AH, PROMISES PROMISES -- LET’S SEE NOW!

By Edwin Cooney

Someone asked me a couple of weeks ago: what would I promise the people were I to seek the presidency in 2012?

There are, as I see it, several types of promises in a good politician’s repertoire.

First, there’s the negative promise. Truman and Eisenhower were good at this kind of promise. Truman promised the people that if they’d get rid of that “good for nothin’” Republican 80th Congress, he’d see to it that real progress was made in America. Ike promised that he’d get rid of the “crooks and cronies” hanging around Harry Truman. What he could not promise was the total absence of Republican crooks and cronies.

Then there’s everyone’s favorite: the kept promise. Not all kept promises have been healthy for the country. Andrew Jackson promised in 1832 to veto the bill passed by Congress to re-charter the Bank of the United States. He kept that promise and decentralized the banking system enough to bring about a severe depression the year after he left office. Then, there was the case of James K. Polk. He kept all of his promises and involved us in a war with Mexico which heightened the slavery issue to the point that we fought a civil war about thirteen years after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. President Johnson promised a war on poverty and kept his word, but ever since then Conservatives have delighted in reminding us that it didn’t work.

Next, there’s the promise all good Americans patriotically detest: the broken promise. In 1980, candidate Reagan promised to balance the budget by 1984, but he not only broke that promise, he increased the national debt from one trillion at the close of Jimmy Carter’s administration to three trillion dollars in 1989. Then, there’s the case of FDR who promised during the 1932 campaign to balance the budget. Of course, the truth is that he never intended to keep that promise. However, he didn’t promise to close and reorganize the banks, he didn’t promise to create the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Industrial Recovery Act, or the Agricultural Adjustment act and he also did not commit to Social Security until mid 1935.

Another type of promise is the broad sweeping promise. This can be an effective kind of promise as long as the public’s perception of it is the same as the president who promised it. That’s the promise to bring about “change.” Both candidates Obama and McCain promised change during the 2008 campaign.

However, a careful look at “change” can be a tad disconcerting. When Herbert Hoover took office on March 4th, 1929, America was, or appeared to be, prosperous. By the time President Hoover left office on March 4th, 1933, there had been considerable change -- very much to that good man’s chagrin.

President Reagan brought about “change” during his administration -- much of it good -- especially in foreign affairs. This included nuclear arms reduction and the destruction of “the evil empire.” Nevertheless, President Reagan’s administration didn’t come close to providing America with a problem-free future. After all, two entities that received considerable aid from Mr. Reagan were the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Taliban was the enemy of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Iran.

The ultimate question therefore is: are you willing to trust a candidate who makes no promises? Is the need for promises that of the candidate or of the voter? I refuse to insult you by answering that question. Ah! But I do have an antidote for the promise and it comes from the greatest politician of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Above, I mentioned one of his major broken promises. I also listed a few of his achievements. There are more, many more that were good for the people: the Home Loan Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission which polices Wall Street, the Works Progress Administration which employed teachers, musicians, librarians and writers, and the Public Works Administration that oversaw huge construction projects such as roads, bridges, schools and hospitals to name a few. These beneficial achievements surely were a surprise to most people. Hence, the Cooney candidacy will substitute the promise with the surprise.

Therefore, should I run for President in 2012, any time a reporter or an interest group asks me my position on any matter I’ll have a ready answer: “Trust me, I’ll surprise you!”

Thus, the issues in 2012 will go from the complex to the simple. Which do you, the voter, prefer -- the promise or the surprise? Choose for yourself!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY