By Edwin Cooney
Originally posted November 24, 2006
Okay! Let’s start from the very beginning.
Once upon a time there lived at the very eastern tip of present day Massachusetts, a colony of Anglican Church separatists whom we today call Pilgrims. They arrived in the New World on December 21st in the “year of our Lord” 1620. As every third grader knows, the Pilgrims suffered terribly during their first winter in the colony they called Plymouth.
By March 1621, their number had dwindled from 102 to 56. One of those lost was the wife of Governor William Bradford who, even before their little ship called the Mayflower landed, had drawn up the agreement they all promised to live under which we know as the Mayflower Compact.
Out of the forest that first spring came what seemed to be a gift from God. His name was Squanto and he was a member of the local Wampanoag Indian tribe. Miraculously, Squanto happened to speak English. (Note: Some believe he was an Indian named Tisquantum who had been captured by an English slave ship in 1615 while others think Squanto was an Indian named Tasquantum who had visited England as far back as 1605.) Even more miraculously, Squanto was eager to provide day in and day out assistance to the new arrivals. Still more wonderful, as well as practical, Squanto moved into Governor Bradford’s home where he remained -- providing invaluable advice and considerable labor -- for over a year until his death from a fever sometime in 1622.
Soon after moving in, Squanto introduced the new colonists to his local chief who was called Samoset. Samoset henceforth introduced Governor Bradford’s constituents to his Grand Chief Massasoit . (Actually, Massasoit, the name by which the Chief is most famous, is his title. His name was Wasamegin). Thus, throughout 1621 the new colonists were provided not only with plenty of assistance when it came to planting crops and hunting local fish, foul and game, but also with protection against possible attack by other potentially hostile Indian tribes.
By October 1621, the Pilgrims realized their first harvest and were ready to celebrate. Thus 92 Wampanoag Indians—which most certainly included Squanto and perhaps even Samoset and Massasoit—were invited to dinner.
It was quite a dinner! It lasted for three days. On the menu were lobster, clams, other fish, watercress, boiled pumpkin—there was no flour or butter so pumpkin pie, if it existed then, even in Europe, was out—corn, dried fruit, fresh plumbs venison and turkey.
Note—There is considerable debate as to whether or not wild turkey was actually served. Some sources say not and assert that turkey was another name for almost any wild foul. Thus it is likely that pheasant, goose and perhaps seven duck were actually on the menu rather than turkey.
Though supposedly a good time was had by all at that very first Thanksgiving, there was no Thanksgiving celebration or harvest feast in 1622. However, in 1623, when a long drought was ended the day that followed a period of intensive prayer by the devout Pilgrims, Governor Bradford once again called for a Thanksgiving feast. Once again, a large delegation of Wampanoags was invited. That was the last Thanksgiving held by the colonists until June 1676.
By that time, the Plymouth colony of the separatists or “Pilgrims” had been absorbed by a more establishment-oriented religious group known as Puritans. The Puritans were more mainstream Anglican than had been the separatist Pilgrims. They had established, beginning in 1629, a much more secular state and one which had much greater favor with the establishment in Britain. (It should be noted that the Puritans under the great General Oliver Cromwell deposed Charles the First and ruled England during the 1650s). Thus, the Thanksgiving celebration in 1676 was a celebration of something much more traditional in Britain back then, a celebration of victory in war.
With the passing of William Bradford and the absorption of the original Pilgrim-separatists by the Puritans of Boston and points west in Massachusetts colony, more and more outbreaks of hostility occurred with regional Indian tribes. The most powerful of the Indian Chiefs was Metacom, the son of Massasoit, the great savior of the Pilgrims of 1620-21. By the 1670s, all of the potentially hostile New England tribes except the Wampanoags had been subdued and now it was time for the Puritans of Boston to complete Indian subjugation. Metacom, known by then as King Philip because of his European dress and manners, was hard to conquer — but ultimately the Puritans prevailed.
Thus the third Thanksgiving in colonial history was an expression to the Almighty of a distinctly different type of gratitude. The great Wampanoag chief was indeed present although this time only physically rather than spiritually. His physical attendance was as something of a decoration. His presence was his head atop a pole in downtown Boston.
One hundred one years later, in October 1777, all thirteen colonies celebrated Thanksgiving together for the first time. As was the case in 1676, gratitude was expressed to the Almighty for victory in war as much as for any consumable bounty. Specifically, the colonists were celebrating their stunning victory over the British army at Saratoga.
In October 1789, President Washington proclaimed another Thanksgiving in celebration of the new nation, but it wasn’t particularly popular. Many Americans simply refused to be much excited about celebrating the triumph of New England colonists over hardship—since they felt that they’d had plenty of their own hardships. Thomas Jefferson is said to have actually scoffed at the idea of a day of national Thanksgiving. During the War of 1812, President James Madison reluctantly proclaimed a day of national Thanksgiving.
When all is said and done, the real founder of our traditional celebration of Thanksgiving is a Victorian New England widow named Sarah Josepha Hale. Mrs. Hale was born Sarah Josepha Buell on October 24th,1788 in Newport, New Hampshire, the daughter of Captain Gordon and Martha Whittlesay Buell. She was educated by her mother and her brother Horatio, who taught her much of what he’d learned at Dartmouth. Sarah married David Hale, a lawyer, in 1813. Following David Hale’s death in 1822, his Mason Lodge put up the funds for Sarah to start a magazine which she ultimately called the “American Ladies’ Magazine”. It consisted of her own poetry and editorials pushing her pet causes, especially educational and economic independence for women.
During the late 1830s when America was suffering from a severe depression, Sarah Hale’s “American Ladies’ Magazine” was purchased by Louis Antoine Godey who installed Sarah Hale as its Editor-in-Chief, a position she held for most of the rest of her life.
Ever since the mid-1820s, Sarah Hale had been petitioning American presidents on behalf of one of her favorite causes, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving. She finally succeeded in persuading President Abraham Lincoln to make such a proclamation in November 1863. Every president since has issued a Proclamation of Thanksgiving.
During the late 1930s, FDR sought to make the second to last Thursday of November Thanksgiving Day in order to maximize the time for shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas. This effort met with considerable resistance and so FDR moved Thanksgiving to the fourth Thursday of every November.
Congress finally made it all official in 1941. Since then the fourth Thursday in November has been our national day of gratitude to “nature’s God” for, among other blessings, the generous bounty of our national resources.
As you can readily see, if you accept the observations of this account, our celebration and the reasons for offering thanks have been inconsistent in their practice as well as in the purpose of our expressed gratitude.
The question then is: for what should we be most thankful?
I would suggest that in addition to our lives, our safety and our health, we ought to be most grateful for whatever wisdom we can muster as we progress along the Road of Civilization.
Life can be very fragile. However, in its very fragility we often discover its value. All of us have experienced too many instances when life has suddenly and irrevocably ceased to exist. Thus we’ve been separated from people whose knowledge, love and guidance we sorely need. Their absence brings in its wake a void of loneliness, pain, and even despair.
It seems to me that Sarah Josepha Hale, given her numerous socio/religious causes such as abolitionism and increased opportunities and responsibilities for women, came closest to the greatest human need required throughout the life of any truly great society.
Therefore, I think we ought to be most thankful for wisdom. Because it appears in so many unpredictable moods and guises, wisdom isn’t easy to identify. It isn’t always easy to experience it once it’s offered. However, once it’s received and applied, wisdom, as God’s greatest blessing, is the fruit that surely nurtures this and all Thanksgivings to come!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD—IT CAN BE VERY PERSONAL
By Edwin Cooney
Okay! I wasn’t all that worried last Monday as President-Elect Obama and his wife Michelle visited the Bush’s. What was frustrating, however, was not knowing how well the two men got along, especially since the public end of the meeting came before the business end. Had the public part of the meeting occurred as the two men departed, a few sharp observers would surely have let all of us know what the visible signs were for either a smooth or stormy presidential transition.
Only ten times in our history has a defeated incumbent president turned his office over to a political opponent and it’s true that this wasn’t one of those times. Still, the process can be quite touchy.
The first time was in February 1801 when, because none of the top three candidates had a majority in the Electoral College, the election was decided by the House of Representatives. The incumbent John Adams was, for both political and personal reasons, reluctant to turn his office over to Vice President Thomas Jefferson. Author David McCullough reports, in his authoritative John Adams biography, that Adams never discussed publicly what went on between the two men during the struggle for House votes that February. However, Jefferson wrote later that he’d gone to the president’s mansion hoping to get Adams to use his prestige with Federalist congressmen. He wanted them to stop putting conditions on their support for a Jefferson victory in the House. Adams immediately showed his displeasure by addressing Jefferson in a manner unlike any he’d used in the past. He refused to urge Federalist congressman to abandon their demands. They wanted Jefferson to retain Federalist appointees, maintain the strength of the Navy, and they also wanted Jefferson to pay Federalist creditors. Adams acknowledged that the government would be Jefferson’s because “…we know it is the wish of the people it should be so,” but a warm friendship of decades had turned temporarily hostile. It would ultimately be resumed across the veil of time and distance but it didn’t bode well for the first historic transfer of political power and presidential authority in America.
John Quincy Adams surrendered the government to Andrew Jackson in 1829, but the two men didn’t meet before Adams’ early departure on Jackson’s March 4th Inauguration Day.
I’ve found no record of what Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison had to say to one another on March 4th, 1841 or what Benjamin Harrison (the elder Harrison’s grandson) had to say in 1889 and 1893 to Grover Cleveland as they twice exchanged the presidency. However, the 1913 transfer of the presidency between William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson was a bit notable. Taft, who not only lost to Wilson, but also to Theodore Roosevelt, stayed on for Wilson’s inauguration and then accompanied the new president back to the White House. Not only did he stay for lunch, he lingered to talk with Wilson to the extent that both the new president’s staff and Taft’s people grew uncomfortable. Taft had a train to catch and Wilson had an administration to begin, but the outgoing president was clearly reluctant to leave.
Nineteen-thirty-three was a landmark year in American history. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected over incumbent Republican President Herbert Clark Hoover back on November 8th, 1932, had nearly four months before taking office. The Hoover administration sought to bring FDR into the decision-making process on several occasions. FDR, however, almost completely avoided the politically toxic Hoover. The payback appeared to come late on the afternoon of Friday, March 3rd when President-Elect Roosevelt paid a courtesy call on President Hoover. FDR’s son James wrote that their social call was scheduled for teatime (at four o’clock) and that they arrived at the White House going through the south portico door for FDR’s convenience. They then took the elevator up to the first floor. They had to wait for thirty minutes until President Hoover arrived with Ogden Mills, the Treasury Secretary. When FDR firmly but politely refused to conduct business, they downed their tea and prepared to leave. FDR told the president that in view of his physical condition and the time it would take for him to get to his feet and leave the room, he’d understand if the president didn’t wait for him. Hoover’s response was to tell FDR coldly that he’d understand after being president for a while that the President of the United States waits for no one. Some accounts of this meeting assert that FDR stubbornly refused to be seated while waiting for Hoover’s arrival and that Hoover, knowing he would assume that posture on painfully crippled legs, deliberately kept him waiting.
Although they weren’t opponents in 1952, when President Truman and President-Elect Eisenhower met after the election, their former personal ease evaporated—a casualty of the late political campaign. Their one White House meeting was exceedingly stiff. When President-Elect Eisenhower’s car pulled up to the White House on Inauguration Day 1953, Ike waited in the car for the President to emerge from the White House. When Truman did arrive, Ike, as they drove to the Capitol, demanded to know why his son John, then serving in Korea, had been called home for the inauguration. Was it done to embarrass the incoming president, Ike wondered. Truman’s response was:
“He came home because he was ordered to do so by the President of the United States so that he could see his father inaugurated as his Commander-in-Chief.”
Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford were opponents in 1976, but both men allowed politics to recede into the background during the transition. President Carter’s first words after taking the oath of office on January 20th, 1977 were: "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter eventually became friends for life.
The relationship between Presidents Carter and Reagan was polite but formal. President Reagan followed President Carter’s example by thanking the outgoing Chief Executive for his public service. However, President Carter said later that their personal meeting was less productive than it could have been because President-Elect Reagan seemed uninterested in some documentation Carter wanted Mr. Reagan to see. Carter said Reagan just stared glassily off into the distance and said that his staff would bring him up to date on such information.
As for the transitions between Clinton and George H. W. Bush and between Clinton and George W. Bush, I have no information. However, President Bush apparently called President Clinton last Monday to remind him of and thank him once again for the very gracious way President Clinton had received him eight years ago.
As for last Monday, President Bush said nothing of what had been agreed to or what remained at issue between Barack Obama and himself on the subjects of the unstable economy here at home and the uncertainties abroad. However, President Bush seems to have been touched by President-Elect Obama’s insistence on visiting the rooms where his two little girls would be sleeping.
"Clearly, this guy is going to bring a great sense of family to the White House," Bush said. "I hope Laura and I did the same thing, but I believe he will and I know his girls are on his mind and he wants to make sure that first and foremost he is a good dad. And I think that's going to be an important part of his presidency."
That observation coming from a “family values” doctrine-oriented “conservative” has to be seen as something of a complement. In this era of doctrinaire politics and “the culture war”, any acknowledgment by one side of an opponent’s humanity is a most encouraging thing. For years I’ve asserted that the human dynamic among our leaders is not only important but that it is as essential to our ultimate success or failure as a society as any official strategy, document or policy.
In the final analysis, all that we read and observe about America’s past, present and future is personal because it personally matters to you and to me. Hence the experience of surrendering and receiving the awesome duties, power and responsibility of the presidency can hardly be any less personal—can it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Okay! I wasn’t all that worried last Monday as President-Elect Obama and his wife Michelle visited the Bush’s. What was frustrating, however, was not knowing how well the two men got along, especially since the public end of the meeting came before the business end. Had the public part of the meeting occurred as the two men departed, a few sharp observers would surely have let all of us know what the visible signs were for either a smooth or stormy presidential transition.
Only ten times in our history has a defeated incumbent president turned his office over to a political opponent and it’s true that this wasn’t one of those times. Still, the process can be quite touchy.
The first time was in February 1801 when, because none of the top three candidates had a majority in the Electoral College, the election was decided by the House of Representatives. The incumbent John Adams was, for both political and personal reasons, reluctant to turn his office over to Vice President Thomas Jefferson. Author David McCullough reports, in his authoritative John Adams biography, that Adams never discussed publicly what went on between the two men during the struggle for House votes that February. However, Jefferson wrote later that he’d gone to the president’s mansion hoping to get Adams to use his prestige with Federalist congressmen. He wanted them to stop putting conditions on their support for a Jefferson victory in the House. Adams immediately showed his displeasure by addressing Jefferson in a manner unlike any he’d used in the past. He refused to urge Federalist congressman to abandon their demands. They wanted Jefferson to retain Federalist appointees, maintain the strength of the Navy, and they also wanted Jefferson to pay Federalist creditors. Adams acknowledged that the government would be Jefferson’s because “…we know it is the wish of the people it should be so,” but a warm friendship of decades had turned temporarily hostile. It would ultimately be resumed across the veil of time and distance but it didn’t bode well for the first historic transfer of political power and presidential authority in America.
John Quincy Adams surrendered the government to Andrew Jackson in 1829, but the two men didn’t meet before Adams’ early departure on Jackson’s March 4th Inauguration Day.
I’ve found no record of what Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison had to say to one another on March 4th, 1841 or what Benjamin Harrison (the elder Harrison’s grandson) had to say in 1889 and 1893 to Grover Cleveland as they twice exchanged the presidency. However, the 1913 transfer of the presidency between William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson was a bit notable. Taft, who not only lost to Wilson, but also to Theodore Roosevelt, stayed on for Wilson’s inauguration and then accompanied the new president back to the White House. Not only did he stay for lunch, he lingered to talk with Wilson to the extent that both the new president’s staff and Taft’s people grew uncomfortable. Taft had a train to catch and Wilson had an administration to begin, but the outgoing president was clearly reluctant to leave.
Nineteen-thirty-three was a landmark year in American history. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected over incumbent Republican President Herbert Clark Hoover back on November 8th, 1932, had nearly four months before taking office. The Hoover administration sought to bring FDR into the decision-making process on several occasions. FDR, however, almost completely avoided the politically toxic Hoover. The payback appeared to come late on the afternoon of Friday, March 3rd when President-Elect Roosevelt paid a courtesy call on President Hoover. FDR’s son James wrote that their social call was scheduled for teatime (at four o’clock) and that they arrived at the White House going through the south portico door for FDR’s convenience. They then took the elevator up to the first floor. They had to wait for thirty minutes until President Hoover arrived with Ogden Mills, the Treasury Secretary. When FDR firmly but politely refused to conduct business, they downed their tea and prepared to leave. FDR told the president that in view of his physical condition and the time it would take for him to get to his feet and leave the room, he’d understand if the president didn’t wait for him. Hoover’s response was to tell FDR coldly that he’d understand after being president for a while that the President of the United States waits for no one. Some accounts of this meeting assert that FDR stubbornly refused to be seated while waiting for Hoover’s arrival and that Hoover, knowing he would assume that posture on painfully crippled legs, deliberately kept him waiting.
Although they weren’t opponents in 1952, when President Truman and President-Elect Eisenhower met after the election, their former personal ease evaporated—a casualty of the late political campaign. Their one White House meeting was exceedingly stiff. When President-Elect Eisenhower’s car pulled up to the White House on Inauguration Day 1953, Ike waited in the car for the President to emerge from the White House. When Truman did arrive, Ike, as they drove to the Capitol, demanded to know why his son John, then serving in Korea, had been called home for the inauguration. Was it done to embarrass the incoming president, Ike wondered. Truman’s response was:
“He came home because he was ordered to do so by the President of the United States so that he could see his father inaugurated as his Commander-in-Chief.”
Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford were opponents in 1976, but both men allowed politics to recede into the background during the transition. President Carter’s first words after taking the oath of office on January 20th, 1977 were: "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter eventually became friends for life.
The relationship between Presidents Carter and Reagan was polite but formal. President Reagan followed President Carter’s example by thanking the outgoing Chief Executive for his public service. However, President Carter said later that their personal meeting was less productive than it could have been because President-Elect Reagan seemed uninterested in some documentation Carter wanted Mr. Reagan to see. Carter said Reagan just stared glassily off into the distance and said that his staff would bring him up to date on such information.
As for the transitions between Clinton and George H. W. Bush and between Clinton and George W. Bush, I have no information. However, President Bush apparently called President Clinton last Monday to remind him of and thank him once again for the very gracious way President Clinton had received him eight years ago.
As for last Monday, President Bush said nothing of what had been agreed to or what remained at issue between Barack Obama and himself on the subjects of the unstable economy here at home and the uncertainties abroad. However, President Bush seems to have been touched by President-Elect Obama’s insistence on visiting the rooms where his two little girls would be sleeping.
"Clearly, this guy is going to bring a great sense of family to the White House," Bush said. "I hope Laura and I did the same thing, but I believe he will and I know his girls are on his mind and he wants to make sure that first and foremost he is a good dad. And I think that's going to be an important part of his presidency."
That observation coming from a “family values” doctrine-oriented “conservative” has to be seen as something of a complement. In this era of doctrinaire politics and “the culture war”, any acknowledgment by one side of an opponent’s humanity is a most encouraging thing. For years I’ve asserted that the human dynamic among our leaders is not only important but that it is as essential to our ultimate success or failure as a society as any official strategy, document or policy.
In the final analysis, all that we read and observe about America’s past, present and future is personal because it personally matters to you and to me. Hence the experience of surrendering and receiving the awesome duties, power and responsibility of the presidency can hardly be any less personal—can it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 10, 2008
CAN WE, THE WILLFUL MANY, BECOME ONE?
By Edwin Cooney
The polls in California had barely closed last Tuesday night when all of the networks and cable channels declared that Senator Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States of America.
These declarations were followed, almost immediately, by an exceedingly generous, classy, and patriotic concession speech by Arizona Senator John McCain. Next came the President-Elect who acknowledged Senator McCain’s service to his country and asserted the importance of respect for and consultation with representatives of differing political opinions.
Standing before tens of thousands of his supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, America’s next President insisted, as he has throughout his campaign, that “yes, we can” surmount the difficulties Americans face at home and abroad in a changing nation and world. Even more, Barack Obama insisted that we have more in common than we have differences. “…Out of many, we are one,” he said.
“…If I have not earned your vote tonight,” said the President-Elect to millions of down-hearted political opponents, “I have heard your voice and I will be your President, too.”
Exactly twenty-eight years ago to the date and very day of the week, Tuesday, November 4th, 1980, another man received the overwhelming support of the American people at the polls. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. His victory over President Jimmy Carter brought ideological conservatism into power. Mr. Reagan’s national and world views differed sharply from that of even recent Republican presidents Nixon and Ford. Supply-side economics replaced Keynesian economics. In foreign affairs, the Soviet Union became “the evil empire”. The “START treaty” which would allow us to install cruise missiles in Western Europe to counter Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed at Central Europe replaced the SALT 2 treaty. “Tax indexing” to adjust increases in earned income was adopted to reflect inflation. The line item veto became a popular proposal to limit government spending. It would remain so even after it was declared unconstitutional by a conservative Supreme Court.
By 1984, it was “Morning in America” and President Reagan lost only the state of Minnesota (the home state of former Vice President Walter Mondale, his opponent) in his bid for re-election. Reaganites, along with millions of other satisfied and gratified Americans, were united in the belief that President Reagan had brought the country out of the “malaise” of the Carter years. America was rich, prosperous, politically and morally principled, and in control of its prospects for peace and security. Thus, on the surface, we appeared to be one.
Or, were we? Did our general satisfaction with President Reagan and his political doctrine constitute a lasting unity—or should it have?
I say, of course not.
Twenty-eight years after our 1980 consensus, ideologists of both the left and right insist, even between political seasons, that they alone are the guardians of the pathway to morality. This insistence, Senator Obama pointed out in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” is what prohibits consensus between Republicans and Democrats in the media, in the highest councils of government, and even in our current culture.
Hence, even as President Obama seeks a way out of our current economic morass, his greatest task will be to teach both conservatives and liberals an essential lesson: acknowledgment of and cooperation with one another is the essence of good government.
Liberals, who consider themselves the most tolerant of people, destroy their reputation for tolerance by insisting that all conservative ideas are narrow, racist, selfish, exploitive, and jingoistic. Conservatives, who consider themselves to be the supreme lovers of freedom, could be even more powerful if they acknowledged that those who differ with them are no less patriotic, fiscally responsible, or spiritually principled than they are. The first principle of freedom is inclusiveness not exclusivity. Differences in strategy or tactics do not constitute a lack of patriotism or a threat to America’s safety.
History is replete with our differences as a people. During the War of 1812, powerful forces in conservative New England considered secession forty years before the South seceded. We differed over slavery and reconstruction. Vast economic differences in the late nineteenth century brought about rural granges and urban unions. We differed over women’s suffrage, the social adjustments during the depression, and isolationism vs. internationalism during and after World War II. Civil rights and civil liberties inevitably draw us up short and force us to consider uncomfortable questions. These differences have been largely overcome by individual as well as group familiarity and acknowledgment. Ultimately, we will always be united in support of the peace, prosperity and security of our nation.
President-Elect Obama is right to seek national consensus, but the right and power of a free people to offer or withdraw its consent is the gift of we, the willful ones.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
The polls in California had barely closed last Tuesday night when all of the networks and cable channels declared that Senator Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States of America.
These declarations were followed, almost immediately, by an exceedingly generous, classy, and patriotic concession speech by Arizona Senator John McCain. Next came the President-Elect who acknowledged Senator McCain’s service to his country and asserted the importance of respect for and consultation with representatives of differing political opinions.
Standing before tens of thousands of his supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, America’s next President insisted, as he has throughout his campaign, that “yes, we can” surmount the difficulties Americans face at home and abroad in a changing nation and world. Even more, Barack Obama insisted that we have more in common than we have differences. “…Out of many, we are one,” he said.
“…If I have not earned your vote tonight,” said the President-Elect to millions of down-hearted political opponents, “I have heard your voice and I will be your President, too.”
Exactly twenty-eight years ago to the date and very day of the week, Tuesday, November 4th, 1980, another man received the overwhelming support of the American people at the polls. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. His victory over President Jimmy Carter brought ideological conservatism into power. Mr. Reagan’s national and world views differed sharply from that of even recent Republican presidents Nixon and Ford. Supply-side economics replaced Keynesian economics. In foreign affairs, the Soviet Union became “the evil empire”. The “START treaty” which would allow us to install cruise missiles in Western Europe to counter Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed at Central Europe replaced the SALT 2 treaty. “Tax indexing” to adjust increases in earned income was adopted to reflect inflation. The line item veto became a popular proposal to limit government spending. It would remain so even after it was declared unconstitutional by a conservative Supreme Court.
By 1984, it was “Morning in America” and President Reagan lost only the state of Minnesota (the home state of former Vice President Walter Mondale, his opponent) in his bid for re-election. Reaganites, along with millions of other satisfied and gratified Americans, were united in the belief that President Reagan had brought the country out of the “malaise” of the Carter years. America was rich, prosperous, politically and morally principled, and in control of its prospects for peace and security. Thus, on the surface, we appeared to be one.
Or, were we? Did our general satisfaction with President Reagan and his political doctrine constitute a lasting unity—or should it have?
I say, of course not.
Twenty-eight years after our 1980 consensus, ideologists of both the left and right insist, even between political seasons, that they alone are the guardians of the pathway to morality. This insistence, Senator Obama pointed out in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” is what prohibits consensus between Republicans and Democrats in the media, in the highest councils of government, and even in our current culture.
Hence, even as President Obama seeks a way out of our current economic morass, his greatest task will be to teach both conservatives and liberals an essential lesson: acknowledgment of and cooperation with one another is the essence of good government.
Liberals, who consider themselves the most tolerant of people, destroy their reputation for tolerance by insisting that all conservative ideas are narrow, racist, selfish, exploitive, and jingoistic. Conservatives, who consider themselves to be the supreme lovers of freedom, could be even more powerful if they acknowledged that those who differ with them are no less patriotic, fiscally responsible, or spiritually principled than they are. The first principle of freedom is inclusiveness not exclusivity. Differences in strategy or tactics do not constitute a lack of patriotism or a threat to America’s safety.
History is replete with our differences as a people. During the War of 1812, powerful forces in conservative New England considered secession forty years before the South seceded. We differed over slavery and reconstruction. Vast economic differences in the late nineteenth century brought about rural granges and urban unions. We differed over women’s suffrage, the social adjustments during the depression, and isolationism vs. internationalism during and after World War II. Civil rights and civil liberties inevitably draw us up short and force us to consider uncomfortable questions. These differences have been largely overcome by individual as well as group familiarity and acknowledgment. Ultimately, we will always be united in support of the peace, prosperity and security of our nation.
President-Elect Obama is right to seek national consensus, but the right and power of a free people to offer or withdraw its consent is the gift of we, the willful ones.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 3, 2008
THE QUIET HOURS
By Edwin Cooney
Late tonight will come those quiet hours between midnight and dawn. The campaign speeches, personal attack ads, and political rallies will cease. Barack Obama and John McCain will return to their homes to listen to what you and I have to say on the morrow.
The rude, noisy, and sometimes intrusive political campaign season will be over. Both hopeful and discouraged campaign workers and political candidates will slip into bed and, for the first time since early 2007, there will be political quiet—-if not political peace--in the land.
Two northern New Hampshire villages, Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location will cast their votes at midnight, thus becoming the first two precincts in the nation to report their total vote. It might be well for Senator Obama if he loses Dixville Notch. The only Democratic candidate to win in that tiny GOP village just twenty miles south of the Canadian border was Hubert Humphrey. HHH carried Dixville Notch in 1968 by a vote of eight to four over Richard Nixon, but RMN carried the nation.
More conclusive results will begin to come in late Tuesday afternoon. Usually the states of New Hampshire, Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana report first followed by Connecticut and Delaware. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, Kentucky and Indiana, the election may well be a tight one. High voter turnout could indicate an Obama victory. Should Senator Obama win New Hampshire and Indiana, the chances are good that there’ll be a Democratic sweep.
However, the question for millions of conscientious Americans will be: Does it all really matter?
History tells us that indeed it does matter how you vote. Beneath all of the political charges and counter-charges, there is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
The Republicans sincerely believe deep in their souls that the government has absolutely no right to be a factor in determining the outcome of domestic and social affairs. Freedom, they insist, can only flourish when it’s fueled by unfettered capital—today we know it as “trickle down economics” or “Reaganomics.” They believe that the only legitimate objective of government is our national defense against foreign attack. Education, health care, joblessness and even private greed are correctable by what they call: “The free marketplace.”
They insist that local government and even state governments may legitimately regulate human behavior, but federal Government that involves itself in social matters is “socialistic”. They genuinely believe that a truly free society will prosper by the example of the successful. Success, they believe, is the reward of hard work. Hard work, they assert, is the only legitimate path to success.
Democrats on the other hand, believe that government has a legitimate responsibility to affect the lives of the people. Democrats see the prosperity of the “middle class” as its agenda. Prosperity, they assert, comes from the bottom up rather than from the top down. If people don’t have the money to purchase the goods and services of private enterprise, business can’t prosper.
In the area of foreign affairs, Republicans see the world as ungrateful for past American protection against Nazism and Communism. Hence, our old allies selfishly are unwilling to face the realities of international terrorism. Furthermore, they see a changing world as requiring America to be strong militarily and dogmatic in its diplomacy.
Democrats see the changing world as ultimately pliable and responsive to intelligent and far-sighted American diplomacy. After all, they point out; we live in a world of diverse cultures and experiences. One of the major causes of war stems from a lack of knowledge of conditions and situations in sensitive parts of the world on the part of our leaders. If we were diplomatically proactive rather than reactive, the chances are we could negotiate our way out of most crises.
Exactly twenty-eight years ago, during those quiet hours of election eve, the American people decided that Ronald Reagan’s conservatism could best lead us out of the uncertainties of inflation and high interest rates at home and the threat of Communism and radicalism—in the form of hostage taking in Iran—abroad. They knew that President Jimmy Carter had worked diligently for domestic prosperity and international security, but they weren’t seeing the results of his efforts.
Just over the horizon, Americans saw a handsome, magnetic and silver-tongued hero riding to their rescue and they beckoned him forward with their votes.
Exactly what Americans see in their dreams over the horizon, as they slumber this night, is tomorrow’s story.
In the dreams tonight of two worthy men, Barack Obama and John McCain, shimmer the pillars of the White House. For which man this dream will come true will depend largely on how closely his dreams match yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Late tonight will come those quiet hours between midnight and dawn. The campaign speeches, personal attack ads, and political rallies will cease. Barack Obama and John McCain will return to their homes to listen to what you and I have to say on the morrow.
The rude, noisy, and sometimes intrusive political campaign season will be over. Both hopeful and discouraged campaign workers and political candidates will slip into bed and, for the first time since early 2007, there will be political quiet—-if not political peace--in the land.
Two northern New Hampshire villages, Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location will cast their votes at midnight, thus becoming the first two precincts in the nation to report their total vote. It might be well for Senator Obama if he loses Dixville Notch. The only Democratic candidate to win in that tiny GOP village just twenty miles south of the Canadian border was Hubert Humphrey. HHH carried Dixville Notch in 1968 by a vote of eight to four over Richard Nixon, but RMN carried the nation.
More conclusive results will begin to come in late Tuesday afternoon. Usually the states of New Hampshire, Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana report first followed by Connecticut and Delaware. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, Kentucky and Indiana, the election may well be a tight one. High voter turnout could indicate an Obama victory. Should Senator Obama win New Hampshire and Indiana, the chances are good that there’ll be a Democratic sweep.
However, the question for millions of conscientious Americans will be: Does it all really matter?
History tells us that indeed it does matter how you vote. Beneath all of the political charges and counter-charges, there is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
The Republicans sincerely believe deep in their souls that the government has absolutely no right to be a factor in determining the outcome of domestic and social affairs. Freedom, they insist, can only flourish when it’s fueled by unfettered capital—today we know it as “trickle down economics” or “Reaganomics.” They believe that the only legitimate objective of government is our national defense against foreign attack. Education, health care, joblessness and even private greed are correctable by what they call: “The free marketplace.”
They insist that local government and even state governments may legitimately regulate human behavior, but federal Government that involves itself in social matters is “socialistic”. They genuinely believe that a truly free society will prosper by the example of the successful. Success, they believe, is the reward of hard work. Hard work, they assert, is the only legitimate path to success.
Democrats on the other hand, believe that government has a legitimate responsibility to affect the lives of the people. Democrats see the prosperity of the “middle class” as its agenda. Prosperity, they assert, comes from the bottom up rather than from the top down. If people don’t have the money to purchase the goods and services of private enterprise, business can’t prosper.
In the area of foreign affairs, Republicans see the world as ungrateful for past American protection against Nazism and Communism. Hence, our old allies selfishly are unwilling to face the realities of international terrorism. Furthermore, they see a changing world as requiring America to be strong militarily and dogmatic in its diplomacy.
Democrats see the changing world as ultimately pliable and responsive to intelligent and far-sighted American diplomacy. After all, they point out; we live in a world of diverse cultures and experiences. One of the major causes of war stems from a lack of knowledge of conditions and situations in sensitive parts of the world on the part of our leaders. If we were diplomatically proactive rather than reactive, the chances are we could negotiate our way out of most crises.
Exactly twenty-eight years ago, during those quiet hours of election eve, the American people decided that Ronald Reagan’s conservatism could best lead us out of the uncertainties of inflation and high interest rates at home and the threat of Communism and radicalism—in the form of hostage taking in Iran—abroad. They knew that President Jimmy Carter had worked diligently for domestic prosperity and international security, but they weren’t seeing the results of his efforts.
Just over the horizon, Americans saw a handsome, magnetic and silver-tongued hero riding to their rescue and they beckoned him forward with their votes.
Exactly what Americans see in their dreams over the horizon, as they slumber this night, is tomorrow’s story.
In the dreams tonight of two worthy men, Barack Obama and John McCain, shimmer the pillars of the White House. For which man this dream will come true will depend largely on how closely his dreams match yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)