TRUTH AND THE AMERICAN BODY POLITIC

By Edwin Cooney

“Politicians just don’t tell the truth!”  That constituency complaint is much older than even the American experiment in free government.  Even more significant is the fact that much of the time lately politicians and opinion makers make it almost impossible for the voters to distinguish between principle and truth.  That circumstance obscures the three most significant and mind-numbing truths of our day.

First, a high percentage of twenty-first century American voters are more interested in the dramatics of politics than they are interested in or knowledgeable about the processes of good government.  Ask yourself how much you know about what it takes for Congress to pass a law compared to what you know about the assets and liabilities of our more prominent politicians?  Second, there’s more immediate profit in socio/political dramatics than there is in problem solving.  Third, most politicians and opinion makers obscure the difference between truth and morality.

A few days ago, I got a response to last week’s column from a very sweet friend of mine.  Here’s what she wrote:

 

“Hillary would not get my vote because of dishonesty and for fighting dirty!  What really makes me say something to that effect is the response she gave to President Obama. I believe that response was: “what difference does it make?”

If one does not tell the truth, it makes a lot of difference

Hopefully before election day, some of Hillary’s friends will point this out to her.”

You don’t have to concur with my friend’s observation in order to grasp the confusion between truth and morality that she and millions of Americans share.  This sweet intelligent lady is dedicated to both truth and morality.  They are her guiding stars.  Such being the case, she and most of her fellow citizens believe that those who are moral are always truthful.  Hence, truth and morality go hand in hand.

So, here’s a truth: Hillary Clinton “fights dirty.”  Here’s another truth: “Hillary Clinton is the object of dirty scheming politics and politicians as is her husband, the man many partisan but patriotic Americans call “Slick Willie.”  Here’s still another truth: much but by no means all of the opposition to President Barack Obama, especially from southern conservatives, is because he’s black.  Much of the president’s support from blacks and liberals is due to the same reason.

More broadly speaking, here are a few truths you won’t find emphasized in too many American history books. The reason we rebelled against Great Britain is that we didn’t want to pay for the seven years war that Great Britain fought, largely on our behalf, against the French and the Indians to ensure our safety as well as to ensure the value of land owned by rich southern plantation owners north and west of the Ohio River.

Here’s still another truth.  One of our grievances against King George III was that he forbade settlements more than 300 miles west of the sources of eastern rivers because they would likely cause too many conflicts with Native Americans.

Finally, one of the main reasons Texans fought Mexican rule during the 1830s was that the Catholic Church and the Mexican government sought to ban slavery in Texas.  In other words, the freedom of white men was precious, even a matter of morality.  The freedom of black men was worth nothing. (This historic truth makes Davy Crocket, Colonel Travis and Colonel Bowie lose their historic luster for me!) Almost from the beginning of our great republic, we’ve been less than truthful about our motives even as we have advanced (arguably) the best form of government on earth.

In order to promote and document public policies, politicians – be they named Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or Donald Trump --  all insist that truth (moral truth, that is) is the basis for every doctrine, policy, or purpose they advocate.  We require our political leaders to wrap their policies and principles from both the Bible and the American Constitution. 

Most uncomfortable of all is the fact that both truth and morality are largely circumstantial.  We often don’t tell loved ones that they are fatally ill.  We often withhold the details of unfortunate personal conflicts from both family and friends to avoid additional personal complications between innocent friends and family members.

Truth-telling strictly for socio/political advantage or for personal control over others invariably imprisons us in fear and anger.  Truth-telling “sets us free” when it reveals information about events and circumstances that men and women of good will, personal integrity, objectivity, and wisdom can alter.

Oh, yah, one more thing.  There is no such thing as absolute or unconditional truth!  I’d suggest that you could “bank” on that but the history of banking reveals much that’s quite unreliable and most certainly less than truthful!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HOPES AND FEARS - THE ROOT OF ALL ASSUMPTIONS

By Edwin Cooney

About ten days ago, a friend sent me a powerfully persuasive piece of political commentary.  The piece was from “Current Affairs,” a new political publication.  The author, Nathan J Robertson, asserts that the only hope Democrats have of preventing the election of Donald Trump is the nomination of Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.  In fact, Mr. Robertson insists that Mrs. Clinton actually should withdraw her presidential candidacy in favor of Sen. Sanders as soon as possible.

Listing about seventeen of Mrs. Clinton’s “lies,” many of them going back to the time when she was First Lady of Arkansas, Robertson argues persuasively that Donald Trump will, as he has throughout the Republican primary season, dominate the general election campaign with putdowns, insults, and misrepresentations of Mrs. Clinton (many of which, in the public mind, have a basis of truth).  Furthermore, Robertson asserts that Mrs. Clinton is far from a stellar campaigner.  Finally, he insists that Sanders’ weaknesses are so mild in comparison to Trump’s weaknesses that by simply ignoring anything Trump has to say that is negative about him, Sanders can easily deflect Donald Trumps nonsubstantive, reckless and irresponsible thrusts. This would show the public what a reckless and irresponsible political demagogue Donald Trump truly is and demonstrate to the American people Sen. Sanders’ own mastery of public issues. 

Now, I like Bernie Sanders.  I plan to vote for Bernie in the upcoming New York State primary on the 19th of April.  However, after decades of hearing Republicans rather successfully degrade “radical liberals,” I’m almost as skeptical of the Sanders candidacy as Nathan J. Robertson is of the Clinton candidacy.  Even worse, you can be certain that with all the breast-beating conservatives recently did on behalf of Israel, too many conservative types don’t view Bernie Sanders’ Jewish faith very favorably.  One of the most constant threads woven into American culture is the tendency to mix Judaism with socialism and even Soviet communism.  Hopefully, Robertson is right to observe that this tendency is lessening. However, I’m not sure one can bank on that possibility. 

As I read the list of “lies” that Robertson insists will be the devastating core of Donald Trump’s successful march to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, two historic political occasions occurred to me.

The first took place back in 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon’s campaign, with absolute confidence in the vice president’s debating prowess, agreed to accept Senator John F. Kennedy’s challenge to four debates.  In so doing, the studious Dick Nixon gave handsome and vigorous Jack Kennedy a stage he otherwise would not have had from which to showcase his knowledge, wit and movie star presidential persona.  The second occasion was during a debate between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio, the GOP’s candidate for the United States Senate seat from New York back in 2000.  During their September debate, Congressman Lazio, seeking to press Clinton to sign an agreement not to accept “soft money” from outside of New York State, moved from his podium into Mrs. Clinton’s personal space waving a paper in her face which he suggested they both should sign agreeing to that end.  Lazio’s “Trump-like behavior” was the turning point in the campaign.  Lazio looked like a political bully and, by comparison, Mrs. Clinton (who was in fact America’s reigning First Lady) at least looked like she could be a viable United States Senator.

Three times since 1960, presidential candidates have refused to give their political opponents a national debate stage on which to demonstrate their personal presidential preparedness.  The first time was in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson refused to provide the handsome and articulate Barry Goldwater a national debating platform.  In 1968 and 1972, Richard Nixon, forever wary from his 1960 experience, refused to debate Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972.  Despite a rather continuous political blowback all three times, both Johnson and Nixon prevailed. 

There is some indication that the public may be weary of televised political debates now in 2016.  Mr. Trump, who has to this point already refused to participate in two GOP debates, is hardly in much of a position to protest too effectively should “Lady Hillary” refuse to grant him a platform from which to ridicule her public record, call her and her husband Bill liars, insult women, slander minorities, and recklessly speak his mind, a habit that seems to endear him to too many voters.

Nathan Robertson’s warnings regarding Mrs. Clinton’s public persona should be taken seriously especially by Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff.  However, Robertson’s hopes for Sen. Sanders’ success shouldn’t be confused with inevitable reality.  As the primary season concludes, the constituency will vastly widen.  Additionally, political decisions and public events, domestic and international, will affect the outcome of the campaign to a greater degree than they do before the general election campaign season.

Six months ago, the hopes of 19 politicians and their followers that they individually might sit in the White House were as shiny as newly minted Lincoln pennies.  Today, the hopes of all but five of those politicians and their constituents are as dull as lead slugs.  Still, the hopes and fears of free Americans will play a significant factor in our ultimate choice.

Back in 1964, pointing to the less than 60% national voter turnout in 1960, conservative Republicans suggested to young potential voters like me that there existed a huge silent reservoir of voters who would vote if they only had a choice rather than having to support an echo of the then-entrenched Democratic party.  Barry Goldwater was that “choice in 1964.”  Today, Donald Trump, although hardly a tried and true conservative, clearly is that “choice.”  The question that has never been answered is whether such a reservoir of voters exists!  The existence of such a voting block has always been a major conservative assumption.

Hence, then and now the fearful and the hopeful, confident in their own assumptions and scared to death of yours, peek out at the unpredictable and uncertain world.  Some world, isn’t it?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

CHARACTER — THAT’S THE WRONG ISSUE!

By Edwin Cooney

You’re not going to be very comfortable with what I’m about to declare.  I’m sure of that, because I’m not either!  Here’s the truth.  Historically, character has little or nothing to do with the person that Americans elect as their president.  To assert otherwise is a distortion of American history!

American voters, generally, are most comfortable when they like what a political party stands for, as well as when their perception of the candidate’s character pleases, entertains, or even inspires them.  Character is of only marginal importance to us.  As for 2016, I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders on primary day here in New York State.  However, because political philosophy plays a major role in determining the future of the country, I generally give primary preference to political philosophy.  Thus, although I have some concerns about Hillary Clinton’s personal and political tendencies, I expect to give her my vote in November.  The question is, how does one measure the morality of presidential candidates?  I suggest we never have and never will accurately gauge the morality of potential presidents or any other public office holder, for that matter.  It’s hardly a matter of conservatism or liberalism.  There are “saints” and “sinners” all over the political spectrum and points in between. 

Consider these factual historical realities:

Christian America elected Thomas Jefferson, a Deist not a Christian, president in 1800 over John Adams, a Unitarian. Protestant clergy and Federalist leaders warned voters that if elected, Jefferson would confiscate all Bibles.

If character is the most important or even a vitally important historical factor in our presidential elections, how could Americans in 1828 have elected General Andrew Jackson, an almost merciless killer of Indians? Jackson was always ready to hang military deserters and to duel with those who hurt his personal pride. President John Quincy Adams’ Christianity mattered little against General Jackson’s capacity to administer violent death to almost anyone who dared to cross him!

Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, but the other three candidates, Vice President John C. Breckinridge, John Bell and Stephen A. Douglas, all looked the other way when it came to the question of the morality of human slavery.  Mr. Lincoln received only about 39% of the national vote on Tuesday, November 6th, 1860.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t publicly advertise what he admitted privately, that his left hand never knew what his right hand was doing. However, a lot of important and influential people knew such was the case.  Was FDR’s substantial morality to be found in the number of people whose homes, jobs and well-being were preserved from the ravages of the Great Depression or was his capacity for political manipulation and obfuscation an essential force behind his success as a national leader?

President Richard Nixon is known to have been quite proud of his unpredictability in foreign affairs.  If the leaders of North Vietnam believed he was unstable as opposed to being a man of principle and peace, that was to his advantage.  Mr. Nixon, whom we twice elected to presidential glory, practiced practicality more than he practiced principles.  Ironically, many of those who today express contempt for Hillary and Bill Clinton insist that Nixon never should have been forced to resign his office in disgrace.

Finally, back in 1980, I would guess that most people would have rightfully rated President Jimmy Carter’s moral credentials equal (if not greater) to those of Ronald Reagan, but they needed lower interest rates, less inflation and lower taxes in order to improve their living standards.  By comparison, morality never stood much of a chance.  Hence, Jimmy went back to his hometown and to his church to establish a new Carter Center for peace and to build homes for the poor as a member of Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton appear to be ready to appeal for our votes by demonstrating that the other is possessed by the “…devils of our nature.”  We’re foolish if we fall for it. To paraphrase the late GOP Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, “…all of us must, on occasion, rise above principle.”

Knowledge and prioritization of the challenges we face at home and abroad are what ultimately matter to our present and future prosperity, safety and peace.

Recently, a fascinating article was written in Current Affairs magazine that insists that only Senator Sanders can defeat Donald Trump.  The author’s theme is primarily based on a set of assumptions.

Hang on tight!  I’ll write about those assumptions next week.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HERE IT COMES—RUMBLE, RUMBLE, RUMBLE!

By Edwin Cooney

Listen!  Can you hear it?  It’s the Trump Monster and it’s hungry!

First, it will gobble the beloved Republican Party.  You know, that bastion of economic and socio/political freedom so praised by right wing talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin, etc.  Next, its appetite only partially quenched, it will consume with relish the religious, ethnic and racial minorities who many believe may actually become the majority in America in the not too distant future.  After that, it will be examining your personal sins. Suddenly, it won’t be funny, let alone entertaining, anymore.  So the question is, how did this all come to pass?

Back in the 1790s, George Washington tried to warn his two cabinet underlings, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, against the evils of political parties.  They wouldn’t listen and, within eight short years of Washington’s 1789 inauguration in New York City, newly minted America found itself divided into two political parties, Federalists behind Hamilton and Republican-Democrats under Jefferson.  They both had territory to protect.  Jefferson, the champion of state fiefdoms, and Hamilton, the champion of marketplace fiefdoms, soon had the politically unsophisticated taking sides.

Originally, Washington and Jefferson, both slaveholders, agreed that slavery was immoral and hoped that it would die away in a generation or two.  Ah, but money was involved and, by the 1830s, a new generation of southern leaders became emotionally and spiritually married to slavery to the extent that abolitionism of slavery was considered immoral.  Slave labor versus paid labor clashed and thus came the great Civil War.

The 20th Century found Americans dividing along socio/economic differences.  There was labor versus management, urban versus rural and, sadly, black versus white all entangled in the gears of the Democratic and Republican bodies politic.  Next came division over the unpopular and unwinnable Vietnam War and the fabric-wrenching political wrangles over the Watergate scandal.  Add the inevitable political “gotcha” and payback of competitive politics and slowly but surely the definition, scope, and even faith in freedom became fractious.

Conservatives equate government with economic, social and, ultimately, political slavery.  Liberals look to the same government to protect them from what they regard as the slavery of the unfettered market place.  Thus, the two essential tools needed to function on all of our behalves are invariably being defamed to advance the causes of primarily selfish political faiths: conservatism and liberalism.  Conservatives, who generally possess much more economic and organizational skills and resources, have spent all of President Barack Obama’s seven and one half years degrading his person and even his office.  After all, he’s the head of “government,” the battering ram of “radical liberalism.”  Even worse he has Islamic ancestors and is thus racially and spiritually connected to the third world. Put simply and directly, most conservatives insist that anyone named Barack Hussein Obama can’t really be American.  Unable to separate the man from the office, conservatives have denied President Obama the respect most Democrats felt honor bound to grant to President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Like the Soviet government used to do with political dissidents, conservatives in this country label their opponents morally inferior as well as emotionally and mentally disabled.

Suddenly, here comes Donald Trump!  Like America itself, he is rich and willful.  Although he is part of the establishment, he is also rich enough to be dangerously anti-establishment.  Conservatives have been so taken up with selling their brand of angry evangelical and squalid self-praising patriotism that the very idea of political compromise has become as immoral as abolition of human slavery once was.  Thus we find the conservative movement flummoxed, begrudgingly led by the rise of a politician who promises that “everyone will win…” if he’s elected — and they are very, very afraid.  Why? First, they can’t control his takeover of their party.  Second, they can’t buy him and thus control him should he be elected.  Third, they don’t believe anyone should win if winning requires a free people to involuntarily contribute to the common good no matter what Jesus says.  Of course, with sufficient majorities in both houses of Congress they could stall him as they have President Obama. However, if they do that, they’ll soon find themselves politically ineffectual and thus politically vulnerable.

Yes, indeed, anyone with ears can hear the sound of the earthshaking rumble of the advancing Trump monster.  It’s hungry, it’s ambitious, it’s righteous and, like much of the Conservative movement, it’s kicking tail and taking names!

Sorry, but there appears to be only one political antidote — Hillary Rodham Clinton.  If I could bring myself to actually love Hillary, I’d rub my hands in gleeful delight.  However, I won’t do that. I’ll just vote for her over the monster the Conservative movement itself has created!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY