DOES IT MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

A few weeks ago, a reader of these weekly musings asked me to stipulate in a column why it matters whom we elect to serve as America’s 45th president next November.  There are numerous ways of looking at the inquiry. However, there’s only one constructive answer to that question. Before offering it, let’s briefly examine the overall nature and historic conduct of the presidency.

The president’s ultimate powers lie in the meaning and scope of his command and executive or administrative authorities.  Between the presidencies of George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt, the powers of the presidency were executed either in reaction to a circumstance (such as war or a rebellion) or to a condition such as a need to respond to possible foreign encroachment (as in the case of the Monroe Doctrine).  The constitution outlines the president’s administrative duties rather than his or her socio/political options.  Eighteenth and nineteenth century presidents weren’t expected to solve social crises which is why issues such as the legitimacy, existence and the possible advancement of slavery went wanting only to be settled by civil war.  Then it all began to change with the dawn of the turbulent 20th century -- for along came Teddy Roosevelt.

Upon the death of William McKinley, TR went into action after becoming President just as he had as Civil Service Commissioner under President Benjamin Harrison, as Police Commissioner of New York City, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinley and as Governor of New York State. In his first annual message to Congress in December 1901, he asserted that even with all the good that private enterprise had done for the nation, for the health of the free market, and for the protection of consumers, big business needed to be regulated. In October 1902 during the Anthracite Coal Strike, Roosevelt forced management to meet with labor to settle the dispute.  If management had refused even to meet with union representatives, it was likely that TR’s northeastern GOP constituents would freeze and thus turn into Democrats by Election Day.  Thus, the young bombastic Teddy Roosevelt took charge of the negotiations personally presiding over the meeting from a wheelchair since he had suffered a leg injury in a recent carriage accident.  While the result wasn’t recognition of the right to unionize as Teddy had hoped, a temporary settlement was reached which lasted through the winters of 1902 and 1903.  Hence, the new, young, energetic, idealistic, and determined president rescued his party while preserving his political prestige. Next, TR went on to shepherd passage of The Conservation Act of 1902 which set aside public lands primarily in the west for the preservation of wildlife and our national resources.  Passage in 1906 of the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug Acts protected the health of consumers in the wake of decades of shoddy food and drug preparation practices.  Thus between 1901 and 1909 TR began involving the government in a way that affected the lives of the people more directly and continuously than ever before.  By broadening the scope of presidential responsibilities, early, mid and late progressive or liberal presidencies have brought about an expectation that government is a legitimate tool for protecting the livelihoods of the people.

This is in contrast to the conservative or more traditional outlook toward government which holds that the only legitimate responsibility of the federal government is to protect us from foreign threat or invasion.  As conservatives see it, your health, education, safety, and prosperity under the constitution are not the responsibility of the federal government.  Therefore, presidents and congresses pass laws and appoint judges they conclude are most likely to adhere to their distinct ideals of governing.

From time to time, such as in the 1950s and 1960s, the two major political parties tended to be somewhat alike in their socio/political outlook.  Southern Conservatives hated federal encroachment in civil rights but more than welcomed the federal government when it appropriated money for badly needed federal projects or, if you prefer, federal jobs.  Northern liberals were suspicious of the military industrial establishment when it justified the Vietnam War, but like their Conservative Southern cousins, they accepted the employment it offered.

There are those who will tell you that America is lately controlled by certain powerful families or banks or international ideological entities rather than by the collective will of its people. If you buy such conclusions, you surrender to a reality that doesn’t exist.  Change, however small it often seems to be, is inevitable. History demonstrates that fundamental change takes place when a significant percentage of the American people consent to strong executive and legislative leadership as they did in 1933 under FDR and in 1981 under Ronald Reagan.  Otherwise, even inevitable change occurs at a glacial pace. There are too many corporations, causes, and politicians competing for your allegiance for what you believe in not to matter.  If you believe you don’t make a difference, you may relieve yourself from the heady demands of citizenship, but by so doing you starve America of its most valuable natural resource.

That resource is spelled Y O U!  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

  

“LIAR! LIAR….!"

By Edwin Cooney

It’s my guess that it’s not necessary that I complete the above taunt most of us used when we were “kids”!  What’s amazing is how much Republicans and other opponents of Hillary Clinton are depending on this phrase to prevent her from officially entering 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. next January 20th!  I hereby offer some advice — forget it, it won’t work!

Here’s the absolute truth.  For more than one reason, labeling her a “liar” misses the mark entirely.  We’ve had successful political candidates vulnerable to the liar designation almost from the very beginning of the republic.  First of all, here’s a list of successful presidential liars:

Thomas Jefferson promised during his inaugural that he believed all Americans were “Federalists and Republican-Democrats.”  He didn’t mean a word of it as he hired Republican-Democrats and fired Federalists! Second, Jefferson broke his word to strictly interpret the constitution when he purchased the Louisiana territory.  What Jefferson is primarily remembered for is all of the benefits of that acquisition to America’s wealth, security and abundance rather than the violation of his publicly stated strict constructionists’ constitutional principles.

Grover Cleveland basically lied or misrepresented who he was when he represented himself as a friend of working men and then sent the army in to stop the 1893 Pullman strike.  His sop to laboring men and women was the adoption in 1894 of Labor Day.

Franklin Roosevelt promised the people in 1932 that he’d balance the budget in 1933.  However, he more than unbalanced the budget.  He saved the homes, farms, bank accounts and businesses of thousands of grateful citizens who came to love him and some pretty arrogant conservatives who hated him even as they prospered.  Eight years later, he promised to “keep our boys out of World War II,” but eventually molded those boys into a grand army that won our last “necessary war.”  FDR often said he never let his left hand know what his right hand was doing.

Dwight Eisenhower publicly lied about the purpose of the U2 flight that was shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1st, 1960 that precipitated an increase of “cold war” tensions.  We forgave him because, after all, he was Ike.

John Kennedy, during the 1960 presidential campaign, assured Americans we were behind in the “space race” when he knew we really weren’t.  Then, he brought about Camelot which included a successful race to the moon and a tax cut proposal which 1980s and 1990s conservatives would grasp to their prosperous bosoms.

Lyndon B. Johnson promised that American boys weren’t going to fight a war that should be fought by Asian boys.  That was a major policy statement during the 1964 presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater.  President Johnson did ultimately pay in unpopularity for that “lie,” but even today he rates in the top 10 presidents we’ve ever elected.

Richard Nixon lied so frequently that it’s hard to choose one lie.  However, the biggest lie was his promise during the 1968 campaign not to interfere with LBJ’s foreign policy.  Then, just before the election when it appeared that there might actually be a possibility for peace, he privately told the South Vietnamese government to withhold its cooperation with the Johnson administration because he’d give them a better deal.  Some believe candidate Nixon’s act was worse than a lie, that it was downright treasonous.

Ronald Reagan promised he’d balance the budget by 1984 and proceeded to leave us in a debt that was over three times what it was when Jimmy Carter left office.  However, Reagan was “the great communicator” whose anecdotes were so eloquently delivered that he was labeled “the Teflon president” by Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.  (It was once observed that had President Reagan driven through a car wash with the top down on his presidential convertible, Jimmy Carter would have gotten wet!)

Now, like a number of Hillary’s “lies,” some of these are petty, but truthfulness is generally not what the voter is looking for.  Voters are looking more for acknowledgment of their fears and anger than they are what specific strategy a potential president will use to tackle a national or international crisis.  Second, few Americans really know what it takes to have Congress convert a presidential promise into law.  Third, all of the presidential candidates, with the possible exception of Governor Kasich, are as vulnerable as Hillary on socio/political and even spiritual grounds.  Ted Cruz is so arrogant that few of his senate colleagues find him at all easy to work with.  Mr. Trump is openly anti-ethnic, anti-Islamic, and anti-women’s movement.  Ideological conservatives, both socio and economic, don’t really trust him. On top of that, his crudeness exacerbates his negative image more than it draws people to him.  Bernie Sanders won’t ultimately be able to escape the socialist label and, sadly, his ethnicity and his age are likely to hurt him once election time draws nigh.  As I see it, not only is Hillary far from being the liar too many people enjoy saying she is, but too often in the past Americans have demonstrated their willingness to be lied to.  The 1984 election comes to mind when Walter Mondale announced during his acceptance speech that he’d raise taxes and President Reagan insisted he’d never raise taxes.  Then came the tax reform bill of 1986 that brought tax increases in the form of social security payroll taxes within it, in exchange for further cuts in corporate and high end individual taxes.  Walter Mondale was joyfully proclaimed a political fool for telling the voter what he intended to do while President Reagan, who was so smooth and eloquent, quipped his way to re-election.  Remember the second debate when he promised not to hold Mondale’s comparative youth against him during the campaign?  Also, what do Hillary opponents expect Hillary to lie about during the campaign?  Do they doubt that she’s more progressive then Mr. Trump, Senator Cruz or Governor Kasich? Do they expect her to portray herself as somebody she really isn’t? Which GOP candidate has more experience in foreign affairs than Hillary Clinton?

So the question is: How much does it really matter if Hillary Clinton has told a whopper or two or three?

Some of Hillary’s strongest detractors still long for the days of Richard Nixon.  Still others long to be wooed once again by Ronald Reagan.  Then there are those who love wallowing in their own personal indignation!  After all, we’ve accustomed ourselves to being the victims of politicians!  We enjoy asserting that “…all politicians are crooks” which thereafter frees us from even caring who we elect.  Even more, lies energize too many of us.  Additionally, so many of us enjoy our sense of indignation.

Sometimes I wonder who lies more to us — our politicians or ourselves!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BASEBALL - A GAME OF IMPROBABILITIES

By Edwin Cooney

Probabilities and improbabilities are hardly terms used in sports or baseball. Nevertheless, with increasing team parity over the past two decades, pennant and championship probabilities have become increasingly unlikely or, if you will, improbable. No longer is it “probable” that New York City will be represented in the World Series as it has been 55 times since the modern World Series was inaugurated 113 years ago. Happily, even with their mutual passion for baseball, their athletic talent, and their dreams of victory and even glory, the stories of individual players, coaches, managers, umpires and owners fascinate the fan and the reader with drama and the surprise of improbabilities.

Get a load of this baseball improbability: his name was Morgan Bulkeley. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1937. He never played a game and, although he owned the National Association’s Hartford, Connecticut club, there is no record of any baseball achievement on his part. The son of the co-founder and president of the Aetna Life Insurance Company, Morgan Bulkeley was the president of the Hartford team in the National Association of Baseball Players in February 1876. During a meeting at the Grand Central Hotel in New York City on Wednesday, February 2, 1876, where the National Association was abandoned and the National League was formed, it was decided that the league’s first president should be someone from the east rather than the man who had called the meeting, William A. Hulbert, the president of the Chicago White Stockings. Thus the names of the owners present were tossed into a hat and Morgan Bulkeley’s name was drawn. Thus, the name Morgan Bulkeley would be on the letterhead of all official National League communications and correspondence throughout 1876, the new league’s first season. After that fateful meeting, he went back to Hartford and resumed his banking and insurance careers. When he failed to appear at the National League’s 1877 winter meeting, National League owners elected William A. Hulbert as the league’s second president. Bulkeley would go on to become Mayor of Hartford in 1880. In 1888, he’d be elected Governor of Connecticut. During his term, he angered the Democratic majority in the legislature so much that they locked him out of his office in the capital. Governor Bulkeley promptly pried the door open and resumed his duties. He was hence known as “the crowbar governor.”

A progressive Republican, Morgan Bulkeley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1905. In 1937, as baseball officials planned the Baseball Hall of Fame, Ban Johnson, the first president of the American League, was rightfully enshrined in Cooperstown. Therefore it was only fitting that the first president of the older National League should also be admitted to the Hall of Fame. As for William A. Hulbert, the man who conducted the meeting that created the National League, he would not be enshrined in Cooperstown until 1995. Hence, the Baseball Hall of Fame has had many improbable entrances.

It’s unlikely that you have ever heard of Ed Killian. He pitched for the Cleveland Indians and the Detroit Tigers between 1903 and 1910. Known as “Twilight Ed” because he pitched so many extra inning games, Edwin Henry Killian was born in Racine, Wisconsin. Killian, a 5 feet 11 inch left-hander, won 103 and lost 78 games in his eight year career. His ERA was 2.38. What was improbable about his career is that he pitched 1,001 consecutive innings without giving up a home run. That was the dead-ball era, but it was still a remarkable achievement. Other great pitchers of that time such as Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, and Tim Keefe, all who would one day end up in Cooperstown, never achieved that accomplishment. Throughout Killian’s career he gave up only nine home runs, an average of just one homer every 178 innings. In 1907, his greatest season, Killian won 25 and lost 13, and even more incredible, he batted .320.

Two other improbable baseball successes were Peter J. Gray, the one-armed outfielder of the 1945 St. Louis Browns, and Jim Abbott, whose mighty left arm pitched for the California Angels and the New York Yankees during the 1980s and 90s. Pete Gray played only one season for the St. Louis Browns, batting .218 and driving in 13 runs in 77 games. An accident had cost Pete his right arm at age six. Determined to make it to the majors, Gray fulfilled his dream although in later years he would too often wonder how significant it really was.

James Anthony Abbott was a six foot three left-hander who was born without a right hand. Like Pete Gray before him, he made his dream come true. Jim Abbott led the United States Olympic Baseball Team to a gold medal in 1988 and, in 1989, Jim was pitching for the California Angels without spending a day in the minors. Traded to the New York Yankees after the 1992 season, Abbott pitched a no hitter against the Cleveland Indians on Saturday, September 4th, 1993. His ten-year career record was a mediocre 87 wins and 108 losses, but his improbable success is a part of baseball lore.

This season, some 775 plus men will play on major league rosters, each one a unique individual. Their hopes, like those of their fans, beckon the improbable glory of ultimate victory in this October’s World Series. This year’s championship team will have stars, men whose reputation predicts their World Series stardom. Beware, however! One of 2016’s heroes will be someone you never expected to celebrate - indeed an improbable star!

How about this? “Improbable World Series Stars” sounds like a perfect topic for this fall’s World Series column! What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY