“IT AIN’T OVER ’TIL IT’S OVER” — IS IT?

By Edwin Cooney

I was going to insist that the above question was asked of me by Yogi Berra last night as I dreamed about the future of the Republican Party.  However, like George Washington “I cannot tell a lie,” I won’t tell you that.  Nevertheless, the question remains: does the GOP’s search for a nominee have to be over?  History says “of course not.” Wisdom on the other hand may say something else, but too often there’s a hell-of-a-difference between history and wisdom.

The truth is that, even more than law, the rules of a political convention have a lot to say about who is and who isn’t nominated at the convention.

Just a day or two ago, GOP National Chairman Reince Priebus announced that former Utah Congresswomen Enid (Greene) Mickelsen and former Massachusetts National Committeeman Ron Kaufman will cochair the GOP Rules Committee.  A rules committee is the body that sets all of the regulations for conducting business at a national political convention.  Elected to the House in 1994, the year of the “Contract with America,” Congresswoman Mickelsen served on the House Rules Committee.  Ms. Mickelsen served only one term in Congress.  She has since served as Chair of the Utah GOP.  Mr. Kaufman was described as a junior advisor to recent GOP presidents.

If it can get the delegates’ support, a party rules committee can decide that it takes two thirds rather than a majority of delegate votes to get the party’s presidential nomination.  However, changing the rules is an uphill battle as well as a risky political venture.

Still, when they think it is to their advantage, candidates often try and change the rules.  As Republicans approached their 1976 convention in Kansas City, Missouri, President Gerald Ford led former California Governor Ronald Reagan for the nomination. In an attempt to attract eastern delegates leaning toward Ford, Reagan announced that he was selecting liberal Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate.  This was done under the guise of “party reform.”  Thus, Reagan forces sought to alter Rule 16B to force President Ford to name his running mate before the nomination.  The attempt failed which pretty much solidified President Ford’s grasp on the nomination.  (Note: In 1980, not only did Mr. Reagan abandon this “reform,” once he’d secured the nomination, Mr. Reagan toyed with the idea of asking former President Ford to join him on a “dream ticket.”  Both men, after a few hours, trashed the idea and George H. W. Bush received Reagan’s offer in his pajamas on the third night of the 1980 Convention in Detroit.)

Democratic candidates have also tried to manipulate the rules to favor certain candidates.  In 1972, Senator George McGovern won the June 6th California primary.  Under California law, any candidate receiving a majority or plurality vote was the automatic winner of all delegate votes.  California law was in violation of the recently adopted reform rules of the convention.  Thus, Senator Hubert Humphrey and others tried to take some of McGovern’s delegates back believing that a “winner take all” vote was undemocratic.  They sought to enforce the convention rule.  However, the vote went against them and Senator McGovern kept all his votes, although it couldn’t save McGovern that November.

Politicians of all stripes invariably struggle between politics and principle.  As 2016 Republicans prepare for their upcoming convention, they find themselves facing an uncomfortable reality.  They may be about to be led by a man who doesn’t really share either their principles or the manners by which most of them were raised.  He may not even share their religious morals or priorities.  The only alternative left to “conscience Conservatives” would be to adjust the rules of the likely upcoming Cleveland calamity.

Although they can’t violate state regulations that require delegates to vote for the candidates they were elected to support, there are numerous ways to alter the rules of the convention.

First, delegation leaders can apply the unit rule that requires a majority of a state delegation to vote as one.  Thus, if a state has 60 Cruz votes, and, say, 40 Trump votes, they can require implementation of the unit rule and only count the 60 Cruz votes.  Second, they can alter rule 40B and insist that the 2016 GOP convention require a two thirds vote to nominate a presidential candidate.  The question is, do they dare to follow their principles and deny their nomination to a man who supports passage of a national health care measure, has generally supported freedom of choice over conservative pro life principles, and whose lifestyle flies in the face of many of the evangelical morals which they insist reflect the character that God must bless!

So, do they dare?  If they don’t, it may well prove that they’re as soft as Barack Obama, as evasive as “Slick Willie” Clinton and, most of all, as political as Hillary Rodham Clinton!  How wise is it to be principled?  Should the GOP, as the late great Illinois Republican Senator Everett Dirksen once suggested must happen, “rise above principle for the sake of success”?  Will the Republican Party be admired more if it sacrifices a “presumptive nominee” in favor of what it really stands for or must it follow him over a political cliff!

If Yogi’s right and “it ain’t over ’til it’s over,”  the GOP may truly be a party of conscience!

I wouldn’t bank on it, however!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

“NO COURAGE, NOT SYMBOLIC OF MANHOOD”? - WOW!!!

By Edwin Cooney

Within hours after sending readers my tribute to Muhammad Ali, I got the following astounding message from a very good man.  

“Ali was neither a symbol of manhood or courage. Manhood & courage do not run from serving your country. I believe the way the press has handled his death is absolutely wrong!”

Although I find this gentleman’s response in this case to be ironic, assumptive and harsh, I know him to be an exceedingly conscientious, generous, thoughtful, public-spirited person and citizen.  He is a friend, a colleague as a Lion and an exceedingly personable social companion.

Of course, the definition of courage and manhood are highly subject to individual interpretation.  Thus, their meaning and what they portray about the national character and mood can be quite revealing.  That meaning and purpose are two of the reasons I’m responding to this gentleman’s response to my characterization last week of Muhammad Ali as a symbol of both courage and manhood.  My third reason is fundamental as to why I author these weekly musings.  I’ll state that reason at the close of this commentary.

First, my friend whom I’ll refer to here as LD, appears to believe that no citizen has the right to conscientiously object to the dictates of the United States government.  Hence, Ali’s refusal to respond to the draft which would have obligated him to fight in the Vietnam War was a denial of his moral and patriotic obligation and as such was both disloyal and even cowardly.  There is an irony here.  LD, like many of those who would support his conclusions about Muhammad Ali, regards himself as conservative.  In fact, LD, when asked, proclaims himself as such.  The Vietnam War in the eyes of millions of citizens and scores of historians came to be seen as an unnecessary war having had little to do with our national security.  It resulted in approximately 58,000 deaths and its purpose, to prevent the spread of Communism in domino fashion across Southeast Asia toward Hawaii and our west coast, was a careless and  empty assumption.  Neither Muhammad Ali’s possible death or any single soldier’s death, as I see it, turned out to be worthy of that  assumption.  Thus I pose the following question to my friend LD: is acquiescence or open objection more courageously patriotic when “big government” mistakenly concludes that our national security is at peril?  Shouldn’t conservatives have questioned JFK and LBJ, foremost advocates of “big government,” as to the wisdom and practicality of that war? 

As for the definition of courage, I have believed most of my life that courage has been mistakenly ill-defined in the minds of too many people.  A courageous act doesn’t occur out of necessity.  A courageous act occurs when its performer has another option.  It is my experience that those who are regarded as courageous due to the effects of a physical disability are wrongly so regarded.  The risks a blind man takes to cross a street or that a girl in a wheelchair takes to attend school or the willingness a deaf man or woman displays to become an employee are merely symbolic of what every person, whether able bodied or disabled, must do to function gratifyingly and successfully as a full member of the human family.  No one has a choice except to strive to be both productive and useful.  Useful productivity is natural to who we are!

A soldier becomes courageous when he deliberately drops onto a land mine putting himself at risk and thereby saving the lives of others in his platoon.  He isn’t courageous merely because he agrees to be drafted. Muhammad Ali preferred to be the subject of ridicule rather than to surrender to the supposed moral and patriotic obligation to serve in a pointless war.  History shows that the government, going back as far as the Civil War, recognized the legitimacy of conscientious objection.  Future President Grover Cleveland paid $300 which the Lincoln administration accepted as a legitimate strategy to express his objection to that tragic conflict.

Ali’s refusal, at least initially, cost him plenty: his heavyweight championship and millions of dollars!  Only the decision the Supreme Court of the United States made under the law covering conscientious objection kept Ali out of jail.  (Note: if one dismisses that court merely as a “liberal” court, remember that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon were responsible for appointing a solid half of that court including Justices John Marshall Harlan, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, and finally Chief Justice Warren Burger.  Additionally, Byron White, JFK’s appointee, was generally regarded as centrist to conservative as a justice.  That covers five of the Justices who might or might not have ruled in Ali’s favor.)

What constitutes  “manliness” is even more subjective or nebulous than the matter of who is courageous.  Much of what is “manly” depends on what traditionally is regarded as natural to most men’s behavior.  What is natural is generally what is expected of a “manly man.”  Muhammad Ali’s profession of boxing is traditionally regarded as “manly” by definition.  It seems to me that stepping into the ring with a gang enforcer named Charles (Sonny) Liston (a man who’d served prison time) must have been a “manly” act.  When Liston failed to come out in the seventh round of the fight that crowned Ali, it was because he’d swung so hard that he’d torn ligaments in his left shoulder and thus couldn’t go on.  Had he connected, Ali might have slept for days if not for eternity!  I wonder if LD, even as a young man, would have stepped into the ring with Mr. Liston?  I certainly wouldn’t have! 

As for the press being all wrong about the significance of Muhammad Ali, remember that the press merely reflects the national mood. It doesn’t dictate it!

Obviously, my conclusions and that of my friend are very different.  Although I love it best of all when readers write to express their agreement with what I conclude about any topic, it is also very gratifying to receive a substantive challenge.  Ultimately, praise is the sweet nectar of political or social commentary.  That which most nurtures commentary however is a thoughtful, cogent respectfully submitted counter opinion.

These weekly columns are designed to inform, stimulate thought, and even to entertain the author and the reader.

Thus LD, you’ve provided me and your fellow readers with that healthy grist for argument that makes debate an essential element of learning.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE ESSENTIAL MUHAMMAD ALI

By Edwin Cooney

Most of the tributes I’ve read since the news of Muhammad Ali’s death startled us ten days ago have had a curious similarity to their nature.

All of them of course have recorded his birth to Cassius and Odessa Clay on Saturday, January 17th, 1942 in Louisville, Kentucky;

They’ve told the story of how he became interested in boxing at age 12 in the wake of a stolen bicycle;

They‘ve mentioned his gold medal as a light heavyweight contender at the 1960 Olympic games in Rome;

and they have vividly relayed the story of his challenges, victories, and setbacks as clearly the most famous World Heavyweight Champion since Joe Lewis.  These have included his 56 wins, his five defeats, his style and a list of challengers ranging from Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson to Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Leon Spinks and Larry Holmes.

The authors of these tributes, after reciting (sometimes in graphic detail) his achievements and setbacks, invariably offer their assessment of Muhammad Ali, the man.  Even more, they appear to be anxious to tell the reader  what the life of Muhammad Ali meant to them.  Invariably, they quote Ali’s phrase “Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee” to his characterization of his second fight with Joe Frazier as “The thriller with the Gorilla in Manila.”  (My favorite quote is the way he, then as Cassius Clay, characterized the six rich white Louisville businessmen who financed his career after he turned professional following his 1960 triumph in Rome.  Young Clay is quoted as having said of them, “They have the complexions and the connections to point me in the right directions.”)

Of course, Muhammad Ali was courageous in his choice of religion and lifestyle and of his conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War which ultimately cost him money and perhaps universal acclaim in rich America.  Just as his choice damaged his reputation and earning power here at home, it increased his worldwide celebrity status almost to the extent that his standing in white Christian America was made insignificant by comparison.

However, like most of us, he was often inconsistent in his behavior, including having four marriages in contradiction to the rules of his Muslim faith; his racist name-calling of Joe Frazier, and perhaps even in his choice of profession.  Boxing, after all, was a contradiction to Ali’s basic sweetness, kindness, and consideration of others.

What really makes Muhammad Ali’s story so significant is that it’s ultimately a personal matter to most of us.   You were either inspired or offended by Ali’s boasting of what he would do to Sonny Liston, or his bragging about what he’d done to England’s Henry Cooper (who would go down in five and would be thus characterized by young Cassius Clay as “Henry the Fifth”).  More often and more poignantly was how frequently Ali’s behavior or conduct pleased others.  Back in the late 70s, I had occasion to ask some of the airline professionals who work with people with special needs who they thought were the most pleasant and cooperative celebrities with whom they dealt.  The two or three professionals I spoke with said that Elvis Presley and Muhammad Ali were far and above the two most pleasant, appreciative, and cooperative celebrities they had ever served.  One observer I heard asserted that watching Muhammad Ali signing autographs outside an airport while sitting in a wheelchair was quite a sight for reasons sad but somehow inspiring.

In recent months, I’ve had occasion to write tributes about such celebrities as Mario Cuomo, Yogi Berra, and Joe Garagiola.  Each of these men brought pleasure and inspiration to their fellow citizens from within their narrow professions of sports/entertainment and public service.  Muhammad Ali’s appeal, although it originated from sports, had a much broader range than sports and entertainment. Ali’s fame was multicultural and covered such volatile topics as race, religion, politics, bravery and even manhood.

As many have observed, Muhammad Ali was far more than just an American icon.  He was a worldwide symbol of courage, determination, faith, religion, and manhood.  How else could the “rumble in the jungle” in Kinshasa, Zaire with George Foreman have been at all possible, let alone feasible? 

According to author David Remnick, young Cassius Clay was haunted at age 13 by the pictures of Emmett Till, a Chicago lad about Clay’s age who, while visiting in Mississippi, was bludgeoned and shot to death by a group of white Ku Klux Klansmen for supposedly flirting with a white woman.  From that point on, young Clay and the mature Ali would be energized intellectually and spiritually by the reality of America’s heritage of white dominance and ingrained hostility toward blacks.  He would become who he wanted to be — not what white America expected him to be — even at the hour that he earned one of white society’s most sought after prizes, namely, the heavyweight boxing championship of the world.

Remnick also points out that Ali was always sensitive to the idea of blacks fighting each other as white men bet on the outcome indifferent to the struggle and pain of their combat. In a 1970 promotion of an upcoming fight, Ali is seen talking to Drew Bundini, an assistant trainer and close friend, on this very topic of why some fans pay to see him fight. 

“He talks too much.  I can’t stand him.  He needs a good whoopin'. Then, they begin filling up all those $100 seats and you and I go to the bank laughing…”  Indeed, Muhammad Ali was entertaining, but both his dialogues and his monologs had meaning beyond their entertainment value.  Like you and me, Muhammad Ali was the sum and substance of all his experiences, and inevitably the resentments, hopes, fears and empowerment that these experiences generated. 

One could say that as of late Friday, June 3rd, 2016, the story of Muhammad Ali was complete.  Ali’s personhood was such that it invariably thrilled or disturbed, wowed or dismayed, thus inevitably altering the public’s perception of both the man and of the society in which he lived. The amazing truth is that at least as long as those of us who observed the essential Muhammad Ali live, that experience of observation will invariably be very personal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SORRY OR “DAMNED SORRY” — THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

By Edwin Cooney

  

Rarely do I agree with most traditionalist, conservative or reactionary oriented people.  However, like most of the above socio/political types, I was glad that President Obama avoided offering an apology to the victims of Hiroshima or Nagasaki during his recent visit to Japan.

Where I differ from my conservative or reactionary brethren is that they seem to dismiss many of the social injustices of the past as insignificant because after all, as they see it, they have too much invested in the future to worry about the insensitivities of their ancestors.  I, on the other hand, am convinced that until we thoroughly understand and acknowledge what forces molded the reactions and attitudes of our ancestors as they coped with the conditions and the challenges of their day, we’re not likely to improve our behavior when faced with the same obstacles that were handled less than nobly by our parents and grandparents.  Thus, if we’re to avoid a situation such as that which faced President Harry Truman in 1945, it’s essential that we have a realistic sense of what brought about the conditions which forced Mr. Truman to drop a nuclear device on our then Japanese enemy twice in three days - Monday, August 6th, and Thursday, August 9th, 1945.

As important as it is to realistically assess the past, to apologize for it is quite another matter.

In order for an apology to be effective, the apology has to be realistic as well as genuine.  The fact of the matter is that most Americans who were responsible in any way for dropping “Little Boy” on August 6th, and “Fat Boy” on August 9th have been dead for many years.  President Truman, who ultimately ordered that the atomic bombs be dropped, has been gone since December 26th of 1972.  Then Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson have been gone even longer.  The point is that the power of apologies is personal rather than socio or political.

Back in the late 1980s, the House and Senate approved an appropriation of $20,000 in compensation for each still-living Japanese American who was interned during World War II.  Along with the appropriation, an apology was issued.  The appropriation was certainly valid as it was payable to those who had directly suffered the injustices of confiscation and internment.  It’s my guess however that the compensation was likely more meaningful to Japanese Americans than a mere apology could possibly be.  After all, compensation empowered these families to enhance their current and future well-being.

An apology is powerful when it heals the wounds of a deed and through acknowledgment of a wrong promises that the ill deed will not reoccur.  Such acknowledgment and reassurance even nurtures, but when and only when it is offered by the individual or group that committed the offense.

At the time the Senate debated the compensation/apology, some conservatives asserted that they’d only vote for the measure being considered if the Japanese agreed to apologize and compensate the families of those killed and injured by the Sunday, December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.  Fortunately, such a quid pro quo was ignored by both the Reagan administration and by the rest of the congress.  After all, a conditioned apology is hardly an apology at all.

There are those who insist that America, “white America” in particular, find a way to both apologize and make reparations to blacks for slavery and Native Americans for the injuries we’ve inflicted on them since 1619 in Jamestown, Virginia or since 1620 in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Of course, a lot of those folks who make suggestions like that are usually the descendants of the sinned against and really and truly could use the money that would make such apologies worthwhile reading, listening to and storing in their personal bank accounts or portfolios. Such an “apology” wouldn’t be an apology, it would be a tax and “by God any politician who would even consider such a tax would suffer the severest reprimand since God almighty turned Lucifer into a snake.” (Note: it’s amazing to imagine the double-edged deed God did to Lucifer. He made him a snake, but at the same time He granted him one hell-of-a fiefdom to run! But I’m rambling!)

It’s eternally to our benefit to re-examine or reassess our past, but contrary to what many people have been conditioned to believe, history has never taught lessons - it is only a domain for keeping score.

No, President Harry Truman nor anyone else, not even “white America” owes Japan or humanity itself an apology for dropping two atomic bombs during that August some seventy-one summers ago; although it may be damned sorry if Japan takes Donald Trump seriously and substitutes its own nuclear program for the one we’re paying for and controlling right now!

After all, there’s a very sharp distinction between having to be apologetic and “damned sorry!”

Which would you choose?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY