THE OUTRAGED ELEPHANT!

By Edwin Cooney

As Republicans gather in hurricane-ravaged Tampa, Florida this week, they face a long-term serious dilemma.  They risk enraging their party symbol the Elephant.  It may not be entirely accurate, but I’ve been told that a pissed pachyderm can be nearly as destructive as any hurricane!

It’s an historical fact that the Elephant has been the symbol of the Republican Party since the presidential campaign of 1876, our national centennial.  That year, cartoonist Thomas Nast drew him as the Grand Old Party’s mascot to counter the Democratic symbol the Donkey. There’s something, after all, quite American about a hard working (although stubborn) jackass, but my understanding is that the elephant’s roots are more permanently implanted in Africa and Asia!  Be that as it may, after the 2006 Congressional Election, I interviewed Abe, the GOP Elephant, and Jack, the democratic Donkey, for this column. Having met them personally, I know they’re real.

Here’s the dilemma: the party is absolutely sure of only one thing and that is that it’s their patriotic duty to rid America of that “audacious, radical, left wing, terrorist foreigner” who’s determined not only to tax your last dime, but also to give the oil-richest part of the Alaskan archipelago back to the Russians secretly and free of charge.  Even worse, or just as bad, he’s arranged it so that in just a short time your disabled grandmother will be forced to commit suicide in order to keep down the costs of Obamacare -- which many conservatives regard as unconstitutional regardless of what Chief Justice John Roberts says!

Meanwhile, if Hurricane Isaac lets them, they’ll nominate two respectable men, Willard (Mitt) Romney of Massachusetts, who was born and raised in Michigan (the son of George Romney, a former governor of that state) and Paul Ryan, the young Wisconsin economic ideological “wunderkind.”  It’s possible, of course, that the party, loaded with money, its own right-wing media, and its very own brand of intense anger, will unseat “that uppity Obama.” However, even if the Republican Party does unseat Obama, there are signs that it is likely to consume its new president once it has him in place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The first sign is the high regard most of its angriest ideologues have for its possible vice president, Paul Ryan.  Distrusting, as many of them do, the politically wily Governor Romney, they are excited about his running mate because they are convinced that Vice President Ryan would see to it that President Romney would live up to their socio/economic agenda.

Since there’s no historical precedent for vice presidential dominance over any president, a President Romney is likely to believe that it is his prerogative, rather than Vice President Ryan’s, to set the tone and agenda for his own administration.

The second sign lies in the GOP of my youth, the early 1950s.  When Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in 1953, the Republicans not only regained the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover defeated Al Smith (the cigar chomping, wet Catholic Democrat) back in 1928, but they also had majorities in both houses of Congress.  The party had been in the minority for so long -- in opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Harry Truman’s Fair Deal and conduct of the Korean War -- that it wasn’t used to cooperating with a president.  So, in a number of ways, the GOP didn’t.  They nearly rejected Ike’s nomination of Charles (Chip) Bohlen as Ambassador to France because he’d once worked for and had been close to the hated FDR.  Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin began his Communist witch hunt against Ike’s beloved army and Senator John Bricker of Ohio -- who had been Thomas E. Dewey’s vice presidential running mate in 1944 -- sought to restrict Ike’s capacity to negotiate treaties with other nations with his proposed Bricker Amendment.  Ike, being Ike, was able (with Lyndon B. Johnson's help) to kill the Bricker amendment in the United States Senate by one vote.

However considerable Mitt Romney’s administrative assets are, he doesn’t even come close to Ike in experience or influence either in or out of the GOP. However, he would have the upper hand of policy setting in the executive branch of the government, as he by tradition and constitutionally should, once “Barack the Bad” is gone.

Hence, there comes into play their enraged Elephant.  There’s little doubt that Abe sympathizes with his party’s frustration with President Obama and will cheer on a possible Romney victory come November.  However, and this is important, elephants are vegetarians rather than carnivorous—-they never, never, never eat their young nor do they eat their leaders.  The very thought absolutely infuriates them.  If GOP conservatives, in their angry dogmatism, declare Mitt Romney “a one term president” as they did President Obama, Abe will reduce the flimsy GOP political shelter to shambles.

You can be sure of one other thing.  Abe, who never forgets his pledge of loyalty to his leader, is not happy about the possibility of being replaced as the GOP symbol by a lousy tea bag!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

   

AH, “LITTLE BEN,” HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER POLITICIAN

By Edwin Cooney

His full name was Benjamin Harrison, but the men who served under him in the 70^th Regiment of the Indiana volunteers during the Civil War called him “Little Ben.”  After all, he stood only five feet six inches tall.  He had blonde hair, blue eyes, and wore a full beard by the time he was elected our twenty-third president in 1888.

Benjamin Harrison comes to mind this day, not so much because today, August 20^th, 2012, marks the 179^th anniversary of his 1833 birth, but because he became president during the brightest era of the Republican Party.  In the seventy-two years that passed between Abraham Lincoln's Inauguration in 1861 and Franklin Roosevelt's Inauguration in 1933, we had only two Democratic Presidents: Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.  Cleveland served between 1885 and 1889 and again from 1893 to 1897.  The man who defeated Grover Cleveland in his bid for re-election in 1888 was in turn defeated by Cleveland in 1892. That man was our "Little Ben.”

A few years back an opinion piece was circulated by a writer urging you and me to be outraged at the amount of money “politicians” were asking the taxpayers to pay for the reconstruction of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in late August of 2005.  The proposed cost to the American taxpayer was 250 billion dollars.

To dramatize opposition to the New Orleans restoration price tag, this commentator invited you and me to grasp the meaning of a billion dollars.  This beleaguered author went on to assert that a billion seconds ago it was 1959, a billion minutes ago Christ walked the earth and a billion hours ago humanity still lived in caves.

Next, the author got to the root of the matter. As you might guess, the matter was taxes. A score or more of taxes were listed that didn’t exist a mere hundred years ago but that today make life so miserable -- especially for those who can afford to pay them.  (That last bit was my own commentary!)

The root of all this grief, this able writer insisted, was the advent of the Politician.  What this author doesn’t point out is that a cash economy is fairly new in the history of human kind.  A billion is a thousand million and, as I see it, is easily comprehendible.  Of course, Republicans traditionally wax eloquent in their opposition to government spending, but I’ve never heard a Republican (or anyone else for that matter) complaining about the private accumulation of millions or even billions of dollars -- especially when they are in tax-exempt foreign bank accounts!

I can only guess that this person in 2012 is a devout Tea Party member.  What’s ironic is the connection between the billion dollar figure and ideological conservatives of today, most of whom reside in the Republican Party. The first Congress to spend a billion dollars was the Fifty-first Congress -- which legislated between 1889 and 1891 -- and the first President to sign those billion dollar congressional appropriations was our twenty-third president Benjamin Harrison who led us between 1889 and 1893.

President Harrison (who in many ways was very conservative) had a pet project, disability benefits for Union Civil War veterans and their families.  After all, he’d survived the Battles of Nashville, Kennesaw Mountain, and Peachtree Creek. He was there when Sherman took Atlanta on Thursday, September 1^st, 1864.  He had heard grown men scream in sudden pain, moan in lingering agony and die crying for mama.  To say the Treasury didn’t matter to “Little Ben” would be silly. Some things mattered more than money, however, even to a man like Benjamin Harrison who defended the rights and dignity of the rich. So, Ben was the “politician” who approved America’s first billion dollar budget,

So, what of politicians?  Do we need them?  Of course we do!  Could there be representative government without politicians?  I defy anyone to tell me that there can be freedom without politicians!  If you can construct a free society free of politics and politicians, I want to hear from you as soon as you have the time to write me.

As things turned out for Benjamin Harrison, it was all downhill after the midterm elections of 1890.  Although they retained the Senate, the Republicans lost the House of Representatives to the Democrats that year.  In 1892, Grover Cleveland came back to defeat “little Ben” for reelection.

Ben Harrison was a man of stark contrasts.  He was a brilliant lawyer and a dynamic public speaker.  However, he found it difficult to relate to individuals he didn’t know.  It was said of him:  as hot and muggy as summers are in D.C., if you’re going to the President’s mansion in August to shake hands with President Harrison, wear an overcoat. You’ll need it!

On Inauguration Day 1893, Harrison was sorry to turn the government over to Grover Cleveland, but his personal grief was due to the loss of his beloved wife Caroline ("Carrie”) who had died the previous October 25^th of a sudden bout of tuberculosis exactly two weeks before election day.  When he remarried in April 1896, he earned the permanent estrangement of his son Russell and his daughter Mary.  His new bride, Mary (Lord) Dimmick, was his first wife Carrie’s niece and the exact age of his 38 year-old daughter.

Ben Harrison came from a rich political heritage. His paternal great grandfather, Benjamin Harrison, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.  His grandfather, William Henry Harrison, was the first member of the Whig party to be elected president.  Grandfather William was president for only thirty-one days, March 4^th to April 4^th 1841, before becoming the first president to die in office.  Ben’s father, John Scott Harrison, was an anti-slavery Whig member of Congress from Ohio between 1853 and 1857.  Father John gave up politics because he hated back room deals.  I can’t help but wonder if “Little Ben” would have been a better president if he’d been a better politician!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AH TRIVIA, THAT HARMLESS JOY, OUR INTELLECTUAL TOY!!!

By Edwin Cooney

A few days ago, one of you sent me a column that’s distributed once a year.  Its author calls it “Did You Know?”  It’s a delightful list of trivia items that stimulates one’s curiosity and tickles one’s intellect causing the reader to scratch his or her head and say, “oh, wow, how fascinating!!!”  However, this year’s version had a disconcerting flaw in it.  Before I get to the flaw, here are a few items that, as far as I can tell, are both true and fascinating.

“Your tongue is the only muscle in your body that is attached only at one end.”

“Astronauts can’t belch. There’s no gravity to separate liquid from gas in their stomachs.”

“In order to make a half a kilo of honey, bees must collect nectar from over two million individual flowers.”

“Albert Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952, but he declined.”

"Tourists visiting Iceland should know that tipping at restaurants is considered an insult.”

Now to the flaw.  It’s a flaw that only a numerologist or someone like me (who probably has too much time on his hands) could have possibly caught -- but I did indeed catch it.  Here’s the flaw:

 “December 2012 has five Fridays, five Saturdays and five Sundays.  This apparently happens once every 823 years!”  The key words in that last sentence are “…this apparently happens.”

Had the author checked a 2012 calendar or one of those perpetual calendars, he or she would have discovered several things:

First, December 2012 will not have five Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.  However, as was the case in 1984, it will have five Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. (Like 2012, the year 1984 was a leap year.) December had five Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays in 1990, 2001, 2007 and (of course) this year.  This pattern will continue to 2040 for the years 2018, 2029, 2035 and 2040.

Second, December did have five Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays in 1989, 1995, 2000, 2006 and will again in 2017, 2023, and 2028.

So, what does it all mean?  After all, it's mere trivia and I’m sure the author didn’t mean to mislead you and me!  This annual column is offered primarily as enlightening entertainment.  Its value lies in what the reader ultimately chooses to do with the information it provides. Hence, absolute integrity is less important than the sheer knowledge the column imparts.

Of course, historical writing, unlike technical or scientific writing, can’t be entirely factual, because much history, even documented history, is often subject to the originating source’s interpretation of the significance of people and events.

Thus, historical writing, which is much of what I offer in these weekly musings, isn’t as exacting as instructional, technical or scientific writing.

Ultimately, the question has to be asked: “Does the above mentioned error render future “Did You Know” articles useless or meaningless?

Certainly not! However, it does provide the reader with a reasonable opportunity for healthy skepticism.

On the other hand, we can occasionally be too rigid when it comes to integrity -- especially when an author’s beliefs and opinions, appearing to counter what we value, cause us to feel discomfort.  If you’re a "person of faith,” the views of an agnostic or atheist can cause you considerable discomfort and even resentment.  Our personal beliefs, to some extent, are inevitably linked to our sense of integrity which is very personal indeed!

Generally, though, most of what we hear and read doesn’t conflict with our sense of integrity or sense of self.  Hence, we may allow authors who write such articles as “Cooney’s Corner” or “Did You Know,” to err.  “To err is human,” as they say.  Here’s an historical fact for you “political junkies" that goes nicely with the observation I just made.   Republicans in the late 1940s and 1950s used to assert, “To err is Truman!”   Cute, isn’t it? …unless you were Harry, Bess or Margaret Truman!

What it all boils down to for this observer is the following:

A reader must be curious but alert, cautious but open, skeptical but not cynical.  So, read, take it all in, and allow what you read to merge with what you currently believe, know and think.  Before you make what you’ve just read a part of who you are--or who you may become--check it out with those you love and who love you the best and all should be well!

Oh, one more thing.  Every 31 day month has five sets of three consecutive dates and will continue to do so until we change our calendar.  Stay tuned and alert -- it may happen sooner than you think!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

THE BECKONING GATEWAY

By Edwin Cooney

From where do you gather your ideas about America’s cultural, political, and social past?  Is your information solid or sketchy?  How does your knowledge of our past and your assessment of the present affect your outlook on our future?  Where, do you suppose, the gateway exists to our brightest possible future?

If you were born in the United States between 1920 and 1960 to a poor or middle class family, there’s a better than even likelihood that you registered to vote as a Democrat on your  18^th or 21^st birthday.  On the other hand, if you were born during the same time period to an upper middle class or wealthy family, it’s just as likely that you registered as a Republican upon reaching voting age.

Since the 1960s and '70s, a time during which Walter Cronkite (CBS News), Chet Huntley and David Brinkley (NBC News) and Howard K. Smith (ABC News) brought the uncertainties and horrors of war, campus conflict, poverty, and political corruption into our living rooms through television, there has been a sea change in the relationship between the American people and their government.

The time that passed between Saturday, March 4, 1933 (when FDR became President) and Monday, January 20, 1969 (when Richard Nixon took the presidential oath) constituted the era of progressive government.  During those thirty-six years, Americans were largely fed, sheltered, educated, and increasingly employed as well as shielded from financial ruin and communicable diseases through the auspices of government at all levels.

If you were born in America between 1960 and 2000, it is likely that divisive wars, corrupt and incompetent political leadership, nettlesome government regulations, and, perhaps above all, the conflict between traditional religious institutions and an increasingly potent human secularism has increased your skepticism as to the wisdom or even the patriotism of your own government.  Hence the core issue as we enter the 2012 presidential campaign lies in the following question:  is passive or progressive government the beckoning gateway to liberty or tyranny?

Speaking to a group of his fellow Republicans in 1962, Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater put it this way: "Limited government, two short words…contain the basic philosophy of the Republican Party and the precepts on which this nation as grown great.  Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief instrument for thwarting man’s liberty.  Government constitutes power in the hands of some men to control and regulate the lives of other men…”

In the 1930s, FDR put it another way, “….the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government."

Next comes a vital question: who is the government?  FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ always insisted that government was made up of the people.  Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater insisted that special kinds of human beings called “bureaucrats” or "elitists" were the pillars of “liberal” government.  At the 1948 Democratic national convention that nominated Harry Truman for a full presidential term, Senator Alben Barkley of Kentucky -- a great orator and storyteller -- responded to the GOP proposition that the government was being run by “bureaucrats” this way:

“What is a bureaucrat?” Barkley asked and then answered his own question, “a bureaucrat is a Democrat who holds an office that some Republican wants!”

Alben Barkley was rewarded for his “keynote speech” eloquence by being nominated and elected Vice President of the United States between 1949 and 1953 under President Truman.

Conservatives, although they assert that government is inefficient, also insist that government is too powerful and that we should fear it as they do. 

Liberals, on the other hand, insist that as long as government stays out of the bedroom, government is a necessary counterbalance to powerful and uncoordinated private interests. These interests, they assert, have historically thrown our economy into a tailspin and run roughshod over the rights and safety of the individual since they are focused on their bottom line: profit.

Of course, the days of Roosevelt, Goldwater, Nixon, JFK and LBJ are past.  The Reagan and Clinton eras are also gone.  Now, it’s Obama vs. Romney and not all are satisfied that there’s much of a difference.

Still, there remains the question: is passive or progressive government the best avenue to a peaceful and prosperous future?  I vote for progressive government controlled by the sovereignty of a free and determined people.  Government, run by the prosperous for primarily the peace and prosperity of the prosperous, is inevitably too exclusive to safeguard the least among us.  Moderately progressive government that invests in all the people and is accountable to everyone is by definition "inclusive government." 

The choice you make between the two types of government is your business, but the success of free government is everybody’s responsibility.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY