as the state’s Secretary of State and who, ironically, was himself once a candidate for Lutennant Governor on the Democratic ticket. That was back in 1970 when Basil Paterson and his gubernatorial candidate running mate Arthur M. Goldberg were defeated by Nelson A. Rockefeller and Malcolm Wilson. Basil Paterson was appointed by Governor Hugh Carey as New York State’s Secretary of State in 1979 and served in that position until January of 1983.
Already the Empire State’s highest ranking office holder, thus out-achieving his father, David Paterson will become only the fourth African-American in history to become a state governor. The others were; P. B. S. Pinchback of Louisiana who served for 36 days in 1872-73 while the sitting governor fought impeachment charges; L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia elected in 1989; and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts who was elected in 2006.
No doubt more fascinating to many than Governor Paterson’s racial identification is the fact that he will be the nation’s first legally blind governor as far as can be determined. This fact was forcefully brought home to me some months ago by a former high school sweetheart of mine who chided me for my ignorance of then Lieutenant Governor Paterson’s disability saying: “So much, Ed, for your knowledge of politics!”
The victim of a childhood infection, Paterson, who was born May 20, 1954, has no sight in his left eye and very limited vision in his right. He blames his limited vision for his failure to pass the bar examination following his 1983 graduation from Hofstra University Law School. Elected to the State Senate in 1985, Paterson became Senate Minority Leader when he overthrew incumbent leader Martin Connor in 2002. A reformer, Paterson has championed such causes as stem cell research; state alternative energy programs; and state supported opportunities for increasing women and minority business ownership. The new governor lives in Harlem with his wife Michelle and their two children Ashley and Alex. A super delegate to the Democratic National convention, Governor Paterson has already endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for President.
Watching Governor Paterson grapple with his new challenges will perhaps be the best balm for healing the public’s stress and disappointment over Governor Spitzer’s personal failings. Governor Spitzer is only the second New York State governor forced from office. The first was William Sulzer, who was, many believe, unjustly railroaded out of office in October 1913 by Tammany Hall for refusing to appoint its favorites to key public positions. His offense allegedly was misappropriation of funds during his 1912 gubernatorial campaign. Governor Sulzer’s misfortune was more political than it was moral. It’s even likely that Governor Sulzer’s departure went largely unnoticed by most New Yorkers.
As for the Spitzer family healing process, that will rightfully be a private matter apart from any possible legal developments. However, with all of the political pitfalls which face elected office holders today, I’m sure that most of us would rather face David Paterson’s agenda than that of private citizen Eliot Spitzer.
David Paterson’s task is to marshal his energy, talents and resources to successfully administer the agenda of an often fickle public. Eliot Spitzer’s daunting task is to retrieve his -- and his family’s -- self esteem.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
The sudden, shocking, sad and melodramatic prostitution ring scandal engulfing New York governor Eliot Spitzer has -- like many human tragedies -- its victims and its benefactors.
The victims are the governor’s daughters Elyssa (age 18), Sarabeth (15), and Jenna (13) and his wife Silda Wall Spitzer. Additionally, the governor (forty-eight-year-old Eliot Laurence Spitzer) is also a victim — but a victim of himself.
A brilliant student, investigator, and lawyer, a determined and successful prosecutor, and State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer had an almost limitless political future until it was revealed a week ago that he’d participated in a “prostitution ring.” Then it seemed, without warning to his political supporters, his associates, and most heartbreaking of all, to his family and friends, it all came crashing down. Far more important, the shattering sounds of a collapsing political career were muffled by the sound of the tearing fabric of the Spitzer family’s expectation of loyalty and love.
How such an energetic and righteous individual as Eliot Spitzer could possess such a hypocritical demon is beyond the ability of most of us to comprehend. Nevertheless, the public’s disillusionment with Mr. Spitzer’s inconsistent behavior surely pales in comparison to the heart rending befuddlement of his wife and three daughters.
Out of the Spitzer family’s midnight there has dawned the unlikely opportunity for public service and political glory for the family of David Alexander Paterson of Harlem, New York. Born into politics, New York’s fifty-fifth governor is the son of Basil Paterson who served as the state’s Secretary of State and who, ironically, was himself once a candidate for Lutennant Governor on the Democratic ticket. That was back in 1970 when Basil Paterson and his gubernatorial candidate running mate Arthur M. Goldberg were defeated by Nelson A. Rockefeller and Malcolm Wilson. Basil Paterson was appointed by Governor Hugh Carey as New York State’s Secretary of State in 1979 and served in that position until January of 1983.
Already the Empire State’s highest ranking office holder, thus out-achieving his father, David Paterson will become only the fourth African-American in history to become a state governor. The others were; P. B. S. Pinchback of Louisiana who served for 36 days in 1872-73 while the sitting governor fought impeachment charges; L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia elected in 1989; and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts who was elected in 2006.
No doubt more fascinating to many than Governor Paterson’s racial identification is the fact that he will be the nation’s first legally blind governor as far as can be determined. This fact was forcefully brought home to me some months ago by a former high school sweetheart of mine who chided me for my ignorance of then Lieutenant Governor Paterson’s disability saying: “So much, Ed, for your knowledge of politics!”
The victim of a childhood infection, Paterson, who was born May 20, 1954, has no sight in his left eye and very limited vision in his right. He blames his limited vision for his failure to pass the bar examination following his 1983 graduation from Hofstra University Law School. Elected to the State Senate in 1985, Paterson became Senate Minority Leader when he overthrew incumbent leader Martin Connor in 2002. A reformer, Paterson has championed such causes as stem cell research; state alternative energy programs; and state supported opportunities for increasing women and minority business ownership. The new governor lives in Harlem with his wife Michelle and their two children Ashley and Alex. A super delegate to the Democratic National convention, Governor Paterson has already endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for President.
Watching Governor Paterson grapple with his new challenges will perhaps be the best balm for healing the public’s stress and disappointment over Governor Spitzer’s personal failings. Governor Spitzer is only the second New York State governor forced from office. The first was William Sulzer, who was, many believe, unjustly railroaded out of office in October 1913 by Tammany Hall for refusing to appoint its favorites to key public positions. His offense allegedly was misappropriation of funds during his 1912 gubernatorial campaign. Governor Sulzer’s misfortune was more political than it was moral. It’s even likely that Governor Sulzer’s departure went largely unnoticed by most New Yorkers.
As for the Spitzer family healing process, that will rightfully be a private matter apart from any possible legal developments. However, with all of the political pitfalls which face elected office holders today, I’m sure that most of us would rather face David Paterson’s agenda than that of private citizen Eliot Spitzer.
David Paterson’s task is to marshal his energy, talents and resources to successfully administer the agenda of an often fickle public. Eliot Spitzer’s daunting task is to retrieve his -- and his family’s -- self esteem.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 10, 2008
A MOST UNCOMFORTABLE REALITY
By Edwin Cooney
“Some days are diamonds and some days are stone,” sang the late John Denver on a single 45 rpm record back about 1981. Such was the case for me last Tuesday night.
It was bad enough that my candidate for president Barack Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, but that wasn’t it. It happened in my very own apartment. I’ll explain.
I’ve lived in this old Victorian apartment house in Alameda, California since November 1996. For the most part, I’m comfortable here. The rent is downright cheap by any standard in the Bay Area or elsewhere for that matter and I’m close to most of the places I like to go.
I don’t know my neighbors very well, nor do they really know me. The couple I know the best, although we’re by no means close, live in the apartment just below me. Such has been the arrangement since about 2000.
My housekeeping style might be labeled “lazy bachelor.” The apartment is cluttered and could use a mop and vacuum cleaner much more often than I use them. Let’s face it, I’m a lazy housekeeper. However, that’s not the problem.
I’m careful with the stove and I try to make sure that the lights are off since I don’t use them much. I’m a pipe smoker and I’m careful about it. My quirk is my kitchen sink.
Because the house is old, the water pressure in the sink is exceedingly low and hence slow, especially the hot water.
On numerous occasions over the years, I’ve flooded the sink because I won’t stand and watch the sink as it fills. When the sink floods, water seeps down through the floor and, if it’s left on long enough, it goes through the ceiling of the apartment below and into the downstairs couple’s kitchen. When that happens my downstairs neighbors are unhappy—to say the least.
Once, back in March of 2004, I turned the sink on while otherwise occupied and then, to make matters worse, I forgot the water was running and left the apartment to join a friend for lunch. When we returned about an hour and a half later, my landlord was in my apartment doing his best to rectify the situation.
About six months after that, during the 2004 presidential campaign, I got too occupied listening to a documentary on the political lives of Kerry and Bush and again the water ran over.
The result was that my landlord had a special dish container on legs made for me which is inserted into the sink. It’s large enough to hold most of my dishes and, because it’s on legs, the water will go down the drain if I leave the plug out of the sink. Hence, I’ve had no problem since October of 2004…until last Tuesday night.
I use the dish container most of the time, but occasionally because I’m washing something that’s bigger than the dish container, I’ll go back to the old method. I shouldn’t, but I do. Some part of me insists that I have sufficient presence of mind to be aware of the amount of time that has passed between the time I turn on the water and the time it is sufficiently filled so that I can go to work. Well, apparently, I don’t. It’s happened again and my neighbors are very unhappy. As for my landlord, he’s not happy, but he likes me and he’s patient.
I don’t know about you, but even though I often get impatient with other people’s “quirks” or idiosyncrasies, I tend to forgive my own quite readily.
The truth is that I am just plain in the wrong sometimes. No, that’s putting it mildly. I’m just plain self-indulging and thoughtless on occasion.
As for the couple downstairs, not only are we not really close, I suspect they’d quite like me to move. True, it hadn’t happened in nearly four years, but that’s no defense. Thus I must suffer my neighbor’s wrath and the lesser frustration of my landlord. The fact that the overflow was very slight and was noticed only because my neighbor heard the water dripping before things got out of hand is just plain luck. Nor can I blame it on either Barack or Hillary.
One of the earliest lessons most of us are taught is the importance of being right. Even before we go to school, we’re rewarded when we’re right and punished when we’re wrong. There are, of course, times when we’re wrong because we’ve been fed wrong information. Occasionally, there are physical or emotional reasons to justify our wrongful status. However, sometimes we’re just simply in the wrong. We’ve blown it and the only open path to redemption is the tolerance of others.
I know that there exists in this world all kinds of guilt: criminal guilt, parental guilt, spousal guilt, societal guilt, calculated guilt, absent-minded or careless guilt, and spiritual guilt — all of which are reprehensible — especially when they’re repeated.
However, the worst kind of guilt I know of is my own.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
“Some days are diamonds and some days are stone,” sang the late John Denver on a single 45 rpm record back about 1981. Such was the case for me last Tuesday night.
It was bad enough that my candidate for president Barack Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, but that wasn’t it. It happened in my very own apartment. I’ll explain.
I’ve lived in this old Victorian apartment house in Alameda, California since November 1996. For the most part, I’m comfortable here. The rent is downright cheap by any standard in the Bay Area or elsewhere for that matter and I’m close to most of the places I like to go.
I don’t know my neighbors very well, nor do they really know me. The couple I know the best, although we’re by no means close, live in the apartment just below me. Such has been the arrangement since about 2000.
My housekeeping style might be labeled “lazy bachelor.” The apartment is cluttered and could use a mop and vacuum cleaner much more often than I use them. Let’s face it, I’m a lazy housekeeper. However, that’s not the problem.
I’m careful with the stove and I try to make sure that the lights are off since I don’t use them much. I’m a pipe smoker and I’m careful about it. My quirk is my kitchen sink.
Because the house is old, the water pressure in the sink is exceedingly low and hence slow, especially the hot water.
On numerous occasions over the years, I’ve flooded the sink because I won’t stand and watch the sink as it fills. When the sink floods, water seeps down through the floor and, if it’s left on long enough, it goes through the ceiling of the apartment below and into the downstairs couple’s kitchen. When that happens my downstairs neighbors are unhappy—to say the least.
Once, back in March of 2004, I turned the sink on while otherwise occupied and then, to make matters worse, I forgot the water was running and left the apartment to join a friend for lunch. When we returned about an hour and a half later, my landlord was in my apartment doing his best to rectify the situation.
About six months after that, during the 2004 presidential campaign, I got too occupied listening to a documentary on the political lives of Kerry and Bush and again the water ran over.
The result was that my landlord had a special dish container on legs made for me which is inserted into the sink. It’s large enough to hold most of my dishes and, because it’s on legs, the water will go down the drain if I leave the plug out of the sink. Hence, I’ve had no problem since October of 2004…until last Tuesday night.
I use the dish container most of the time, but occasionally because I’m washing something that’s bigger than the dish container, I’ll go back to the old method. I shouldn’t, but I do. Some part of me insists that I have sufficient presence of mind to be aware of the amount of time that has passed between the time I turn on the water and the time it is sufficiently filled so that I can go to work. Well, apparently, I don’t. It’s happened again and my neighbors are very unhappy. As for my landlord, he’s not happy, but he likes me and he’s patient.
I don’t know about you, but even though I often get impatient with other people’s “quirks” or idiosyncrasies, I tend to forgive my own quite readily.
The truth is that I am just plain in the wrong sometimes. No, that’s putting it mildly. I’m just plain self-indulging and thoughtless on occasion.
As for the couple downstairs, not only are we not really close, I suspect they’d quite like me to move. True, it hadn’t happened in nearly four years, but that’s no defense. Thus I must suffer my neighbor’s wrath and the lesser frustration of my landlord. The fact that the overflow was very slight and was noticed only because my neighbor heard the water dripping before things got out of hand is just plain luck. Nor can I blame it on either Barack or Hillary.
One of the earliest lessons most of us are taught is the importance of being right. Even before we go to school, we’re rewarded when we’re right and punished when we’re wrong. There are, of course, times when we’re wrong because we’ve been fed wrong information. Occasionally, there are physical or emotional reasons to justify our wrongful status. However, sometimes we’re just simply in the wrong. We’ve blown it and the only open path to redemption is the tolerance of others.
I know that there exists in this world all kinds of guilt: criminal guilt, parental guilt, spousal guilt, societal guilt, calculated guilt, absent-minded or careless guilt, and spiritual guilt — all of which are reprehensible — especially when they’re repeated.
However, the worst kind of guilt I know of is my own.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 3, 2008
THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESS
By Edwin Cooney
From generation to generation, there has been an ongoing interest in ranking past presidents in the order of their “greatness.” I have my own presidential ranking list and scholars have theirs.
What exactly causes scholars and others to rate a president as “great”, “near great”, “average”, “below average”, or “a failure” depends upon the values and mores of the generation doing the evaluating. Presidents with “Indian fighter” backgrounds such as Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor would rate less highly today than they did back in the nineteenth century. Also, presidents such as Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who were regarded as “pretty average” at the close of their administrations, have risen from that average status to “near greatness” on many recent presidential surveys. Success in domestic or foreign affairs, character, oratory and the passage of “landmark legislation” under their watch are just some of the aspects taken into account in rating presidents. (Landmark legislation is legislation that marks a major societal shift in our attitude on domestic or foreign relationships.) A president’s personal popularity is increasingly a significant factor in measuring presidential greatness.
Back in 1971, I had the good fortune to personally sit with George Reedy, a former Lyndon B. Johnson press secretary, as he made the observation that until 1933 most Americans had only the vaguest impression of any president’s personality. Then Franklin Roosevelt changed all that by instituting a series of radio addresses which the news media of the day called “fireside chats”. These chats added the dimension of his warm rich voice to the average American’s impression of his strong handsome photographic image. Since FDR’s time, Americans have been able -- first through radio and newsreels, then through the image of television and finally through televised press conferences and coverage of other presidential activities -- to get an increasingly clearer image of every American president’s personality.
No president is completely popular or unpopular with everyone. Hence, every president strives for a consensus of favorable opinion with regard to his personality and ideas in order to get his agenda through Congress with the backing of the American people.
One of the most qualified men ever to become president was John Quincy Adams. He had been a Diplomat, a U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. He was also the son of our second president. However, because his election to the presidency in 1825 over the popular General Andrew Jackson was questionable and because he was seen as personally cold, combative and unyielding, he was unable to get anything through Congress — except, finally, support for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. JQA had lots and lots of ideas, some of them pretty good ones, but he lacked sufficient public or Congressional support for his person or his agenda. Thus, he lost his 1828 bid for re-election to General Jackson—the overwhelmingly popular hero of the War of 1812.
Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency could have been a disaster. He lacked domestic political experience and faced a rather hostile isolationist conservative GOP Congressional majority during his first two years as well as a solid Democratic majority in Congress during the rest of his presidency. However, people simply liked Ike. He left office with significant accomplishments to his credit and was nearly as popular when he left as he was upon becoming President. More to the point, his ranking — even among scholars —has increased over the years.
While not every likable president is ranked among the top ten “great and near great presidents” (for instance, James Monroe, William McKinley, John Kennedy, and Gerald Ford) and while not every one of the top ten greatest presidents was likable much of the time (LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, and James K. Polk, for example), they did manage to connect with the people’s greatest passions and needs at critical times. They were forceful enough to carry their agendas and also to be ranked highly by scholars and the public alike.
Political and historical perspective, knowledge, intelligence, and a capacity for administrative detail and analysis are invaluable tools for presidential success. However, they seldom work unless people really like the president who possesses them. Hence, the common denominator of presidential success, especially today, is likeability.
Since the beginning of this year, Americans have been examining the political and personal credentials of twelve men and one woman who have offered to serve as our next president. So far, it appears that likeability is carrying the day. No surprise, comparatively, it almost always does.
Intangible as it is, presidential likeability is by its very nature inclusive. It compels constructive consensus building.
That’s why such names as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan linger as heroic names long after the sun has set on their day.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
From generation to generation, there has been an ongoing interest in ranking past presidents in the order of their “greatness.” I have my own presidential ranking list and scholars have theirs.
What exactly causes scholars and others to rate a president as “great”, “near great”, “average”, “below average”, or “a failure” depends upon the values and mores of the generation doing the evaluating. Presidents with “Indian fighter” backgrounds such as Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor would rate less highly today than they did back in the nineteenth century. Also, presidents such as Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who were regarded as “pretty average” at the close of their administrations, have risen from that average status to “near greatness” on many recent presidential surveys. Success in domestic or foreign affairs, character, oratory and the passage of “landmark legislation” under their watch are just some of the aspects taken into account in rating presidents. (Landmark legislation is legislation that marks a major societal shift in our attitude on domestic or foreign relationships.) A president’s personal popularity is increasingly a significant factor in measuring presidential greatness.
Back in 1971, I had the good fortune to personally sit with George Reedy, a former Lyndon B. Johnson press secretary, as he made the observation that until 1933 most Americans had only the vaguest impression of any president’s personality. Then Franklin Roosevelt changed all that by instituting a series of radio addresses which the news media of the day called “fireside chats”. These chats added the dimension of his warm rich voice to the average American’s impression of his strong handsome photographic image. Since FDR’s time, Americans have been able -- first through radio and newsreels, then through the image of television and finally through televised press conferences and coverage of other presidential activities -- to get an increasingly clearer image of every American president’s personality.
No president is completely popular or unpopular with everyone. Hence, every president strives for a consensus of favorable opinion with regard to his personality and ideas in order to get his agenda through Congress with the backing of the American people.
One of the most qualified men ever to become president was John Quincy Adams. He had been a Diplomat, a U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. He was also the son of our second president. However, because his election to the presidency in 1825 over the popular General Andrew Jackson was questionable and because he was seen as personally cold, combative and unyielding, he was unable to get anything through Congress — except, finally, support for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. JQA had lots and lots of ideas, some of them pretty good ones, but he lacked sufficient public or Congressional support for his person or his agenda. Thus, he lost his 1828 bid for re-election to General Jackson—the overwhelmingly popular hero of the War of 1812.
Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency could have been a disaster. He lacked domestic political experience and faced a rather hostile isolationist conservative GOP Congressional majority during his first two years as well as a solid Democratic majority in Congress during the rest of his presidency. However, people simply liked Ike. He left office with significant accomplishments to his credit and was nearly as popular when he left as he was upon becoming President. More to the point, his ranking — even among scholars —has increased over the years.
While not every likable president is ranked among the top ten “great and near great presidents” (for instance, James Monroe, William McKinley, John Kennedy, and Gerald Ford) and while not every one of the top ten greatest presidents was likable much of the time (LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, and James K. Polk, for example), they did manage to connect with the people’s greatest passions and needs at critical times. They were forceful enough to carry their agendas and also to be ranked highly by scholars and the public alike.
Political and historical perspective, knowledge, intelligence, and a capacity for administrative detail and analysis are invaluable tools for presidential success. However, they seldom work unless people really like the president who possesses them. Hence, the common denominator of presidential success, especially today, is likeability.
Since the beginning of this year, Americans have been examining the political and personal credentials of twelve men and one woman who have offered to serve as our next president. So far, it appears that likeability is carrying the day. No surprise, comparatively, it almost always does.
Intangible as it is, presidential likeability is by its very nature inclusive. It compels constructive consensus building.
That’s why such names as Lincoln, Roosevelt, Washington, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan linger as heroic names long after the sun has set on their day.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)