By Edwin Cooney
Whose character counts is a question older than the Constitution of the United States, older than the Protestant Reformation and the Period of Enlightenment that followed it, older even than Magna Carta. In fact, the question is as old as humankind!
What was fascinating to me the other night in South Carolina during the GOP debate was how easily Newt Gingrich was able to redirect the issue of his personal character in front of that highly partisan audience -- and how easily that audience (including Newt’s highly moral fellow presidential candidates) bought into his redirection.
Speaker Gingrich’s redirection came in the form of his pompous outrage against the media for daring to even bring up what his former wife volunteered about his 1999 proposal that they have an “open marriage.” Before denying it, he preceded to blame the “elite media” for allowing his former wife’s story to be aired. He characterized the media not only for its elite stature, but even more, for a strategy of "…protecting Barack Obama by criticizing Republicans.”
As far back as 1980, Conservatives have told us that one of the major differences between conservatism and liberalism is conservative morality.
We were assured that President Reagan, unlike President Carter (as religious as Carter was), would bring morality to the body politic more effectively than Carter. Hence, every issue has now become a moral issue whether it is differences over public education, public housing, or the legitimacy of the income tax.
Ironically, Speaker Gingrich was perfectly willing to use the evil media to force the resignation of Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright in 1989 and to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998. My point is that both the morality issue and the convenience of the media are "legitimate" when they favor Conservatives. However, when they work against Conservatives, that appears to be another story.
Finally, do you suppose that President Obama doesn’t have his own issues with the media? If you believe that the media has spared President Obama, then how have you learned about his shortcomings-- both political and otherwise -- except through the media?
As for this observer, I care very little about Newton Gingrich’s marital morality or lack thereof. From a moral standpoint, Newt Gingrich is, as I see it, perfectly qualified to be president. Aside from this current controversy, our history is laden with questions about presidential morality or the lack of such.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson became the first victim of moral attack during a presidential campaign. Remember, this was the man who largely wrote the Declaration of Independence and who is quoted again and again (especially by Conservatives) as the author of all that’s morally principled about our free society. He was attacked because he was a deist religiously rather than a proclaimed Christian. If he were elected, cried the Federalists, good citizens would be forced to hide their bibles. However, Jefferson did prevail. I wonder: what did either morality or immorality have to do with Jefferson’s greatest achievement, the Louisiana Purchase?
In 1828, the highly educated and principled John Quincy Adams faced Andrew Jackson, the marital bigamist and the crude frontier duelist, for the presidency. John Adams wanted to make lasting treaties with the Indians as required by some Supreme Court rulings. Andy Jackson wanted to move them west as quickly as it could be done. Granted, he hoped to do it without violence, but he was clearly willing to use violence when it became practical. Jackson won the election, but the moral question remains! Whose side had the high moral ground, do you think?
In 1860, candidate Lincoln was rather distinguished by his lack of church membership. He didn’t join a church until he got to Washington.
President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to remove “In God We Trust” from our money. As Teddy saw it, putting God’s name on our money was blasphemous. Apparently, TR believed that God was more important than money! Where do you suppose TR got his sense of morality?
In recent years, both parties have raised assistance to constituencies to the height of morality. In the 1930s, FDR clearly made help for the unemployed and the poor in general a moral issue. In the 1960s, civil rights was, as JFK put it, “…primarily a moral issue.” During the recent Iraqi war, antiwar protestors made President George W. Bush’s very advocacy of the war a moral issue.
The value in the question “whose character counts?” lies in the opportunity to consider everyone’s character. If Newt Gingrich goes to the White House next January, I’ll be sad, not because of his character, but because of his priorities. As I see it, we’ve never had a presidential candidate or a president who wasn’t genuinely interested in doing what he could for the betterment of our country. It’s not the morality one brings to the public service that counts. It's the applicability of practical priorities which move us onward and upward to that plateau of nobility, principle and purpose which our form of government is all about.
So, whose character counts, you ask. I hate to break it to you, but only yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 23, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
SOMETHING SO VERY, VERY PERSONAL!
By Edwin Cooney
No, the phenomena I’m about to address isn’t all about sports. It’s about that which pleases you and me. It’s about the sports teams we favor. It’s about our favorite actors and actresses. It’s about the people we love. Most of all, it’s about our individual capacity to be pleased about somebody else’s accomplishments, accomplishments over which we haven’t the slightest control.
The word for it is fandom. Fan or fandom is, of course, a short term for fanatic. Fanaticism causes us to focus our emotions on the outcome of events, many of which are primarily recreational, and some of which are very, very serious.
Fanaticism, especially political or religious fanaticism, can be dangerous and even life threatening. However, fandom or to be a fan, I believe, is not only wholesome, but healthy for our entire being.
During the late 1860s, the development of baseball “clubs,” gave local players and fans an opportunity to salve their hard scrabbled work-a-day existences with a little recreational activity. Hence, when that activity resulted in victory, there was inevitably a powerful boost in civic pride.
One of the more fascinating stories I’ve heard (perhaps it’s apocryphal, but somehow it’s too good not to be true) concerns one amateur fan’s fear of the development of professional baseball. The fear was that paid baseball players might ultimately mean the end of local pride in baseball for fans outside the large cities. The young man who expressed that fear was Clarence Darrow who went on to be perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer of his generation.
As asserted above, the root of fandom (as I see it) is that which gives us pleasure, beginning usually when we’re very young. If our parents, older siblings, favorite teacher, favorite uncle or cousin is a sports fan and partial to a particular sport or team, our emotional need for personal connection often compels us to go along with them. If we’re inclined to be interested in certain movies, music, poetry, or any number of things, parental or peer encouragement can be the vital factor in developing the intensity of our interest in the activity or in the good fortune of an individual performer or artist.
The fans of star musical performers can be quite intense when it comes to getting close to their heroes. I remember reading about a staunch Beatles fan who attempted to be mailed to George Harrison, I believe. Her friends packed her in a large crate with the necessary air holes (what else was in there we can only imagine!), sealed her up, and sent her on her way. Her journey suddenly ended when she tipped her box over while trying to remove her sweater. Perhaps a mail clerk thought there was something just a tad suspicious about a crate that turned itself over.
Political candidates rarely have fans. However, Jack Kennedy was treated much like Elvis Presley during his 1960 October campaign trip. The same was true of Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Teddy got similar treatment, although to a lesser degree, during his 1980 quest against President Carter.
Much of Barack Obama’s success four years ago was due to a certain star quality appeal among young people. A factor in this year’s election bid could be whether he can rekindle enough of his 2008 star power to bring about his re-election.
Our capacity to feel good about the accomplishments of others is both good for them and for us. The recording, movie, and book industry all depend on it. The more interests we have, the more likely we’ll be rewarded sometime during any calendar year with a sense of success. That sense of success amounts to a sense of confirmation of our capacity for positive judgment. You may lose the Super Bowl, but your favorite actor might win an Oscar. Your candidate may win an election while your favorite author is charged with plagiarism.
Of course, the amount of gratification one gets from the success of a cultural hero depends on one’s capacity for emotional perspective. Happily, the vast majority of “fans” have this positive aspect for favoritism well under control. Before a game, fans can be angrily insistent about the likelihood of their team’s success. However, most of the time, they accept the outcome with good grace. Likewise, fans of musical performers, movie actors and actresses, and even politicians very often keep their favorites in their hearts long after their popularity is history.
We can perhaps learn about a person’s personality by having him list his heroes at different times of his life. We might start that with our political candidates!
To be a fan is for me a healthy thing. However, to be someone else’s hero is a bit more taxing. How many “fans” do you have aside from your spouse and perhaps three or four close friends? How many “fans” would you like to have?
Your answer to that question might be quite revealing! My answer to that question is something of a plea. Please don’t love me too much: heights make me dizzy!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No, the phenomena I’m about to address isn’t all about sports. It’s about that which pleases you and me. It’s about the sports teams we favor. It’s about our favorite actors and actresses. It’s about the people we love. Most of all, it’s about our individual capacity to be pleased about somebody else’s accomplishments, accomplishments over which we haven’t the slightest control.
The word for it is fandom. Fan or fandom is, of course, a short term for fanatic. Fanaticism causes us to focus our emotions on the outcome of events, many of which are primarily recreational, and some of which are very, very serious.
Fanaticism, especially political or religious fanaticism, can be dangerous and even life threatening. However, fandom or to be a fan, I believe, is not only wholesome, but healthy for our entire being.
During the late 1860s, the development of baseball “clubs,” gave local players and fans an opportunity to salve their hard scrabbled work-a-day existences with a little recreational activity. Hence, when that activity resulted in victory, there was inevitably a powerful boost in civic pride.
One of the more fascinating stories I’ve heard (perhaps it’s apocryphal, but somehow it’s too good not to be true) concerns one amateur fan’s fear of the development of professional baseball. The fear was that paid baseball players might ultimately mean the end of local pride in baseball for fans outside the large cities. The young man who expressed that fear was Clarence Darrow who went on to be perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer of his generation.
As asserted above, the root of fandom (as I see it) is that which gives us pleasure, beginning usually when we’re very young. If our parents, older siblings, favorite teacher, favorite uncle or cousin is a sports fan and partial to a particular sport or team, our emotional need for personal connection often compels us to go along with them. If we’re inclined to be interested in certain movies, music, poetry, or any number of things, parental or peer encouragement can be the vital factor in developing the intensity of our interest in the activity or in the good fortune of an individual performer or artist.
The fans of star musical performers can be quite intense when it comes to getting close to their heroes. I remember reading about a staunch Beatles fan who attempted to be mailed to George Harrison, I believe. Her friends packed her in a large crate with the necessary air holes (what else was in there we can only imagine!), sealed her up, and sent her on her way. Her journey suddenly ended when she tipped her box over while trying to remove her sweater. Perhaps a mail clerk thought there was something just a tad suspicious about a crate that turned itself over.
Political candidates rarely have fans. However, Jack Kennedy was treated much like Elvis Presley during his 1960 October campaign trip. The same was true of Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Teddy got similar treatment, although to a lesser degree, during his 1980 quest against President Carter.
Much of Barack Obama’s success four years ago was due to a certain star quality appeal among young people. A factor in this year’s election bid could be whether he can rekindle enough of his 2008 star power to bring about his re-election.
Our capacity to feel good about the accomplishments of others is both good for them and for us. The recording, movie, and book industry all depend on it. The more interests we have, the more likely we’ll be rewarded sometime during any calendar year with a sense of success. That sense of success amounts to a sense of confirmation of our capacity for positive judgment. You may lose the Super Bowl, but your favorite actor might win an Oscar. Your candidate may win an election while your favorite author is charged with plagiarism.
Of course, the amount of gratification one gets from the success of a cultural hero depends on one’s capacity for emotional perspective. Happily, the vast majority of “fans” have this positive aspect for favoritism well under control. Before a game, fans can be angrily insistent about the likelihood of their team’s success. However, most of the time, they accept the outcome with good grace. Likewise, fans of musical performers, movie actors and actresses, and even politicians very often keep their favorites in their hearts long after their popularity is history.
We can perhaps learn about a person’s personality by having him list his heroes at different times of his life. We might start that with our political candidates!
To be a fan is for me a healthy thing. However, to be someone else’s hero is a bit more taxing. How many “fans” do you have aside from your spouse and perhaps three or four close friends? How many “fans” would you like to have?
Your answer to that question might be quite revealing! My answer to that question is something of a plea. Please don’t love me too much: heights make me dizzy!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 9, 2012
THEM “GOOD OLD DAYS”? -- NUTS!
By Edwin Cooney
I know I’m in trouble with some of you already -- which is perfectly understandable -- but today’s lifestyle is better than yesterday’s! Today’s generation does most things more efficiently and more conscientiously than ever before.
What brought all of this to mind was an article that two of my readers sent me called “That Green Thing.” Due to its brevity, I present it below in its entirety:
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.” She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day. Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day. Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person. Remember: Don't make old people mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.
Okay, fair enough in view of the clerk’s careless slur. However, Love Canal near Niagara Falls, the pollution of every major river throughout the land, and the pollution of Pittsburgh are testimony that my generation and the one or two preceding it gave to the environment. What’s sad about this article is that it’s pointless. Any argument between the generations is an automatic victory for the future. If yesterday was better than today, then the people of yesterday failed their children.
Was yesterday better than today? Of course not! Does yesterday have legitimate lessons to teach? You bet it does! However, if yesterday is where you’d like to be, it’s likely that it's because you’re not satisfied with your contribution to the progress yesterday made in the life of humankind.
I, too, like yesterday for many reasons, among them the fact that we’ve come through all of the personal, national and international crises that confronted us. Today’s generation faces the same challenges.
The truth is that I like yesterday, too. However, what I like best about yesterday is that I was younger!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I know I’m in trouble with some of you already -- which is perfectly understandable -- but today’s lifestyle is better than yesterday’s! Today’s generation does most things more efficiently and more conscientiously than ever before.
What brought all of this to mind was an article that two of my readers sent me called “That Green Thing.” Due to its brevity, I present it below in its entirety:
Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.” She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day. Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day. Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day. Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person. Remember: Don't make old people mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.
Okay, fair enough in view of the clerk’s careless slur. However, Love Canal near Niagara Falls, the pollution of every major river throughout the land, and the pollution of Pittsburgh are testimony that my generation and the one or two preceding it gave to the environment. What’s sad about this article is that it’s pointless. Any argument between the generations is an automatic victory for the future. If yesterday was better than today, then the people of yesterday failed their children.
Was yesterday better than today? Of course not! Does yesterday have legitimate lessons to teach? You bet it does! However, if yesterday is where you’d like to be, it’s likely that it's because you’re not satisfied with your contribution to the progress yesterday made in the life of humankind.
I, too, like yesterday for many reasons, among them the fact that we’ve come through all of the personal, national and international crises that confronted us. Today’s generation faces the same challenges.
The truth is that I like yesterday, too. However, what I like best about yesterday is that I was younger!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, January 2, 2012
A PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION -- BUNDLED TOGETHER -- JUST FOR YOU!
By Edwin Cooney
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I hear the complaint every year and I suspect that you do, too. It’s about the “over-commercialization” of Christmas. I occasionally hear complaints about the over-commercialization of Mother’s Day and Valentine’s Day, but the over-commercialization of Christmas is a complaint that has become downright chronic.
Over-commercialization of a holiday means that its celebration is more about commerce than it is about the sincerity of love and the act of giving. I understand that -- but what’s behind that complaint, I wonder!
Going back to childhood, I was taught that we celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ and that we exchange gifts as we would if we could have given gifts to Baby Jesus. I was also instructed that such gift giving was meaningful as long as I kept in mind that Jesus was the center of the love behind it. Yet every year, I hear people who have received that same Christian message complaining about Christmas’ over- commercialization.
Due to its British origin, Christmas wasn’t widely celebrated in America immediately after the Revolutionary War. However, in 1822, Clement Moore’s “A Visit from St. Nicholas” began the popularization of Santa Claus in America. In the 1840’s, Americans became sympathetic with the Christmas plight of Charles Dickens’ Cratchit family. Yet, it wasn’t until the 1850’s that merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati (cities with German and other ethnic populations) really began celebrating Christmas.
Although Christmas was celebrated at the White House in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson
and, in later years, by Andrew Jackson, Christmas apparently didn’t catch on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until the Christmas season of 1856. That’s when President Franklin (Handsome Frank) Pierce set up the first executive mansion Christmas tree. It was the last presidential Christmas for Franklin and Jane Pierce and the Christmas tree was something of a gift for President Pierce’s Sunday school class.
Ultimately, Christmas was endorsed by America’s first families. In 1870, Christmas became a federal holiday under Ulysses S. Grant. In 1789, President Benjamin Harrison was the first to put candles on the executive mansion Christmas tree. (President Harrison was scared to death of electric lights.) In 1893, First Lady Frances Cleveland, who wasn’t afraid of electricity, installed the first electric lights on the presidential Christmas tree. In 1923, Calvin Coolidge lit the first “national” Christmas tree.
One might observe that although the celebration of Christmas was originally of British, Dutch and German origin, we Americans inevitably made it our own celebration. As the biggest producers, marketers and consumers on this planet, Americans have made Christmas -- whatever it has become -- ultimately the product of the purest democracy.
Insofar as this observer is aware, Christmas hasn’t been forced on anyone rich or poor, religious or nonreligious, capitalist or socialist. Still, people believe that Christmas has become over-commercialized.
Part of the reason for this has to do, I think, with our belief that our religious and spiritual values should always be supreme over our material values. Then there’s the belief that our religious or spiritual values are vulnerable to our greed for material items such as good clothes, cars, computers, food and, of course, drink.
Another factor is perhaps the belief that the majority of the Christmas presents given in the Nineteenth century were made by hand. In comparison with the gifts we give today, they represented a higher degree of personal awareness, sharing and appreciation. Homemade gifts such as scarves, socks, sweaters, handmade jewelry, and ceramic ware have a special value because their design and construction represent personal knowledge of the recipient on the part of the giver. On the other hand, the scarves, socks, sweaters and manufactured jewelry which are purchased -- beautiful, comfortable and valuable as they may be -- often take second place to the personally designed gift.
Finally, there does exist the ugly head of peer pressure—-the expectation that at Christmastime we must participate in gift giving. Hence, we often put pressure on ourselves to give. To the degree that we feel compelled -- rather than free -- to give, Christmas becomes a personal tyranny. The belief that some entity outside our comfort or control has a hold on us enables us to believe that we are the victims rather than the masters of Christmas. Since the goal of commerce is profit making, over-commercialization is a powerful charge against the way we in America celebrate Christmas.
At the bottom of it all, however, lies the real problem: you and me! Anxious as we all are to demonstrate our love and to receive love from others, we worry about our adequacy and look for scapegoats when we feel inadequate.
So, the question is: What do we do about the over-commercialization of Christmas? The solution is simple: ignore it! It doesn’t exist! Love others as intensely and as genuinely as you can the year ‘round and what you can do at Christmas will adequately reflect the best of who you are!
You’ve got 51 weeks to get over your concern about the over-commercialization of Christmas.
READY! GET SET! GO!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
I hear the complaint every year and I suspect that you do, too. It’s about the “over-commercialization” of Christmas. I occasionally hear complaints about the over-commercialization of Mother’s Day and Valentine’s Day, but the over-commercialization of Christmas is a complaint that has become downright chronic.
Over-commercialization of a holiday means that its celebration is more about commerce than it is about the sincerity of love and the act of giving. I understand that -- but what’s behind that complaint, I wonder!
Going back to childhood, I was taught that we celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ and that we exchange gifts as we would if we could have given gifts to Baby Jesus. I was also instructed that such gift giving was meaningful as long as I kept in mind that Jesus was the center of the love behind it. Yet every year, I hear people who have received that same Christian message complaining about Christmas’ over- commercialization.
Due to its British origin, Christmas wasn’t widely celebrated in America immediately after the Revolutionary War. However, in 1822, Clement Moore’s “A Visit from St. Nicholas” began the popularization of Santa Claus in America. In the 1840’s, Americans became sympathetic with the Christmas plight of Charles Dickens’ Cratchit family. Yet, it wasn’t until the 1850’s that merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Cincinnati (cities with German and other ethnic populations) really began celebrating Christmas.
Although Christmas was celebrated at the White House in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson
and, in later years, by Andrew Jackson, Christmas apparently didn’t catch on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until the Christmas season of 1856. That’s when President Franklin (Handsome Frank) Pierce set up the first executive mansion Christmas tree. It was the last presidential Christmas for Franklin and Jane Pierce and the Christmas tree was something of a gift for President Pierce’s Sunday school class.
Ultimately, Christmas was endorsed by America’s first families. In 1870, Christmas became a federal holiday under Ulysses S. Grant. In 1789, President Benjamin Harrison was the first to put candles on the executive mansion Christmas tree. (President Harrison was scared to death of electric lights.) In 1893, First Lady Frances Cleveland, who wasn’t afraid of electricity, installed the first electric lights on the presidential Christmas tree. In 1923, Calvin Coolidge lit the first “national” Christmas tree.
One might observe that although the celebration of Christmas was originally of British, Dutch and German origin, we Americans inevitably made it our own celebration. As the biggest producers, marketers and consumers on this planet, Americans have made Christmas -- whatever it has become -- ultimately the product of the purest democracy.
Insofar as this observer is aware, Christmas hasn’t been forced on anyone rich or poor, religious or nonreligious, capitalist or socialist. Still, people believe that Christmas has become over-commercialized.
Part of the reason for this has to do, I think, with our belief that our religious and spiritual values should always be supreme over our material values. Then there’s the belief that our religious or spiritual values are vulnerable to our greed for material items such as good clothes, cars, computers, food and, of course, drink.
Another factor is perhaps the belief that the majority of the Christmas presents given in the Nineteenth century were made by hand. In comparison with the gifts we give today, they represented a higher degree of personal awareness, sharing and appreciation. Homemade gifts such as scarves, socks, sweaters, handmade jewelry, and ceramic ware have a special value because their design and construction represent personal knowledge of the recipient on the part of the giver. On the other hand, the scarves, socks, sweaters and manufactured jewelry which are purchased -- beautiful, comfortable and valuable as they may be -- often take second place to the personally designed gift.
Finally, there does exist the ugly head of peer pressure—-the expectation that at Christmastime we must participate in gift giving. Hence, we often put pressure on ourselves to give. To the degree that we feel compelled -- rather than free -- to give, Christmas becomes a personal tyranny. The belief that some entity outside our comfort or control has a hold on us enables us to believe that we are the victims rather than the masters of Christmas. Since the goal of commerce is profit making, over-commercialization is a powerful charge against the way we in America celebrate Christmas.
At the bottom of it all, however, lies the real problem: you and me! Anxious as we all are to demonstrate our love and to receive love from others, we worry about our adequacy and look for scapegoats when we feel inadequate.
So, the question is: What do we do about the over-commercialization of Christmas? The solution is simple: ignore it! It doesn’t exist! Love others as intensely and as genuinely as you can the year ‘round and what you can do at Christmas will adequately reflect the best of who you are!
You’ve got 51 weeks to get over your concern about the over-commercialization of Christmas.
READY! GET SET! GO!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)