FROM THE LOFTY TO THE LOWLY

By Edwin Cooney

As much as I like most of the editorials a wonderful friend sends me from the New York Times, these lofty commentators share in the same luxury as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and lovable Newt Gingrich.

Before getting specific as to the nature of this luxury, I must say that I was delighted with their praise for President Obama’s insistence that Muslims have the same religious rights as all other citizens. It seemed that the president was saying that Muslims have the right to build their proposed mosque in the vicinity of the 9/11 Ground Zero Memorial. However, the following day the president apparently stated further that he wasn’t commenting on whether or not he agreed with the location of the proposed mosque, but instead was only defending the rights that Muslims share with other religions.

According to the Times, nervous Democrats led by President Obama are “caving in” to those fretful GOP spokesmen anxious to identify the president and his party with evil anti-American alien forces. It follows, therefore, that by hedging on the issue of the mosque’s location, cautious Democrats appear to lack the courageous wisdom of New York Times commentators.

Of course, there’s a difference between the obligations of political commentators and those of President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (who is running for re-election against a tough opponent in Nevada). Politicians, unlike radio and television talk show hosts and national columnists, depend on the deeply felt concerns of a cross section of voters to maintain their offices. On the other hand, while editorialists, commentators and talk show hosts do face pressure from sponsors, ratings, and deadlines, they maintain their positions with the expectation that what they say and write will be controversial. Politicians, however, are expected to build a constituent consensus for the benefit of all.

Invariably, the public is convinced that courageous politicians died out with the “Founding Fathers” and it appears that columnists, editorialists and talk show hosts are perfectly satisfied with this presumption. Sadly, most Americans don’t associate courage with elected politicians.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln, much to the frustration of abolitionist preachers and editorialists, denied Governor John C. Freemont the right to issue an Emancipation Proclamation in the divided state of Missouri. As “Father Abraham” saw it, Governor Freemont’s moral objective would be meaningless without the Union’s military success. Thus not until after the Union’s victory over General Lee at Antietam Creek in September1862 did Lincoln issue that historic and beloved Emancipation Proclamation.
Question: What do you think today’s New York Times would have said in an editorial concerning Lincoln’s courage? Abe Lincoln was leader enough to chart the best course toward his ultimate objective: slave emancipation.

The 1976 presidential campaign saw two courageous politicians squaring off against one another. President Gerald R. Ford had already dared to anger a sizable portion of the public (including this observer) when he pardoned Richard Nixon of all crimes and misdemeanors which he committed or may have committed during his administration. Jimmy Carter then cast away much of the advantage President Ford’s Nixon pardon gave him when he went before a meeting of the American Legion in Seattle and told them of his intention to provide amnesty to Vietnam War draft dodgers and deserters.

Question: How much credit do you suppose either man got for being courageous? Of course, there were issues of greater national importance, but few Americans came away from the 1976 election with the impression that they’d chosen between two exceptionally courageous and principled men for their president.

In 2004, President George W. Bush, despite embarrassing military setbacks, stuck to his game plan in Iraq. How many editorialists, commentators or talk show hosts who disagreed with GWB’s policy nevertheless gave him credit for persistence or courage?

Of course, the American body politic needs critical commentary whether by people like Limbaugh or like Maureen Doud of the Times. Nevertheless, this observer believes that people, for the health of their individual perspectives, would do well to keep in mind the safety of the commentator versus the legitimate vulnerability of the public servant.

From high atop the lofty perches of radio, television and newspaper executive tower suites, there often comes valuable wisdom. Ah! but this wisdom comes from the voices and computer terminals of men and women whose careers, incomes and egos are a lot safer than those of either the elected leader or the lowly citizen.

With that perspective as a free citizen, draw your own conclusions on the veracity of the commentator and the politician alike.

Even more, I invite you to wonder along with me if our society wouldn’t be just a tad healthier were we to allow ourselves to grant that our leadership is as courageous and principled as we’re absolutely certain we are.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY