TRUTH AND THE AMERICAN WAY

By Edwin Cooney

Last Monday, Mother Jones Magazine released an iPhone video camera recording of Mitt Romney asserting to a room full of Conservatives who had spent $50,000 for a plate of food at a Florida GOP fundraiser what he really thought of and expected from almost half of the American people.  Since the release of that video, Mr. Romney’'s political prospects seem to be taking something of a beating.  GOP congressional and other candidates appear to have been running for cover ever since.  The cause of this GOP flight is obviously the unpopularity of Mr. Romney’s truth-telling.

Long before George Washington’'s fabled but apocryphal assertion to his father during his childhood “cherry tree caper” that "“I can not tell a lie",” Americans were weaned on the importance of “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” whether in church, court or on the political stump.

The importance of “truth”-telling is written, as it should be, into every God-given religious code or doctrine.  Here'’s an example: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free (”—John 8:32).

Exactly how the truth will set one free and who will be freed, the truth-teller or the recipient of the truth, is always up for grabs. Therein obviously is the rub.  If it was clear that the truth-teller is set free from worry or punishment, lying, perhaps especially in politics, would be a relic of the past.  However, if the recipient of the truth is the only one set free, well, that'’s quite another matter, isn'’t it!

Truth in politics, especially in an election year, has almost always been suspect.  Sometimes it’'s suspect due to its absence.  However, sometimes its very presence scares the liver out of those who most insist upon it—: the American voter.  We don'’t have to go back very far at all in presidential politics to see exactly what havoc “the truth” can do to a presidential candidate’'s prospects.

In late August of 1976, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter had a commanding lead over incumbent President Jerry Ford.  It was nearly 30 points.  Then, as many political pundits saw it, Carter made a serious gaff.  Carter told the annual meeting of the American Legion that if elected president he’'d grant amnesty to draft dodgers and deserters in order to cleanse the nation of the long festering wounds of the Vietnam War.  Suddenly, President Ford’'s popularity, even with the burden of the Nixon pardon, began to rise.  About a month later, jimmy Carter revealed to a Playboy interviewer the presence of lust in his heart when, occasionally, his baby blues gazed upon an attractive woman.  Almost immediately, President Ford’'s popularity headed toward the stratosphere on the wings of Carter’s second “truth-telling.”  A few million Americans who’ had been taken with the rather shy but charismatic little Georgian were suddenly freed from their enchantment with Carter to dream of the inevitable rise of Ronald Reagan.

Eight years later, Walter Frederick (Fritz) Mondale stood at the podium of the Democratic National Convention, which was being held in San Francisco, to accept the party'’s presidential nomination.  That night, Mondale told the American people that he'’d undoubtedly raise taxes if he were elected, and he went on to assert that, although he wouldn'’t admit it, the other fellow would, too.  Mondale was right of course about what the other fellow would do as he never got the chance to raise our taxes.  In 1986, President Reagan’s tax reform act raised corporate and capitol gains taxes to the highest level in our history because Walter Mondale'’s “truth” had set President Reagan free to do exactly that.

Hence we come to 2012 and the revelation last week that Governor Mitt Romney had sought, back in May, Conservative support by appealing to some of their rawest preconceptions and prejudices.  Since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans,  have regaled themselves with stories of the outrageous activities and attitudes of “welfare queens,” ungrateful and ideologically suspect immigrants, the slothful irresponsible poor and the comparative immorality and unAmericanism of those who insist on civil rights for the poor, blacks, gays, lesbians and women.  Most, if not all, Conservatives believe down where they live that they have a monopoly on initiative, personal responsibility and a yearning to be free of government handouts.  Thus, Governor Romney in his appeal for their financial support told a roomful of rich GOP donors his “inelegant” “truth” that nearly half of all Americans live happily and irresponsibly off the government.

In the wake of the political firestorm caused by the Governor’'s remarks there exists another “truth.: the possibility that this long-held Conservative “truth” could signal the death knell of Mr. Romney'’s hopes for victory.  Even worse for the GOP is the possibility that the fortunes of Conservative candidates all over the country could be at risk.  Hungry and vengeful Democrats have been rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect that Romney’'s “truth”-telling may push 5 to 7 percent of undecided Americans into President Obama’'s camp.

Personally, I welcome the Governor'’s truth, not because I believe it, but because it’'s what he and many of his supporters deeply believe. “The truth will out” is one of the most encouraging “truths” ever told.  Uncomfortable as “truth” can be, truth is the God-given cornerstone of trust.

Trust is, after all, the “mother'’s milk” of God'’s greatest gift - love - whether for our Creator, our world, our country or for ourselves.  Not even the most scheming politician or cynical voter can long thrive in the absence of love!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OUR BELIEFS -- ARE THEY MADE UP OF WHAT WE FEAR OR WHAT WE HOPE?

By Edwin Cooney

A few weeks ago, Gary, a very thoughtful and insightful reader of these musings, responded to a recent column I called “The Beckoning Gateway".  In that column, I compared and contrasted, as best I could, the political beliefs held by the types of voters who are likely to support the two major party presidential candidates this fall.

In his response to the column, Gary, who is both a writer and an editor, made three gripping observations:

Wonderful as it is, there is such a wealth of information out there on the internet that there exists the danger that opinion too often is raised to the level of fact;

people are increasingly more interested in what they believe than in what the unvarnished facts can teach them; and, finally,

there is that vital question of whether we are ultimately driven by what we fear or by what we hope.

As I see it, there are three main sources that direct our lives.

First, there is the degree to which we’re directed or not directed by our faith or lack thereof in God or in a sense of spirituality.  Second, there exists the physical and social sciences through which we gather, analyze, and evaluate knowledge.  Third, there is the matter of how human experiences ultimately affect us.

So the question is twofold.  What kind of knowledge do we feed into our belief system?  Are our beliefs driven by what we fear or by what we hope?  For most of us the answer to that question is probably a combination of both.  However, my guess is that since knowledge is seemingly so endless, it is what we believe that ultimately governs who we are and what we do.

The late news commentator Paul Harvey used to assert that what we believe in governs our character.

“I believe in my God, in my country and in myself and in that order,” Mr. Harvey once said.

I was 18 years old when I had the opportunity to meet him and hear him say that in person and it sounded pretty good to me.  Back then I was desperately in search of a sense of belonging and that man’s focus and certainty inspired a badly needed sense of identity and confidence on my part.

Over the years, however, a lifetime of observations and experiences have taught me that Mr. Harvey’s observation, although eloquently expressed, was a little parochial if not dogmatic.

As I grow older, my search for identity with God is more personal than institutional.  Scripture tells us that God created humanity and the whole world.  Human beings, however, created the nations of the world as they understood God’s will and how God’s will could best serve them.  Thus, as I see it, we in America could better serve God’s will and thus better serve ourselves to the degree that we come to the realization that what we offer others is equally important as what we do for ourselves.

Speaking strictly for myself then, I am mostly a believer.  What I learn through information gathering and analysis I try and feed into my personhood. 

As I’ve often stated in these weekly writings, as much as I can, I avoid fear.  Fear is the father of self-destructive anger.  That’s the real power in FDR’s assertion in his 1933 Inaugural that:

“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself—-nameless, unreasoning unjustified terror that paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Sense of fear may be necessary to protect myself and those I love, but I can’t grow when I’m afraid. 

Back then to Gary’s third question: are you driven more by what you fear or what you hope?  As you can guess, I vote for hope!  (Remember Jesse Jackson’s “Keep Hope Alive?” slogan?)  Some of you may protest that knowledge is more tangible than either fear or hope, but I contend that whether one is fearful or hopeful directly affects one’s search for knowledge.  If one only gives credit to the kind of knowledge that can be measured, then I believe that person at some basic level is very, very lonely.

What I hope for most in life is beyond measure.  Yet both the rich and the poor, the educated as well as the uneducated seek it.  It doesn’t weigh anything; it doesn’t have a taste or smell.  It gives off no sound sense of vibration or movement.  Kings and queens, politicians, sports and entertainment stars crave it as much as money.  It can be neither bought nor sold.  No human being on earth can thrive without it.  It cannot feed the body but its absence starves the soul.  We know it as love.

One more thing: I can’t prove it to you, but you can prove it to yourself if you choose -- love is a gift from you-know-who!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

VERY RARE!

By Edwin Cooney

No, I’m not writing about that delicious piece of steak you may soon slide from the grill onto your dinner plate right next to the buttered, salted and sour creamed baked potato.  I’m writing of that opportunity that only two men in this nation of over 300 million Americans (including roughly 150 million males) now have of being elected President of the United States of America.

Willard (Mitt) Romney and Barack Hussein Obama, both of whom possess some of humankind’s assets (pride, generosity, and awareness) and humanity’s liabilities (dogmatism, vanity and insensitivity) are on the brink of becoming the single most powerful human being at the head of humanity’s most powerful nation.

Although both men are considerably above average in intelligence, good fortune (any way you want to define fortune), energy, and ambition, it is likely that any two of us possesses a greater degree of all of the above than either man.

Thus we come to the root of the matter: we “the people” will decide which man it will be.  There are, of course, a bevy of political and social scientists as well as Phi Beta Kappa and hillbilly cynics who insist that some evil corporation or international force invariably manipulates us to elect a bought and paid for candidate. Nevertheless, until they come up with one hundred percent airtight documentation of such an assertion, don’t you believe it!

Since the sun rose over the east coast of the Continental United States that bright Monday morning of January 1^st, 1900, we’ve only elected nineteen Americans to the presidency.  They’ve ranged in age from forty-three years seven months and twenty-two days  (John Kennedy in 1961) to sixty-nine years eleven months and fourteen days (Ronald Reagan in 1981 upon inauguration day).  (Note that Theodore Roosevelt was only 42 years 10 months and 18 days when he took office, but he succeeded to the presidency on the assassination of William McKinley and thus wasn’t elected to the presidency.)

As for education, all but Harry Truman had attended college.  All had been married with Ronald Reagan being the only divorced president.  (Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Warren Harding, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton all had extra marital affairs which means that the other thirteen presidents were faithful husbands.)  Eight of the nineteen men we’ve elected had no military service: William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  All but William McKinley were fathers of living children. All but John Kennedy were of Protestant faiths.  Only one, Theodore Roosevelt, was born in New York City.  All except Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Kennedy and Obama were raised in rural America.  Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, who were fifth cousins (they shared a great, great, great, great grandfather), probably were raised possessing the greatest financial and social advantages.  Barack Obama was clearly raised with the smallest number of advantages.

The question therefore is which of the two combinations of personality, background and experience will we conclude is most likely to achieve the greatest degree of security, prosperity and sense of well-being for America until we elect another president in 2016.  Governor Romney comes from a background of devoutly religious principles and high expectations of ethical and practical achievement.  Professionally, his bottom line continues to be monetary profit.  President Obama’s religious and political principles, in part, come from black America’s struggle for respectability as well as achievement.  The value of public service rather than business acumen constitutes the president’s credentials especially after four years of experience in the White House.

For the next fifty-six days the backgrounds, achievements and personal integrity of both men will be under continuing attack.  It’s possible that, well before Election Day, large portions of the population will be convinced that one of these two men ought to be in prison -- not the White House.  This sad and degrading likelihood is only slightly mollified when one realizes that every president going back to George Washington has been so characterized.  George Washington may have been the man largely responsible for our independence from Great Britain, but he was also the first and only president to send federal troops into a region of the country to collect a federal tax (the infamous Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794).

Those who believe that government is ultimately a business and ought to be run like one are likely to vote for Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan.  Those who believe that government is a legitimate tool of the people and ought to be run by and for them will probably vote to re-elect President Obama and Vice President Biden.

If however, once this campaign is over, you happen to realize that both Governor Romney and President Obama are men of high achievement, possess stellar personal qualities and are equal in their patriotism, then you possess a sentiment that is indeed VERY rare.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

JACK, THAT STUBBORN, DETERMINED DONKEY

By Edwin Cooney

The other day, I caught up with Jack, the Democratic Party’s donkey, as Democrats prepared for their 66^th quadrennial National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.  (The first year Jack was the party symbol, the Democrats re-nominated Andrew Jackson for president at their very first national convention. That convention was held in Baltimore, Maryland from Monday, May 21^st through Wednesday, May 23^rd, 1831.)  Jack was grazing in the pasture of a rich Republican North Carolina farmer.  There was a determined look on his graying grizzled features.

“What the hell are you doing here?” I asked.  “Aren’t there any Democratic farmers around here where you’d be more welcome?”

“Of course, there are,” Jack brayed, “but what fun would there be for me to graze on a Democratic farm?  Besides, I’ve got a distant relation living on this farm with the unfortunate name of Gingrich and I need to straighten him out so he can help all the other good Democratic donkeys before Election Day.” Jack went on, "We Democrats can win this fall if we’re all together, so that’s why I’m here.”

“The problem we face in 2012 is a part of our heritage.  Remember Will Rogers, the late, great cowboy comedian, once said,  'I’m a Democrat and I don’t belong to any organized political party.'  Well, things haven’t really changed since then.  We don’t walk in lockstep as our Republican cousins do, so naturally we have a lot of work to do between now and November 6^th to reelect our great president.”

“The major issue in this campaign is jobs, isn’t it?”  I asked.

“I wish it were, because then it would be fair to talk about those seven or eight million jobs lost during the last months of the Bush administration,” Jack sneered. "Naturally, Republicans don’t want to take any responsibility for those job losses.  They’d rather blame them all on Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and the 110^th Congress.  They don’t even appreciate the way our candidate (now president) cooperated with President Bush during the 2008 campaign to come up with a fix that could be taken to Congress to meet the emergency they caused.  Even worse, they want this president to get no credit whatsoever for the jobs that have been regained since he stopped the slide the Republicans started in the fall of 2008.  Therefore, the issue is Barack Obama as much as it is jobs.

Take 1948, for example, when the party split into three sections: the “Dixiecrats” under Governor Strom Thurman of South Carolina, the Progressives under former Vice President Henry Wallace of Iowa, and President Harry Truman, of course.  That year, everything was Truman’s fault, but Harry told the truth so well about what Republicans really stood for, that the people elected him.  That’s President Obama’s job this year.  Now, no one feels sorry for a man who thinks he’s smart enough to be president, so it’s up to him to make his case -- but much of the opposition to him is just plain crankiness.”

“Okay, but doesn’t he have to accept some of the blame for our current condition?” I asked.

“Sure he does and I tried to convince him to be more aggressive toward consensus- building in the first few months of his presidency. However, the reality is that the American people love to work us donkeys on their farms and glory in our struggles and our stubbornness, but few people will admit even to themselves that they’re listening to a Jackass -- not even when they're president!

“What did you want him to do that he didn’t do?” I queried.

“I suggested to him that he hold a seminar like the one Jerry Ford held on the economy in September 1974 shortly after he took office.  Ford publicly gathered together labor, management, economists, farmers, academicians and just plain folks to find a way to cooperate on the stalled economy.  Well, I thought that if a public meeting of the ideologies had been held around February or March 2009 in a place that would have forced them to expose their worries, concerns and ambitions to the public it would have compelled them to cooperate better than they ultimately did.  However, he didn’t do that and so the conservatives sniped at him from their well-heeled sanctuaries in Palm Beach, Palm Springs, Wall Street, and Congress.  Ever since, they have had the initiative along with my friend Abe (the GOP elephant) and they’ve never stopped attacking him.  Part of that is his fault.  He’s a superb campaigner, though, so he can make it all up in the next two months with my help and the help of working people all over the country.

“Ah,” I said, “but what accomplishments can he talk about?”

Jack reached into a bag he was carrying on his back and handed me a substantial booklet called “Obama’s Fifty Major Accomplishments.”

“Here,” he said, “take this with you and share them throughout the campaign with your few readers. I’m sure that, along with the candidate’s persuasive ability, they will do the trick.  Look, I’d stick around and chat with you a little longer, but that distant relation of mine—Gingrich—is as stubborn as a mule and needs my attention, especially since he’s been so busy watching the Republican Convention.  I’ll start him off with a good swift kick where the sun seldom shines and we’ll take it from there.”

With a bray and something a tad more odorous, Jack was suddenly gone -- becoming no more distinguishable than any of the other jackasses on that GOP farmer’s diggings!

I stuffed the list he’d given me into my pocket and beat it.  Perhaps I’ll share some of it with you in the next two months!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY