By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know what works for you when your mind needs to grasp something that it doesn’t grasp easily. For me, the key to comprehension is how it fits into the activities of my existence--or at least my understanding of my existence.
When I was in third grade, I began having trouble with mathematics. Up until then, I understood that two pieces of candy plus two pieces of candy meant that I’d have four pieces of candy instead of the original two -- yum! More candy. I could also grasp the reality that three cookies minus one cookie left me with a mere two cookies — thus, that much less eating pleasure. What I failed to grasp, however, was what meaning multiplication and division had for me in the great scheme of things. In other words, speed addition and subtraction were beyond my ken. I knew that my age times two would be a certain number, but the relevance of that number was meaningless for me. Thus, when I was nine, what it might be like to be eighteen was beyond my ability to understand. In fact, one of the most incomprehensible realities for me, as a lad, was the reality that I’d grow up someday.
I knew that it would happen and was forcefully reminded of it from time to time by parents, teachers, and other adults, usually when they were at the end of their patience with me.
“You’re going to grow up someday, Eddie,” they’d say, “and you’re going to have to behave” or “you’re going to have to know how to tie your shoes” or, even worse, “you’re going to have to know how to do math so you can handle your money.”
I suppose I should have been grateful to them for thinking that I’d have a sufficient amount of money to have to keep track of, but the whole idea of possessing enough money to use everyday was quite beyond me until I was almost in my teens. By then, the prospect of having to be functional in the adult world was really scary.
The day after this piece is being delivered to you, my job will be to convey to an internet audience my interpretation of the significance of an event that occurred on March 31st, 1968 --- specifically, the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson not to seek re-election to a second term.
Fortunately for me, all in attendance at my cyberspace lecture will be there because they want to be there. Furthermore, most of them will want to be there either because they enjoy a good story, are interested in American history and politics, or because they like me. No one will be there because they must. Hence, my job will be easier than it would be otherwise. My job as a presenter will be to make March 31st, 1968 vivid, comprehendible, and meaningful.
All of us have a beginning—our births, a family and social background (the venue in which we’re nurtured or from which we’re banished) and a destiny—both experiential and mortal.
What’s true of people, as I insisted in last week’s column, is true of nations. It’s also true of events. Johnson’s decision, which he announced on March 31st, 1968, didn’t occur in a vacuum. It was based upon a series of events which culminated on March 31st, 1968. In turn, March 31st, 1968 was the root or antecedent for events yet to come.
What ultimately matters to you and me is the mark that we, our children, and those we love make on the people, places, and events of our lives. Most of us hope that by the time our experience on this earth is over, we will have had a positive effect on at least one individual (or more) who can insure the uncertain future.
The fate of Lyndon B. Johnson, our thirty-sixth president, mattered, ultimately, because you and I matter. You and I matter because we -- really and truly -- have the capacity to contribute to the wellbeing of people, places, and events in the lives of those yet unborn.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 30, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
YOUR WELLBEING AND MINE—AMERICA’S VITAL LIFELINE
By Edwin Cooney
Not long ago, doctors diagnosed seven year-old Heather McNamara of Islip, Long Island with a virulent form of cancer. The tumor, which originated in her stomach, was surrounding vital organs and blood vessels. Since the tumor was not responsive to chemotherapy, her parents and doctors had two options. They could intervene with superior forces or they could allow the illness to take its natural course. Ultimately, the family opted for intervention by medical science.
The good news is that in the wake of a twenty-three hour surgical procedure at New York City’s Presbyterian-Morgan Stanley Children’s hospital costing dollars her parents may or may not possess, little Heather went home on March 10th. She was minus a stomach (replaced by tissue from her large intestine) as well as a pancreas and spleen. She’s now a diabetic and will need insulin. Without a spleen, Heather will need heavy dosages of antibiotics to fight off infections. Doctors Tomoaki Kato and Steven Lobritto say they believe they have all of the cancer and, if the tumor doesn’t reappear, little Heather’s future may be bright.
As stated above, I know not if Joe and Tina McNamara have the funds to pay for their little girl’s procedure. What I am sure of, however, is that you and I -- regardless of political affiliation -- do believe that little Heather deserves to live regardless of her parent’s ability to pony up.
Like our national economic health, Heather’s physical health remains uncertain. Similar to the way in which a vast majority of Americans have been victimized by faults in America’s socio/economic system over which they had limited control, Heather was victimized by faults in her anatomic system over which she had no control.
One of the most effective strategies for teaching history is the linkage between individual and national life experiences. As far back as the Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact, men have written of “the body politic”. It is an excellent phrase, because it outlines precisely what inclusive politics is all about: the rights, needs and opportunities of and for individuals. Nations, like people, are born, pass through growing pains into adolescence and, ultimately, grow into maturity. Some of them, such as the former Soviet Union or Ancient Mesopotamia, die. National death is usually caused by poor health to begin with. The Soviet Union was constructed on a totally false premise by men who were in fact autocrats posing as social reformers. Ancient Mesopotamia was run by sultans more interested in their indulgences than in posterity. So, like poorly cared for human bodies, these nations died.
Like little Heather McNamara, America finds itself gripped by a national infection in the first decade of the twenty-first century. As America absorbs its effects, its people and its leaders quarrel over the cause and who should be punished for bringing it about.
Some insist that greedy enterprise was the cause. Others insist that it was caused by government regulations regarding minority-housing opportunities. Some insist that the antidote is a tightening of credit and tax cuts to those who still possess money enough to invest in businesses, moneymaking institutions and projects. Our newly elected president insists that money in the pockets of a wide group of consumers is the most effective antidote for killing the infection. Critics of the administration say that if the government confiscates money from those who earned it only to put into the pockets of people who haven’t, it will be “dirty money” and become bloated by its own rot. The administration insists that money is the nation’s economic “life blood” and that economic depression sets in when not enough parts of the “body politic” are infused with it and subsequently nourished by it.
Do to powerful intervention, Heather’s body, although by no means out of the woods, has a chance to support her into adulthood. Hopefully, through similar intervention, our “body politic” and all it represents to our peace, security and prosperity will be revitalized to sustain you, me and the generations yet to come.
Individuals are, of course, mortal. However, because we love and need them, most of us would spend whatever it takes to preserve them. National immortality may be more likely, but it can be destroyed.
Every time we sing or otherwise ask that “God bless America, Land that we love,” isn’t it the least we can do to consider assisting God in contributing to America’s perpetuation or immortality? I think we should, even if we have to pay for it. Investing in our future isn’t such a bizarre idea, is it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Not long ago, doctors diagnosed seven year-old Heather McNamara of Islip, Long Island with a virulent form of cancer. The tumor, which originated in her stomach, was surrounding vital organs and blood vessels. Since the tumor was not responsive to chemotherapy, her parents and doctors had two options. They could intervene with superior forces or they could allow the illness to take its natural course. Ultimately, the family opted for intervention by medical science.
The good news is that in the wake of a twenty-three hour surgical procedure at New York City’s Presbyterian-Morgan Stanley Children’s hospital costing dollars her parents may or may not possess, little Heather went home on March 10th. She was minus a stomach (replaced by tissue from her large intestine) as well as a pancreas and spleen. She’s now a diabetic and will need insulin. Without a spleen, Heather will need heavy dosages of antibiotics to fight off infections. Doctors Tomoaki Kato and Steven Lobritto say they believe they have all of the cancer and, if the tumor doesn’t reappear, little Heather’s future may be bright.
As stated above, I know not if Joe and Tina McNamara have the funds to pay for their little girl’s procedure. What I am sure of, however, is that you and I -- regardless of political affiliation -- do believe that little Heather deserves to live regardless of her parent’s ability to pony up.
Like our national economic health, Heather’s physical health remains uncertain. Similar to the way in which a vast majority of Americans have been victimized by faults in America’s socio/economic system over which they had limited control, Heather was victimized by faults in her anatomic system over which she had no control.
One of the most effective strategies for teaching history is the linkage between individual and national life experiences. As far back as the Pilgrims’ Mayflower Compact, men have written of “the body politic”. It is an excellent phrase, because it outlines precisely what inclusive politics is all about: the rights, needs and opportunities of and for individuals. Nations, like people, are born, pass through growing pains into adolescence and, ultimately, grow into maturity. Some of them, such as the former Soviet Union or Ancient Mesopotamia, die. National death is usually caused by poor health to begin with. The Soviet Union was constructed on a totally false premise by men who were in fact autocrats posing as social reformers. Ancient Mesopotamia was run by sultans more interested in their indulgences than in posterity. So, like poorly cared for human bodies, these nations died.
Like little Heather McNamara, America finds itself gripped by a national infection in the first decade of the twenty-first century. As America absorbs its effects, its people and its leaders quarrel over the cause and who should be punished for bringing it about.
Some insist that greedy enterprise was the cause. Others insist that it was caused by government regulations regarding minority-housing opportunities. Some insist that the antidote is a tightening of credit and tax cuts to those who still possess money enough to invest in businesses, moneymaking institutions and projects. Our newly elected president insists that money in the pockets of a wide group of consumers is the most effective antidote for killing the infection. Critics of the administration say that if the government confiscates money from those who earned it only to put into the pockets of people who haven’t, it will be “dirty money” and become bloated by its own rot. The administration insists that money is the nation’s economic “life blood” and that economic depression sets in when not enough parts of the “body politic” are infused with it and subsequently nourished by it.
Do to powerful intervention, Heather’s body, although by no means out of the woods, has a chance to support her into adulthood. Hopefully, through similar intervention, our “body politic” and all it represents to our peace, security and prosperity will be revitalized to sustain you, me and the generations yet to come.
Individuals are, of course, mortal. However, because we love and need them, most of us would spend whatever it takes to preserve them. National immortality may be more likely, but it can be destroyed.
Every time we sing or otherwise ask that “God bless America, Land that we love,” isn’t it the least we can do to consider assisting God in contributing to America’s perpetuation or immortality? I think we should, even if we have to pay for it. Investing in our future isn’t such a bizarre idea, is it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 16, 2009
THAT “GOOD DAY” -- COMPLEMENTS OF AN UNCOMMON AMERICAN
By Edwin Cooney
“Hello, Americans,” said Paul Harvey, but this time he wasn’t on the radio. He was emerging from a small aircraft he had flown from Chicago to a small airport in the Finger Lakes region of central New York State.
It was Saturday, September 26th, 1964. Paul Harvey was invited to speak to those attending the annual Grape Harvest Festival at Naples, New York. It was shortly after three p.m. when he arrived. I was invited to ride into Naples with Robert Simpson, a local businessman, and his wife who were acting as Mr. Harvey’s official hosts.
The approximate thirty minute drive into Naples from the airport through rich central New York farmland was pleasant. I sat in the very rear of the station wagon. Mr. Harvey sat in front of me in the back seat while Mr. and Mrs. Simpson sat up front. Although anxious to ask many questions, I minimized my conversational participation since I was a guest of the Simpsons.
“Mr. Harvey,” I asked, “I know President Johnson is considerably ahead in the current presidential campaign, but do you think Senator Goldwater can catch up?”
“His campaign hasn’t really caught fire yet, Ed,” Mr. Harvey replied. Then, perhaps realizing that his answer was discouraging to me, he continued with that cheery optimism in his splendid voice, “It still could. There’s time. It just hasn’t, as yet.”
Periodically, as we rode through the fall foliage, I’d ask Mr. Harvey about something he had said during one of his broadcasts. Finally, he said to me: “You know, Ed, you’d make somebody a good wife. My wife is always reminding me, Paul, you said this and you said that.”
Most eighteen-year-old boys, me included, don’t get much pleasure from the suggestion that they’d make someone “a good wife,” but this was Paul Harvey, after all, and he did chuckle as he said it, so I chuckled in response.
Finally, we arrived at the place where we’d have dinner and where Paul Harvey would address us. I rejoined my mother -- she had arranged everything -- our school principal Mr. Paul Ruhland and his son David, and then Mr. Harvey went on his way.
Of course, I would have liked more time with him, but I had the satisfaction of knowing that I had met, shaken hands, chatted, and had my picture taken with one of the finest men -- and voices -- in broadcasting.
As the evening wore on, I met two local Rochester, New York celebrity newsmen from WHAM (“1180 on your AM dial”) and their assessment of Paul Harvey seemed to me to be a tad reserved. To Ray Hall and Dick Tobias, Paul Harvey wasn’t a newsman, he was a news “reader”. He gets all of his material from the wire services, he doesn’t go out and seek information from primary sources, they insisted. However, they heartily agreed that he was “an excellent broadcaster”!
As for Mr. Harvey’s speech, it was entertaining and inspiring. He said that: America is the greatest nation in the history of the world and it can continue to be so as long as Americans stick to the Ten Commandments and the Constitution. They must remember that liberty is the business of the people, not of the government. Only through eternal vigilance, he asserted, would we successfully “…keep on keeping on” -- a key phrase in Paul Harvey’s lexicon.
Saturday, September 26th, 1964 was just past Paul Harvey’s forty-sixth birthday. It was within only the fourteenth year of what would be his 58 year ABC broadcasting career. His brief television stint and his “Rest of the Story” feature were yet some years
away -- as was receiving the Medal of Freedom from President George Walker Bush in 2005.
My political views would be in tune with Mr. Harvey’s for another decade or so, but eventually they would shift. The irony is that as a 1964 Conservative Republican, I found his assessment of the GOP’s chances for victory too objective. However, as my own views became increasingly liberal, I found Paul Harvey’s points of view too rigid and, even worse, too partisan. As a broadcaster, though, he had few peers. Paul Harvey deserves to be right up there with Edward R. Murrow in the front row of Broadcasting’s Hall of Fame.
Harsh as his judgment could occasionally be, his social and political pronouncements were void of personal attack.
Over 44 years have passed since that happy September 26th. I still possess the record album I purchased called “The Testing Time” and the printed evening program he autographed for me that night after his address. The picture taken of him and me standing by his plane is, of course, still in my wallet.
“Good day,” was Paul Harvey’s closing signature of every news and commentary broadcast and, as you can imagine, those two words perfectly describe Saturday, September 26th, 1964.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
“Hello, Americans,” said Paul Harvey, but this time he wasn’t on the radio. He was emerging from a small aircraft he had flown from Chicago to a small airport in the Finger Lakes region of central New York State.
It was Saturday, September 26th, 1964. Paul Harvey was invited to speak to those attending the annual Grape Harvest Festival at Naples, New York. It was shortly after three p.m. when he arrived. I was invited to ride into Naples with Robert Simpson, a local businessman, and his wife who were acting as Mr. Harvey’s official hosts.
The approximate thirty minute drive into Naples from the airport through rich central New York farmland was pleasant. I sat in the very rear of the station wagon. Mr. Harvey sat in front of me in the back seat while Mr. and Mrs. Simpson sat up front. Although anxious to ask many questions, I minimized my conversational participation since I was a guest of the Simpsons.
“Mr. Harvey,” I asked, “I know President Johnson is considerably ahead in the current presidential campaign, but do you think Senator Goldwater can catch up?”
“His campaign hasn’t really caught fire yet, Ed,” Mr. Harvey replied. Then, perhaps realizing that his answer was discouraging to me, he continued with that cheery optimism in his splendid voice, “It still could. There’s time. It just hasn’t, as yet.”
Periodically, as we rode through the fall foliage, I’d ask Mr. Harvey about something he had said during one of his broadcasts. Finally, he said to me: “You know, Ed, you’d make somebody a good wife. My wife is always reminding me, Paul, you said this and you said that.”
Most eighteen-year-old boys, me included, don’t get much pleasure from the suggestion that they’d make someone “a good wife,” but this was Paul Harvey, after all, and he did chuckle as he said it, so I chuckled in response.
Finally, we arrived at the place where we’d have dinner and where Paul Harvey would address us. I rejoined my mother -- she had arranged everything -- our school principal Mr. Paul Ruhland and his son David, and then Mr. Harvey went on his way.
Of course, I would have liked more time with him, but I had the satisfaction of knowing that I had met, shaken hands, chatted, and had my picture taken with one of the finest men -- and voices -- in broadcasting.
As the evening wore on, I met two local Rochester, New York celebrity newsmen from WHAM (“1180 on your AM dial”) and their assessment of Paul Harvey seemed to me to be a tad reserved. To Ray Hall and Dick Tobias, Paul Harvey wasn’t a newsman, he was a news “reader”. He gets all of his material from the wire services, he doesn’t go out and seek information from primary sources, they insisted. However, they heartily agreed that he was “an excellent broadcaster”!
As for Mr. Harvey’s speech, it was entertaining and inspiring. He said that: America is the greatest nation in the history of the world and it can continue to be so as long as Americans stick to the Ten Commandments and the Constitution. They must remember that liberty is the business of the people, not of the government. Only through eternal vigilance, he asserted, would we successfully “…keep on keeping on” -- a key phrase in Paul Harvey’s lexicon.
Saturday, September 26th, 1964 was just past Paul Harvey’s forty-sixth birthday. It was within only the fourteenth year of what would be his 58 year ABC broadcasting career. His brief television stint and his “Rest of the Story” feature were yet some years
away -- as was receiving the Medal of Freedom from President George Walker Bush in 2005.
My political views would be in tune with Mr. Harvey’s for another decade or so, but eventually they would shift. The irony is that as a 1964 Conservative Republican, I found his assessment of the GOP’s chances for victory too objective. However, as my own views became increasingly liberal, I found Paul Harvey’s points of view too rigid and, even worse, too partisan. As a broadcaster, though, he had few peers. Paul Harvey deserves to be right up there with Edward R. Murrow in the front row of Broadcasting’s Hall of Fame.
Harsh as his judgment could occasionally be, his social and political pronouncements were void of personal attack.
Over 44 years have passed since that happy September 26th. I still possess the record album I purchased called “The Testing Time” and the printed evening program he autographed for me that night after his address. The picture taken of him and me standing by his plane is, of course, still in my wallet.
“Good day,” was Paul Harvey’s closing signature of every news and commentary broadcast and, as you can imagine, those two words perfectly describe Saturday, September 26th, 1964.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 9, 2009
HAYMAKER FROM THE RIGHT
By Edwin Cooney
The inevitable political blow invariably came from the Right’s mightiest right hand, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III. President Barack Hussein Obama was Righteous Rush’s target.
The occasion was Mr. Limbaugh’s hour-long speech on Saturday, February 28th at the close of CPAC, the Conservative bash which is held in the nation’s capital each February. The major topic of the conference was the new Obama administration and the danger it poses to capitalism and invariably to our freedom.
The topic could hardly have been otherwise, since no rational American could expect Conservatives to wish a “Democrat” president well. To do so would be downright unpatriotic. As Mr. Limbaugh said, rooting for a president is like rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers or against the Arizona Cardinals. No kidding -- he really used that analogy!
Conservative America’s most famous citizen framed his Obama bash in a rather fascinating way. Since it’s far too early to analyze the results of the president’s deeds, Mr. Limbaugh first declared everything Conservative America has done to be a glowing success. Yet, the new president is considered a failure by what he’s likely to do before the results are even known. After all, he suggested, America became the leader of the world because the preamble of the United States Constitution grants the right of every citizen to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Wrong document, Rush: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was the promise of the Declaration of Independence, not that of the Constitution. Accuracy must, of course, always surrender to Rush Limbaugh’s sense of the dramatic.
Even more to the point, recent disruptions on Wall Street aren’t in the least the fault of traditional American enterprise; everything is always the fault of government. Never mind what’s written in scripture. Men, especially enterprising profit seekers, are never greedy—unlike liberal welfare queens and labor unions. Of course, it’s a crime to suggest that corporate America is populated with “sinners” who need regulating. Corporations always have the best interests of the people at heart...even if they have historically refused to make working conditions sufficiently safe, to pay workers a decent living wage or have been guilty of marketing cheap or harmful products. They never favor their investments over their workers or customers.
Speaking of people, Rational Rush reiterated the notion that Liberals are “deranged.” Labeling the political opposition “deranged,” stupid or mentally ill isn’t a new strategy. Millions of Soviet citizens have wound up in Siberia or worse after having been so labeled.
Additionally, during his speech, Mr. Limbaugh passionately reminded Conservatives what Conservatism is about. A true Conservative makes no distinction between rich or poor, black or white, male or female. Conservatives only see people as individuals. Unlike Liberals, Mr. Limbaugh pontificated, Conservatives don’t see groups. They simply want individuals to become all they’re capable of becoming. It’s the Democrat Party which historically bears the burden of racism. He’s right, of course: the Democratic Party is the political cradle of American racism. However, what’s equally true is that the South is Republican today in large part because the new Conservative GOP inherited the Dixeycrats, the twentieth century Jim Crow South’s mouthpiece, after President Lyndon Johnson abandoned them in exchange for civil and voting rights legislation during the mid1960s.
Love for the Constitution, a vital touchstone of traditional Conservatism, was another passionate principle reiterated by the Right’s hulking huckster. However, even this love is a bit confusing. The Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, is sacred, but the Sixteenth Amendment empowering Congress “to lay and collect taxes from whatever income source derived” is interpreted by Mr. Limbaugh as merely a “Liberal conspiracy” to steal from the rich. It matters not that this amendment was passed at a time when most northeastern, midwestern and western states had GOP legislatures or that Republican William Howard Taft was in the White House.
There were, however, a couple of golden moments in Mr. Limbaugh’s address. He asserted that President Obama is a man of extraordinary gifts, actually going so far as to quell the booing when he mentioned our president’s name. He also made the point that Conservatives shouldn’t be expected to leave their principles at home during the Obama administration. Fair enough. However, principle becomes mere helpless and whimpering temperamental obstinacy when it blinds itself to human needs.
As for the Right’s first mighty haymaker, it possessed some force but it was poorly aimed. In fact, it affected the Republican Party far more than it did the president. For it was GOP National Chairman Michael Steele who found it necessary to apologize to the Right’s mighty Rush for his reaction to the speech, not President Obama.
As for the future, the Angry Right will continue to lash out at President Obama and America’s search for stability, commonality and unity. In time, believe it or not, America will once again need Conservatism’s leadership—but not, it’s my guess, for a very long time.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
The inevitable political blow invariably came from the Right’s mightiest right hand, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III. President Barack Hussein Obama was Righteous Rush’s target.
The occasion was Mr. Limbaugh’s hour-long speech on Saturday, February 28th at the close of CPAC, the Conservative bash which is held in the nation’s capital each February. The major topic of the conference was the new Obama administration and the danger it poses to capitalism and invariably to our freedom.
The topic could hardly have been otherwise, since no rational American could expect Conservatives to wish a “Democrat” president well. To do so would be downright unpatriotic. As Mr. Limbaugh said, rooting for a president is like rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers or against the Arizona Cardinals. No kidding -- he really used that analogy!
Conservative America’s most famous citizen framed his Obama bash in a rather fascinating way. Since it’s far too early to analyze the results of the president’s deeds, Mr. Limbaugh first declared everything Conservative America has done to be a glowing success. Yet, the new president is considered a failure by what he’s likely to do before the results are even known. After all, he suggested, America became the leader of the world because the preamble of the United States Constitution grants the right of every citizen to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Wrong document, Rush: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was the promise of the Declaration of Independence, not that of the Constitution. Accuracy must, of course, always surrender to Rush Limbaugh’s sense of the dramatic.
Even more to the point, recent disruptions on Wall Street aren’t in the least the fault of traditional American enterprise; everything is always the fault of government. Never mind what’s written in scripture. Men, especially enterprising profit seekers, are never greedy—unlike liberal welfare queens and labor unions. Of course, it’s a crime to suggest that corporate America is populated with “sinners” who need regulating. Corporations always have the best interests of the people at heart...even if they have historically refused to make working conditions sufficiently safe, to pay workers a decent living wage or have been guilty of marketing cheap or harmful products. They never favor their investments over their workers or customers.
Speaking of people, Rational Rush reiterated the notion that Liberals are “deranged.” Labeling the political opposition “deranged,” stupid or mentally ill isn’t a new strategy. Millions of Soviet citizens have wound up in Siberia or worse after having been so labeled.
Additionally, during his speech, Mr. Limbaugh passionately reminded Conservatives what Conservatism is about. A true Conservative makes no distinction between rich or poor, black or white, male or female. Conservatives only see people as individuals. Unlike Liberals, Mr. Limbaugh pontificated, Conservatives don’t see groups. They simply want individuals to become all they’re capable of becoming. It’s the Democrat Party which historically bears the burden of racism. He’s right, of course: the Democratic Party is the political cradle of American racism. However, what’s equally true is that the South is Republican today in large part because the new Conservative GOP inherited the Dixeycrats, the twentieth century Jim Crow South’s mouthpiece, after President Lyndon Johnson abandoned them in exchange for civil and voting rights legislation during the mid1960s.
Love for the Constitution, a vital touchstone of traditional Conservatism, was another passionate principle reiterated by the Right’s hulking huckster. However, even this love is a bit confusing. The Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, is sacred, but the Sixteenth Amendment empowering Congress “to lay and collect taxes from whatever income source derived” is interpreted by Mr. Limbaugh as merely a “Liberal conspiracy” to steal from the rich. It matters not that this amendment was passed at a time when most northeastern, midwestern and western states had GOP legislatures or that Republican William Howard Taft was in the White House.
There were, however, a couple of golden moments in Mr. Limbaugh’s address. He asserted that President Obama is a man of extraordinary gifts, actually going so far as to quell the booing when he mentioned our president’s name. He also made the point that Conservatives shouldn’t be expected to leave their principles at home during the Obama administration. Fair enough. However, principle becomes mere helpless and whimpering temperamental obstinacy when it blinds itself to human needs.
As for the Right’s first mighty haymaker, it possessed some force but it was poorly aimed. In fact, it affected the Republican Party far more than it did the president. For it was GOP National Chairman Michael Steele who found it necessary to apologize to the Right’s mighty Rush for his reaction to the speech, not President Obama.
As for the future, the Angry Right will continue to lash out at President Obama and America’s search for stability, commonality and unity. In time, believe it or not, America will once again need Conservatism’s leadership—but not, it’s my guess, for a very long time.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 2, 2009
WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?
By Edwin Cooney
“Where do you come from?
Tell me who you are
Do you come from another world
Or from some distant star?”
The above is taken from a love song, the B side of Elvis Presley’s 1962 hit “Return to Sender”.
The question usually means simply: where were you born or where do you live? However, “Where do you come from?” in socio/political terms may mean “from what part of your social, economic, religious or political existence does what you’re saying or feeling, thinking, or writing really represent?”
An understanding of where you and I “come from” can be valuable information for those who cross our paths, from our parents, friends, and teachers to merchants and even politicians. After all, what makes us “tick” is the key to any successful connection with us. Of course, the reverse is also true. The better we know those who we would allow to influence us, the better informed we’d be in the choices we make.
Politicians of all stripes are out to protect us in one way or another against the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” brought about by evil political forces— usually the opposing political party or ideology. A social or political activist’s role is to energize people to take affirmative action on something the activist advocates. The trick is to do it in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of an effective result. One of the keys to an effective political result is understanding—you guessed it--where the voter comes from. That’s why politicians prefer to address you and me as “taxpayers” even though we are far more than that.
Merchants and other business entrepreneurs are invariably out to sell us a product or service they know we just MUST have regardless of our need or overall welfare—after all, their first need is to sell to us. Our other needs are the concern of our parents, friends, bankers, doctors and the clergy.
I remember the first time this was brought home to me. It was during the winter of 1963 and I happened to visit a local barber shop in the little city of Batavia, New York where my residential school was located. The proprietor, a gentleman named Benny, had turned his “comb it wet or dry” barbershop into what we would today call a hair salon. His price for cutting a man’s hair had gone from roughly a dollar to three dollars. The idea was that he’d not only cut your hair, he’d wash it and style or shape it. After he was done, he’d sell you just the stuff you needed to keep your hair healthy. Besides, Benny assured me that day, healthy hair was essential to good general health. Somehow, I suspected, that the days of the inexpensive haircut, were rapidly coming to an end.
Then there is the doctor, the really smart professional who often takes himself or herself very, very seriously. Wonder-struck patients and starry-eyed nurses are partially to blame here for placing doctors atop such lofty pedestals, but the nature of their business is invariably so urgent and personal. It’s my experience that too many doctors don’t worry sufficiently about the effectiveness of the manner they adopt when issuing a diagnosis.
My doctor is right, of course, about the likely stabilization and even improvement of my health if I give up smoking. However, being right very often isn’t enough. Scaring me may get my attention but it can also get my back up. As I see it, a doctor who preaches should have gone to the seminary. Effective doctors are gentle but persistent partners rather than superior prodders.
I am many things, just as you are. I’m a taxpayer, I’m a Methodist church parishioner, I’m a parent, I’m a former husband, I’m a Yankee fan (of course), I live with a disability, I’m a friend, I’m an acquaintance, and, at least once a week, I’m a writer. Hence, I come from many places and all of these places shape me and matter to me in varying degrees.
The person who plays to my fears or my vanity is a clever dude. The reverse is also true: when I play to someone’s vanity or fears, I’m a clever dude. The person who taps my soul, however, is the person who wins me over big time. The person who wins me over is the one to whom it really and truly matters where I “come from”. Likewise, when you really get it that I care where you come from, you’re likely to start calling me many names—the first one being “friend”!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
“Where do you come from?
Tell me who you are
Do you come from another world
Or from some distant star?”
The above is taken from a love song, the B side of Elvis Presley’s 1962 hit “Return to Sender”.
The question usually means simply: where were you born or where do you live? However, “Where do you come from?” in socio/political terms may mean “from what part of your social, economic, religious or political existence does what you’re saying or feeling, thinking, or writing really represent?”
An understanding of where you and I “come from” can be valuable information for those who cross our paths, from our parents, friends, and teachers to merchants and even politicians. After all, what makes us “tick” is the key to any successful connection with us. Of course, the reverse is also true. The better we know those who we would allow to influence us, the better informed we’d be in the choices we make.
Politicians of all stripes are out to protect us in one way or another against the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” brought about by evil political forces— usually the opposing political party or ideology. A social or political activist’s role is to energize people to take affirmative action on something the activist advocates. The trick is to do it in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of an effective result. One of the keys to an effective political result is understanding—you guessed it--where the voter comes from. That’s why politicians prefer to address you and me as “taxpayers” even though we are far more than that.
Merchants and other business entrepreneurs are invariably out to sell us a product or service they know we just MUST have regardless of our need or overall welfare—after all, their first need is to sell to us. Our other needs are the concern of our parents, friends, bankers, doctors and the clergy.
I remember the first time this was brought home to me. It was during the winter of 1963 and I happened to visit a local barber shop in the little city of Batavia, New York where my residential school was located. The proprietor, a gentleman named Benny, had turned his “comb it wet or dry” barbershop into what we would today call a hair salon. His price for cutting a man’s hair had gone from roughly a dollar to three dollars. The idea was that he’d not only cut your hair, he’d wash it and style or shape it. After he was done, he’d sell you just the stuff you needed to keep your hair healthy. Besides, Benny assured me that day, healthy hair was essential to good general health. Somehow, I suspected, that the days of the inexpensive haircut, were rapidly coming to an end.
Then there is the doctor, the really smart professional who often takes himself or herself very, very seriously. Wonder-struck patients and starry-eyed nurses are partially to blame here for placing doctors atop such lofty pedestals, but the nature of their business is invariably so urgent and personal. It’s my experience that too many doctors don’t worry sufficiently about the effectiveness of the manner they adopt when issuing a diagnosis.
My doctor is right, of course, about the likely stabilization and even improvement of my health if I give up smoking. However, being right very often isn’t enough. Scaring me may get my attention but it can also get my back up. As I see it, a doctor who preaches should have gone to the seminary. Effective doctors are gentle but persistent partners rather than superior prodders.
I am many things, just as you are. I’m a taxpayer, I’m a Methodist church parishioner, I’m a parent, I’m a former husband, I’m a Yankee fan (of course), I live with a disability, I’m a friend, I’m an acquaintance, and, at least once a week, I’m a writer. Hence, I come from many places and all of these places shape me and matter to me in varying degrees.
The person who plays to my fears or my vanity is a clever dude. The reverse is also true: when I play to someone’s vanity or fears, I’m a clever dude. The person who taps my soul, however, is the person who wins me over big time. The person who wins me over is the one to whom it really and truly matters where I “come from”. Likewise, when you really get it that I care where you come from, you’re likely to start calling me many names—the first one being “friend”!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)