FOR OR AGAINST—DOES IT MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

“I voted against Obama in 2008 and will vote against him again in 2012.”  This emphatic statement sent me recently sums up the passion of millions of American voters.  The question I’m putting to you this week is: does this passion matter?  The answer to that question depends on what effect our political passions have on today’s trends in America’s capacity for liberty and tolerance.

At the close of his public service, George Washington warned us against the establishment of political parties which he insisted would distract the "public councils" (perhaps he meant Congress) and enfeeble the "public administration" (the presidency, the function of which he carefully nurtured).  President Washington further asserted that parties would agitate the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindling the animosities of one against the other thus opening the door to foreign influence and corruption and subjecting us to the policies and will of other nations.

It seems to me that Washington’s wisdom and foresight is borne out today by those who depend on prefabricated or canned Liberal and Conservative doctrines rather than on a dispassionate examination of history and current circumstances for the basis of their political decisions.

In the mid-1960s, when I was forming my first set of political “principles,” my Conservatism was constructed on my obsession to rid the land of Lyndon Baines Johnson and Hubert Horatio Humphrey.  Hubert, as I saw it, not only talked too much, too loudly and too squeakily, but was also permanently associated with the socialist if not communist “anti-American” labor movement.  Lyndon Baines Johnson, I convinced myself, was not only a hopelessly Liberal and power hungry politician but (I insisted) was the likely murderer of John F. Kennedy.  After all, I asked myself back then, wasn’t LBJ all-powerful in Texas? Wasn’t he likely very resentful and jealous of JFK about everything from his wealth to his office? Hadn’t the crime occurred in LBJ’s Texas fiefdom? Hadn’t LBJ directly benefited from JFK’s murder?  All of these circumstantial attitudes and situations convicted President Johnson in my mind if nowhere else.

Political hatred is far from new in politics.  Certainly the deeds of John Wilkes Booth (Abraham Lincoln), Charles J. Guiteau (James A. Garfield), Leon F. Czolgosz (William McKinley) and Lee Harvey Oswald (John F. Kennedy) attest to that.  However, in recent years, there has been a very special and virulent form of morality-driven vitriol that has been growing within us.

This modern form of political vitriol probably began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt as its target. Conservatives considered him the “root of all evil” and more.  That vitriol was surely strengthened by FDR’s willingness to not only note but even take glory in it.  In his famous acceptance speech in Philadelphia for the Democratic Party nomination for his second term, FDR labeled old guard Conservatives “economic royalists.”  In an address at Madison Square Garden on Saturday, October 31^st, 1936, he asserted "we know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

Whether FDR returned that hatred in full measure is unlikely because, after all, he was of the same social standing as most of his bitterest enemies.  Nevertheless, whether good naturedly or not, FDR certainly gave the institutionalization of political hatred a cheerful boost!

Since the Watergate era, the mid-1970s, ideological hatred has been made more potent by the intensification (or if you prefer, the "Nixonization") of personal hatred toward all political opponents, but especially against presidential candidates.  This intensity has grown geometrically, it seems, rather than mathematically.  This vitriol is far from healthy to our “body politic.”

If you’re a Carter critic, a Reagan ripper, a Bush basher, a Clinton castigator or an anti-Obama obsessionist, you are guilty of a serious political crime. 

The truth is that Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden and, yes, Barack Obama are people of deserved respectability and of substantial achievement.  Poisoning the wellspring of liberty which is our trust in the person the majority of voters send to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue may be as American as cherry pie, but it is more destructive than Benedict Arnold, the Rosenbergs and John Lindh could have ever hoped to be.

To be for something or someone is healthy because it’s affirmative.  To be against something or someone ought to merely be the unavoidable side of choice.  Today, however, too many of us glory in what we’re against.  The moral degradation of the political opposition as a legitimate political alternative is both mean and reckless because it asserts that differences of opinion are unpatriotic and immoral.  As I see it, that’s one of the sheer paths to tyranny!

Freedom isn’t about your way or my way, freedom is about the considered possible application of many ways!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A LETTER TO OUR LEADER

By Edwin Cooney

Dear President Obama,

Since you’re a politician running for re-election this year and I’m a voter whose opinions I’m told are as sacred if not as important as yours, I thought you might be interested in my reaction to your latest foreign policy venture.

Not that it’s been easy, but I’ve been with you from the beginning.  I voted for you twice in 2008: once during the primary when the then  “shrewish” Hillary Clinton was going around the country crying  “shame on you, Barack Obama!” and again in November when “Big Bad John” McCain and ”sidekick” Sara Palin were attempting to deny you and “jovial Joe” Biden the political victory you so richly deserved.  Since November 2008, Mrs. Clinton has been transformed into a worthy and respected Secretary of State,  Joe Biden has served as your invaluable assistant,  Senator McCain has become a mere critic and Ms. Palin has permanently gone moose- (or is it Russian-) hunting from her helicopter in Alaska. 

Since January 20^th, 2009, I’ve had your back whether seated in an armchair or atop a bar stool at my favorite watering hole.  I’ve battled those unrealistic Liberals who’ve criticized you for not getting behind single payer healthcare.  I’ve wrestled with those nasty Conservatives as they’ve labeled you a socialist, denied your Christianity and natural citizenship and called you a liar during your address to Congress in the summer of 2009.  (I can’t even begin to imagine the intensity of Conservative outrage had Barney Frank shouted at President Reagan in that way when he was addressing Congress!) However, I’m writing to you because, as much as I’m still with you, you make me nervous sometimes.

Last week, from Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan, you used the anniversary of your execution of Osama Bin Laden to announce a new phase in our relationship with Afghanistan.

The more I ponder your plan, Mr. President, the better I like it.  Its five components are simple and verifiable enough.  They are:

the steady and irreversible “Afghanization” of the struggle within Afghanistan against al-Qaeda;

the increase in and strengthening of the Afghanian security forces combating al-Qaeda;

our steady withdrawal from Afghanistan as we supply their security forces with the necessary equipment to combat counter-terrorism and strengthen democratic institutions within their borders;

a political settlement with the Taliban, the same organization President Reagan supported against the Soviets back in the 1980s, providing the Taliban permanently breaks with al-Qaeda;

and, finally, arranging with our NATO allies to provide ongoing military and economic support to an independent Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.

As I say, all of these things sound logical, doable, and even verifiable.  What nags at my Liberal or -- if you prefer -- Progressive conscience is the “reactionary” tone of too many of your recent statements on matters of foreign policy.

I confess that I’m quite comfortable with the absence of Osama Bin Laden and I’m equally comfortable with the jealousy voiced by Conservatives because you, rather than President George W. Bush, eliminated Osama Bin Laden.  (I know they’d appreciate it very much Mr. President if you didn’t mention your removal of the Bin Laden threat during the upcoming campaign!)

Having said all that, Mr. President, you make me less than comfortable every time you brag about your elimination of Bin Laden.  After all, don’t most Progressives (or Liberals, if you prefer) believe that we should regret killing of any kind, necessary as it may be, rather than celebrated?  Every time you gloat over your destruction of Osama Bin Laden, I long for the good old days when Lyndon B. Johnson slew his enemies “…with a heavy heart!”

Another thing you have a tendency to do lately, Mr. President, is to get too snuggly with the military.  According to our Conservative cousins, the rank and file of the military (patriotic as they are) are little more than contemptuous of you!  Hence, as you snuggle, they supposedly sneer.

Finally, like every president since Ronald Reagan, you close most of your speeches by asking God to bless America.  As long as you’re seeking God’s blessing, why not be happy with God’s blessings on all humankind!

Of course, I’m not and never will be President of the United States.  Thus I can only view the national and international political, socio/economic scene from the perspective of your lofty perch.  Still, I am a taxpayer and the Tea Party assures me that, as such, I’m the absolute guardian of all that’s wise and even that which may still be holy in America.

Yes, indeed, Mr. President, sometimes you make me nervous because I’m invariably forced, residing in this free society as I do, to come to grips with a reality that’s more scary than anything you have ever done. 

That reality is the likelihood that someone in this broad land of ours has a better sense than I do of what really matters

Oh! One more thing, Mr. President.  Is it true that Secretary of State Clinton calls you every morning at 3?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IN SEARCH OF "NICE!"

By Edwin Cooney

As I was listening to the Yankees/Royals broadcast the other night, I learned that Yankee relief pitcher Mariano Rivera had injured the anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee and consequently will be out for the season.  In addition to that, he is 42 years old so this injury might well have a detrimental effect on his career.  Not only that, Mariano’s fate is likely to have a negative effect on the fate of the 2012 New York Yankees.  Not only that, Mariano, in addition to being a splendid athlete, is a genuine role model for other players and for kids who may one day become professional baseball players.  Not only that, Mariano, a native of Panama, (remember, the country we stole land from -- fair and square -- on which we built “our” Panama canal!) is a God-fearing family man.  Above all that, he’s a hell-of-a-nice guy.  (Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter is possibly even a nicer guy!)

That’s what I need you to help me with!  What makes people nice?  Can the “nice” among us have a serious flaw or two?  For example, might someone who’s in prison convicted of a felony of which they’re really guilty still be a nice guy or gal?  How many “nice” people do you know?  What about them makes them nice?  Are they really nice or perhaps only nice to you?

There are elements of "nice" that are pretty obvious.  Someone who is thoughtful and generally pleasant toward others most of the time possesses a strong element of niceness.  Someone who shares or is in other ways generous to most people is someone who might deserve the label “nice”.  In case you think I’ve run out of legitimate wonderments about “nice,” here are a few questions you might help me think about (if you yourself are really “nice”):

What percentage of the time does one have to behave “nicely” in order to rate as being nice?

Can somebody really be a “nice” person without others realizing it? In other words, can someone be “nice” in a vacuum?

Is “niceness” a learned phenomenon or is it a part of one’s nature?

Has Great Britain had any “nice” kings or queens?

Are people of the clergy naturally or automatically “nice”?

Are there “nice” politicians?

Does our Internal Revenue Service employ any “nice” people?

Have we had any “nice” presidents?

Was Leo (the Lip) Durocher right when he asserted that “nice” guys finish last?

Finally--get ready for this one!—was Jesus “nice?”

I know a few people I’d call nice and I know a lot of people who I not only love but also admire who I wouldn’t even consider as candidates for the label “nice.”  Well, maybe they’re candidates, but only that!

I have a special friend I’ll call JJ here.  (Those are not all of her initials). She’s “nice,” in my opinion, because she’s constantly sunny in disposition as well as being thoughtful of others.  No matter what subject you’re discussing with her, she’ll compel you to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.  I emphatically deny that I consider her "nice" just because she makes delicious Christmas cookies -- which she indeed does!

I know a gentleman who was once my pastor who I consider a genuinely “nice” person who is a cut above most people in awareness and consideration of others.

As for my best friend, to me and to many, many others, she’s splendid in so many ways, but “nice?" -- I can’t really say for certain.  Perhaps I’m simply too sentimentally close to her to make a judgment.

As for my lads, they’ve both grown “nicer” with maturity.  However, like their old man, being labeled “nice” is a goal yet to be realized.

As for myself, I’m not even close to "nice". I do possess some “golden virtues,” but I’m too opinionated, self-centered, egotistical, and confrontational to be a “nice guy”.

There are those among us who (believe it or not) don’t much like “nice” people.  I think that’s because “nice” people are pretty exacting role models to follow.  It may well be that those who don’t much like the “nice” people in the world struggle with a less than positive self-image.

Ah! Perhaps I’ve just run into a vital element of niceness!  Perhaps a really “nice” person must have a really positive self image!  Hmmm!

The late great comedian George Carlin, during a comic routine, labeled “nice” as not only boring but “flabby” as a way of describing someone’s day or personality.  Yet to be described as a “nice” person is a little like being treated to a delicious dessert -- or like being kissed on the cheek by someone who’s lingering kisses might indeed be available in the near future.

From all I’ve read, I can name five “nice” presidents—-Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding and Jerry Ford.  (Damn! All Republicans!}  Hence, a president can legitimately be categorized as "great" without also being a “nice” guy.

To be “nice” hardly calls for perfection, but it requires aspects of behavior and character that are both magnificent and immeasurable.

Hmmm! I wonder what they are!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY