By Edwin Cooney
“Play the cards fair, Ruben,” urged the country gambler, “I know what I dealt ya!”
We all insist upon it: next to freedom, we demand fairness. Children, from the time they are two, are taught by their anxious parents to share with other children. After all, it’s the first step a child takes toward a sense of societal equity.
History is crammed with stories of outrageous unfairness. Let’s see, now:
Was it “fair” to Richard Nixon that the 1960 presidential prize be snatched away from him by Chicago ballot box chicanery? If not, was Richard Nixon therefore justified by reaching into his own bag of political dirty tricks once he became president?
Was the Watergate break-in of June 17th, 1972 justified by the fact that in March 1946, during young Dick Nixon’s first run for Congress, his own campaign headquarters was burglarized and the campaign material which had been paid for by Pat’s inheritance lost? As Pat Nixon would remember it, nobody protested that break-in.
Hence the question, what value is there in our individual expectation of fairness in life? Is there any value at all?
Even today, when Democrats ask Republicans to be “fair” to President Obama, they are reminded almost gleefully of how “unfair” they were to President George W. Bush. Is that fair? Is there a time limitation to fairness? What changes make what’s “fair” essential or valueless?
As for international affairs, everybody these days agrees that Germany was unjustly treated at the close of World War I. Was it then only “fair” that the German people promoted a vicious dictator named Adolph Hitler to exact revenge on the world? Is it the legitimate right of America to save Asian and African women from the ancient practices of Medieval religious culture or is the existence of Medieval culture merely the excuse for attacking modern Islam? If it is the existence of a new radical culture that justifies American aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, and eventually Iran, are women’s rights under a medieval system the issue?
Finally, if it was “only fair” that the state of Israel should have been established by the victors of World War II as just compensation to Jews who suffered terribly during Hitler’s reign of terror, could Israel have been located elsewhere and the understandable debt to the Jews thusly paid? Or, was location in the homeland of Jews, Moslems and Christians necessary? Was “necessary” the same as “fair”?
Not even Mother Nature guarantees “fairness”. One sister may go to the Olympics while the other spends her life in a wheelchair. Some live to be one hundred while others die in infancy, too weak, even with the assistance of medical science, to overcome the cards dealt by Mother Nature.
Although Americans have sought to promote racial and cultural equity, especially since Lincoln’s day, the goal has too often been blocked by the greed of the powerful and the fear of the suspicious. Catholics, Jews, whites, blacks, Labor, and management have victimized one another out of fear and prejudice. All have suffered from outrageous “unfairness” and have often visited it on one another.
As President Kennedy observed on numerous occasions, “life is often unfair” -- and he was right. After all, his own life would end abruptly and unjustly. In the twinkling of an eye, Americans would become more unsure, insecure, and suspicious — not only of foreign political doctrines but the political doctrines of their fellow citizens. After all, if one group was angry enough to kill the president, another group could be sufficiently angry to kill a civil rights leader, abortion doctor or perhaps a talk show host. As I’ve observed many times, fear is the father of anger and it can be argued that fear of injustice or “unfairness” may well be one of anger’s powerful relatives. The need to be justly treated is one of the legitimate expectations of a free society. Children are invariably incensed when they feel “unfairly” treated.
One day my younger son, then a lad of five, became incensed when his older brother wouldn’t share his auto racing game with him. “Come on,” he insisted, “you’re supposed to be fair and share. Didn’t I share my chicken pox with you?”
In the final analysis, it’s up to you and to me to build our personal foundation for processing and evaluating expected “fairness”. We know, or are taught to know, that others are more likely to treat us with gentility to the exact degree of their own experience of such comfort. Thus, we have the building blocks for that shelter of societal security and gratitude.
As Jack Kennedy ultimately experienced, there are conditions in society sufficiently powerful to visit the most outrageous forms of injustice or “unfairness” upon us. Since these outrageous forces are invariably beyond our control, all we can ultimately do is live our lives so that we may be justly unworthy of that which is “unfair”.
I’ll leave it to you. If the country gambler knew what cards he’d dealt the unfortunate Ruben, what was it important for Ruben to know?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
HONESTY--AMERICA’S FAVORITE HUMAN TRAIT
By Edwin Cooney
About a week ago, one of my readers sent me a most thought-provoking observation about that most desirable human trait, honesty.
As an essential part of our individual character, honesty is hard to equal as a virtue. Honesty is, after all, the characteristic of truthfulness and for many people truthfulness about almost any aspect of modern day life is what is sorely lacking.
My question is: but is it? Are we looking for “straight talk” from our leadership or personal reinforcement?
Like all human virtues, honesty -- powerful as it is -- has limited value to our numerous personal and social responsibilities.
Take the parent: is it honest to tell our children of the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny? Surely not, although there is virtue for a child’s emotional development in each of these characters. Santa Claus invites the young mind to feel, during a vulnerable time of emotional and spiritual growth, as though it is the beneficiary of universal love. The Tooth Fairy gives a youngster something to look forward to following a painful period during which his or her teeth are falling out. As for the Easter Bunny, like Santa Claus, the Bunny Trail is a universal path for giving, but even more, it connects children to the magic of the animal kingdom. True, these three characters aren’t the only worthwhile avenues for experiencing these benefits, but they’re valuable even if they’re absent of the virtue of honesty.
Take the teacher: fictional literature is an essential part of a young person’s education from nursery school through the university. However, fiction often, although not always, gives honesty a wide birth.
As for the preacher: though honesty and integrity force preachers to walk a tighter rope professionally, they may be sinners in their daily lives. Like their parishioners, many have also been caught cheating at cards or checkers, lying in traffic court, and in these days of “promiscuity,” may be divorced while still atop their altars.
As for everybody’s favorite, take the politician: as I see it, it’s we their constituents who run them neck and neck in the race to avoid honesty.
Someone sent me, not long ago, an appeal for “straight talk” from our politicians, but this demand was accompanied, as most demands are, with a laundry list of conditions. They wanted politicians to stop redistributing wealth, to lower taxes, increase military spending, and so on. In other words, it wasn’t a demand for straight talk as much as a demand to all of our leaders to be true to a specific political agenda.
History is full of crimes that have a lot to do with mischievousness and poor character, but little to do with honesty.
Benedict Arnold was devious when he switched sides during the American Revolution. Yet there wasn’t anything particularly dishonest about it since he’d publicly married Peggy Shippen, the daughter of Edward Shippen, a loyalist Philadelphia judge, right in the middle of the Revolutionary War.
Neither Aaron Burr nor John Wilkes Booth’s crimes had much to do with honesty. Burr, who indeed could be devious, was no less honest than his dueling victim Alexander Hamilton who, although forgiven by his wife, was guilty of marital infidelity. Booth would have told anybody who asked him that he hated Abraham Lincoln: he was bitter for the Confederacy’s loss of the Civil War.
More to the point, in politics even non-politician constituents view honesty with contempt. In 1976, Jimmy Carter twice told the truth when in late August he informed the American Legion that he’d offer amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers. Later, he told Playboy Magazine that he had “lusted in his heart”. Those two instances of honesty nearly cost Carter the 1976 election.
No one was interested in the fact that Gerald Ford “honestly” thought he was serving the nation by pardoning Richard Nixon of all crimes and misdemeanors that had occurred during Nixon’s seemingly corrupt presidency.
Former Vice President Walter Mondale was ridiculed as “a fool” when, during his acceptance speech at the 1984 Democratic convention, he was honest enough to tell the American people that if elected he’d raise taxes.
The truth is that we, the people of the United States, have put a spin on the significance of honesty. Commercial advertising is a vital tool in the “free market,” but few expect radio, television or internet commercials to be honest. “Truth in advertising” legislation is regarded in business and commerce circles as “liberal government snoopervision.”
Too often honesty is what we want to hear when we want to hear it. Hence, when I received the following observation recently sent me by one of you, I was much moved. “Honesty without compassion,” it read, “is brutality.”
Too many of us, especially when angered, use honesty as our excuse for humiliating a political opponent, a spouse, or even our parents and siblings.
So, honesty is what you prefer, hey? Okay, be honest now! Who would you rather cuddle up with on a cold winter night — the Easter Bunny or Aaron Burr?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
About a week ago, one of my readers sent me a most thought-provoking observation about that most desirable human trait, honesty.
As an essential part of our individual character, honesty is hard to equal as a virtue. Honesty is, after all, the characteristic of truthfulness and for many people truthfulness about almost any aspect of modern day life is what is sorely lacking.
My question is: but is it? Are we looking for “straight talk” from our leadership or personal reinforcement?
Like all human virtues, honesty -- powerful as it is -- has limited value to our numerous personal and social responsibilities.
Take the parent: is it honest to tell our children of the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny? Surely not, although there is virtue for a child’s emotional development in each of these characters. Santa Claus invites the young mind to feel, during a vulnerable time of emotional and spiritual growth, as though it is the beneficiary of universal love. The Tooth Fairy gives a youngster something to look forward to following a painful period during which his or her teeth are falling out. As for the Easter Bunny, like Santa Claus, the Bunny Trail is a universal path for giving, but even more, it connects children to the magic of the animal kingdom. True, these three characters aren’t the only worthwhile avenues for experiencing these benefits, but they’re valuable even if they’re absent of the virtue of honesty.
Take the teacher: fictional literature is an essential part of a young person’s education from nursery school through the university. However, fiction often, although not always, gives honesty a wide birth.
As for the preacher: though honesty and integrity force preachers to walk a tighter rope professionally, they may be sinners in their daily lives. Like their parishioners, many have also been caught cheating at cards or checkers, lying in traffic court, and in these days of “promiscuity,” may be divorced while still atop their altars.
As for everybody’s favorite, take the politician: as I see it, it’s we their constituents who run them neck and neck in the race to avoid honesty.
Someone sent me, not long ago, an appeal for “straight talk” from our politicians, but this demand was accompanied, as most demands are, with a laundry list of conditions. They wanted politicians to stop redistributing wealth, to lower taxes, increase military spending, and so on. In other words, it wasn’t a demand for straight talk as much as a demand to all of our leaders to be true to a specific political agenda.
History is full of crimes that have a lot to do with mischievousness and poor character, but little to do with honesty.
Benedict Arnold was devious when he switched sides during the American Revolution. Yet there wasn’t anything particularly dishonest about it since he’d publicly married Peggy Shippen, the daughter of Edward Shippen, a loyalist Philadelphia judge, right in the middle of the Revolutionary War.
Neither Aaron Burr nor John Wilkes Booth’s crimes had much to do with honesty. Burr, who indeed could be devious, was no less honest than his dueling victim Alexander Hamilton who, although forgiven by his wife, was guilty of marital infidelity. Booth would have told anybody who asked him that he hated Abraham Lincoln: he was bitter for the Confederacy’s loss of the Civil War.
More to the point, in politics even non-politician constituents view honesty with contempt. In 1976, Jimmy Carter twice told the truth when in late August he informed the American Legion that he’d offer amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers. Later, he told Playboy Magazine that he had “lusted in his heart”. Those two instances of honesty nearly cost Carter the 1976 election.
No one was interested in the fact that Gerald Ford “honestly” thought he was serving the nation by pardoning Richard Nixon of all crimes and misdemeanors that had occurred during Nixon’s seemingly corrupt presidency.
Former Vice President Walter Mondale was ridiculed as “a fool” when, during his acceptance speech at the 1984 Democratic convention, he was honest enough to tell the American people that if elected he’d raise taxes.
The truth is that we, the people of the United States, have put a spin on the significance of honesty. Commercial advertising is a vital tool in the “free market,” but few expect radio, television or internet commercials to be honest. “Truth in advertising” legislation is regarded in business and commerce circles as “liberal government snoopervision.”
Too often honesty is what we want to hear when we want to hear it. Hence, when I received the following observation recently sent me by one of you, I was much moved. “Honesty without compassion,” it read, “is brutality.”
Too many of us, especially when angered, use honesty as our excuse for humiliating a political opponent, a spouse, or even our parents and siblings.
So, honesty is what you prefer, hey? Okay, be honest now! Who would you rather cuddle up with on a cold winter night — the Easter Bunny or Aaron Burr?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, February 1, 2010
A PRESIDENT TRANSFORMED
By Edwin Cooney
Last Wednesday night, before America’s eyes and ears, President Barack Obama challenged Democrats to use their majorities to accomplish something instead of “running for the hills.” He also urged Republicans to help govern instead of merely saying nay. In so doing, he transformed himself from the status of mere President to that of a national leader.
As I’ve said from the beginning, I voted for Obama because I believe that there’s more to governing than the application of party doctrine. It may not please left or right wing ideologists, but historically successful leaders have often ignored party ideologists. Here are some examples:
When FDR was swept into office in 1933, the first thing he did was save big business from itself. He didn’t nationalize the banking system; he reconstructed it. His National Industrial Recovery Act actually encouraged business trusts as long as big business agreed to the codes stipulated by the National Industrial Recovery Administration (NIRA) act. FDR didn’t destroy Wall Street; he merely regulated it by establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission. Remember who he put in charge of the SEC? That man’s name was Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., one hell of a businessman. Although the bankers and businessmen would never admit it, the “liberal” FDR was the best friend they ever had.
In the 1980s, President Reagan promised Conservatives to do away with the Department of Energy. Instead, he appointed three heads to that department. The last one, John Herrington of California, served from 1985 to 1989. He encouraged closer relations with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, potentially the largest producer of oil in the Middle East. President Reagan also promised to balance the budget, but scrapped that piece of GOP fundamentalism in favor of defense spending. He promised to protect us from terrorism, but during the 1980s, Black September took American hostages in the Middle East almost at will. Although he remains modern conservatism’s Messiah, President Reagan pragmatically strengthened Social Security rather than eliminating or privatizing it. Keep in mind, Social Security is still considered by Conservatives to be one of FDR’s most lingering evils.
The point of all this is that presidents usually do what needs to be done by steering a pragmatic political path down Doctrinaire Way.
Here’s more historical information: Abraham Lincoln pleased neither Abolitionists nor Copperheads (Northern Peace Democrats) during the Civil War. His political opponent for re-election in 1864 was the man he’d put in charge of the Union Army in 1861 -- Copperhead General George B. McClelland. Additionally, Lincoln infuriated John C. Fremont (the first GOP presidential candidate and governor of Missouri in 1861) and other abolitionists by rejecting Fremont’s statewide “Emancipation Proclamation” as politically impractical.
American politics, while hardly devoid of ideology, is largely the politics of practicality. Now that George W. Bush’s eight years in the White House are complete, Conservatives insist that he wasn’t really one of them. As proof, they point to Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act as well as to his support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the legislation to bail out the banks in 2008.
There’s no reason to feel sorry for President Obama and the “political pickle” he appears to be in. After all, he knew that being President wouldn’t be easy. President Obama can’t avoid criticism from either the hard right or the hard left. Still, it’s his right to remind us from time to time of what the conditions were when he came into office. After all, didn’t FDR often remind us of Hoovervilles and the sins of those old “economic royalists and money changers?” Were Conservatives in the 1980s willing to forget Jimmy Carter and “stagflation?” Of course not—nor should they have.
Perspective, as I see it, is inevitably more valuable than doctrinaire politics. Perspective, minus deliberate political amnesia, provides a compass for evaluating the conditions for wise and workable decision-making.
Of course, the center isn’t the sole home of truth, wisdom and good government. Historically, political ideologists, often minority party leaders, have contributed valuable ideas for good government. A few ideas originally regarded as radical which have now become mainstream concepts include the Bill of Rights (ideologically Conservative), Initiative, Referendum and Recall (ideologically Progressive or Liberal), income tax indexing (ideologically Conservative), labor and civil rights equity (ideologically Liberal), labor union regulation (ideologically Conservative) and Social Security (ideologically Liberal).
What President Obama demonstrated before Congress on the night of January 27th is that he’s more interested in leadership than he is in ideological or political purity.
It’s my guess that the President would subscribe to the following observation: Successful leadership overcomes all barriers—both political and ideological.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Last Wednesday night, before America’s eyes and ears, President Barack Obama challenged Democrats to use their majorities to accomplish something instead of “running for the hills.” He also urged Republicans to help govern instead of merely saying nay. In so doing, he transformed himself from the status of mere President to that of a national leader.
As I’ve said from the beginning, I voted for Obama because I believe that there’s more to governing than the application of party doctrine. It may not please left or right wing ideologists, but historically successful leaders have often ignored party ideologists. Here are some examples:
When FDR was swept into office in 1933, the first thing he did was save big business from itself. He didn’t nationalize the banking system; he reconstructed it. His National Industrial Recovery Act actually encouraged business trusts as long as big business agreed to the codes stipulated by the National Industrial Recovery Administration (NIRA) act. FDR didn’t destroy Wall Street; he merely regulated it by establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission. Remember who he put in charge of the SEC? That man’s name was Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., one hell of a businessman. Although the bankers and businessmen would never admit it, the “liberal” FDR was the best friend they ever had.
In the 1980s, President Reagan promised Conservatives to do away with the Department of Energy. Instead, he appointed three heads to that department. The last one, John Herrington of California, served from 1985 to 1989. He encouraged closer relations with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, potentially the largest producer of oil in the Middle East. President Reagan also promised to balance the budget, but scrapped that piece of GOP fundamentalism in favor of defense spending. He promised to protect us from terrorism, but during the 1980s, Black September took American hostages in the Middle East almost at will. Although he remains modern conservatism’s Messiah, President Reagan pragmatically strengthened Social Security rather than eliminating or privatizing it. Keep in mind, Social Security is still considered by Conservatives to be one of FDR’s most lingering evils.
The point of all this is that presidents usually do what needs to be done by steering a pragmatic political path down Doctrinaire Way.
Here’s more historical information: Abraham Lincoln pleased neither Abolitionists nor Copperheads (Northern Peace Democrats) during the Civil War. His political opponent for re-election in 1864 was the man he’d put in charge of the Union Army in 1861 -- Copperhead General George B. McClelland. Additionally, Lincoln infuriated John C. Fremont (the first GOP presidential candidate and governor of Missouri in 1861) and other abolitionists by rejecting Fremont’s statewide “Emancipation Proclamation” as politically impractical.
American politics, while hardly devoid of ideology, is largely the politics of practicality. Now that George W. Bush’s eight years in the White House are complete, Conservatives insist that he wasn’t really one of them. As proof, they point to Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act as well as to his support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the legislation to bail out the banks in 2008.
There’s no reason to feel sorry for President Obama and the “political pickle” he appears to be in. After all, he knew that being President wouldn’t be easy. President Obama can’t avoid criticism from either the hard right or the hard left. Still, it’s his right to remind us from time to time of what the conditions were when he came into office. After all, didn’t FDR often remind us of Hoovervilles and the sins of those old “economic royalists and money changers?” Were Conservatives in the 1980s willing to forget Jimmy Carter and “stagflation?” Of course not—nor should they have.
Perspective, as I see it, is inevitably more valuable than doctrinaire politics. Perspective, minus deliberate political amnesia, provides a compass for evaluating the conditions for wise and workable decision-making.
Of course, the center isn’t the sole home of truth, wisdom and good government. Historically, political ideologists, often minority party leaders, have contributed valuable ideas for good government. A few ideas originally regarded as radical which have now become mainstream concepts include the Bill of Rights (ideologically Conservative), Initiative, Referendum and Recall (ideologically Progressive or Liberal), income tax indexing (ideologically Conservative), labor and civil rights equity (ideologically Liberal), labor union regulation (ideologically Conservative) and Social Security (ideologically Liberal).
What President Obama demonstrated before Congress on the night of January 27th is that he’s more interested in leadership than he is in ideological or political purity.
It’s my guess that the President would subscribe to the following observation: Successful leadership overcomes all barriers—both political and ideological.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)