By Edwin Cooney
Unfortunately, the observation I write about this week isn’t
mine. I devoutly wish it were, but it
comes from that wonderful “tongue in cheek” columnist Andy Borowitz.
In a recent episode of the Borowitz Report, Andy has
Secretary of State John Kerry in Baghdad insisting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki establish a unity
government in Iraq in which all parties compromise for the common good. “Otherwise,” Kerry insists, “the American taxpayer
won’t be able to see any reason to continue supporting you.” Al-Maliki then politely asks if the United
States has ever tried such a unity government. Kerry, suddenly startled,
essentially tells the Iraqi Prime Minister that he should try it first and that
if it works, “we too perhaps will try it.”
Of course, unity in wartime is vital and no ally can be
expected to waste resources on patchwork governments as we did in Vietnam. Still,
the idea that an American diplomat can somehow insist on the unity of any government
given the political culture climate in 21st Century America would be
funny if it wasn’t so sad and, even worse, contrary to our own socio-political
history.
There was a placid time between 1819 and roughly 1824 called
the “Era of Good Feelings.” James Monroe was in the “first magistrate’s chair,”
and there was even enough unity between North and South to hammer out the Missouri
Compromise which set 36 degrees 30 minutes North Latitude as the line
separating potential slave and free states.
Later, between 1877 and 1901, there was little difference
between the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Still, neither period constituted genuine socio-political unity. After all, room for political and even social
contentiousness is a legitimate part of “republican” society and government! Even in the wake of the “era of good feelings,”
individual feelings were certainly frayed in 1825 when supporters of Andrew
Jackson convinced themselves that Old Hickory had been cheated of the
presidency by John Quincy Adams’s and Henry Clay’s “corrupt bargain” which made
Adams the president and Clay the Secretary of State. By the 1830s, the South began agitating over
its right to nullify the North’s high protective tariff and bemoaning the
increasing intensity of antislavery commentary and oratory in the North. Hence, there was little national unity
between 1832 and 1877 when the exhausted and impoverished South agreed to “go
along” to “get along” once the North ended post Civil War reconstruction.
While there were patches of political peace during the 1910s
and 1920s, the cultural/political caldron has simmered throughout most of the
last hundred years. In retrospect, only
the presidencies of Taft, Harding and Coolidge during the twentieth century appear
to have been havens of genuine American unity and tranquility!
How are 21st Century Americans different from
Syrians, Ukrainians, Iranians, and Iraqis – just to name a few -- who hate
their leaders? Do we really love our
elected leader more than they do the leader we arranged for them?
Unfortunately, 21st Century America is bedecked
with political and cultural contempt.
Not only do conservatives hate liberals and liberals hate conservatives,
we pay radio and television talk show hosts millions of dollars a year to spew
forth opinions on public issues for which they personally assume no
responsibility or accountability. For
them, opinion means little more than professional ratings and profit, yet we
lap up their talking points like pigs at the troth!
Let’s assume for a minute that America is in dire
trouble. Canada and Mexico have decided
to pool their resources and invade us.
After all, we’ve invaded them several times in our history. We invaded Montreal during the American Revolution
and burned Toronto (it was then called Troy) during the War of 1812. The British retaliated by burning the president’s
mansion and the Capitol in August 1814!
We took Mexican territory as our “manifest destiny” in the 1840s. Hence, we could certainly be open to a two-sided
attack, couldn’t we? If the situation
were reversed, wouldn’t we regard it as being long past payback time?
So, who would come to our rescue? How would it benefit them if
they did? Britain, we insist, isn’t really worthy of much respect after
squandering its empire and we express nothing but contempt for France and
Italy. The rest of Europe endorses ideas such as cradle to grave healthcare and
has done away with capital punishment and are thus the legitimate targets for
our contempt. So, why should they save
us?
The fact of the matter is that since we declared victory in
the cold war, we’ve been just full of our ideal selves and contemptuous of just
about everyone else on God’s not-so-green earth! We certainly show precious little love or
regard for our fellow Americans unless their religion, politics and personal
lifestyles mirror our own!
Even more to the point, if we were attacked by Canada and
Mexico or perhaps by Communist North Korea or Vietnam (either one or perhaps
both may think they owe us one) would we be sufficiently unified enough to be
worth saving?
I rather wonder about that -- what say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment