GET IN THIS RING, JV — THIS TIME, YOU’LL LOSE!

By Edwin Cooney

I have a lifelong reputation for being argumentative.  Usually, I insist that this reputation is exaggerated.  However, this week I’m “ready to rumble,” as they say!  My worthy opponent is the champion wrestler and former governor of Minnesota (1999 - 2003), none other than Jesse Ventura!  Ready Jesse?  Here we go!

A short time ago, columnist and radio host Michael Smerconish, while arguing for Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s inclusion in the upcoming debates between Clinton and Trump, quoted an opinion by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.  Governor Ventura asserted that it is ridiculous to suggest that a vote for Gary Johnson (or Jill Stein, for that matter) is a waste.  “You’re not rooting in a horse race,” Ventura by way of Smerconish insisted.  “You’re simply choosing the best candidate for the presidency that’s available.”  After 160 years, here’s the reality that third party presidential voters just don’t get:  our system isn’t designed to elect a third party presidential candidate.  Political parties, in order to be effective nationally, must be able to function at multiple levels of civic responsibility and accountability.  Parties must have the capacity to fill public offices with supporting personnel.  Such personnel must consist of professionals including lawyers, diplomats,academicians, social and applied scientists, administrators, and so on. They must have access to academic sources as well as legal, scientific, social, and industrial specialists.  Finally, while third parties have much to offer in the way of applicable social and political ideas and concepts, voting for a third and fourth party presidential candidate is a wasted vote until the structure of our political system is altered. The next question is twofold.  What type of a person becomes a third party candidate?  What is their history and why have they not been successful?

All of the major third party candidates have one thing in common.  At some level of their existence, they are incapable of mixing well in functional organizations unless they come in as the top person in the party.  Sometimes they are able leaders, but they are incapable of taking advice or direction from subordinates.

Millard Fillmore was our first major third party presidential candidate.  Although a highly intelligent and principled gentleman, by the time he became Vice President, he had fallen out of favor with many of his Whig Party colleagues  such as William Seward and Thurlow Weed.  After becoming President upon the death of President Zachary Taylor, he backed the seriously and morally flawed Fugitive Slave Law as part of the “Great Compromise” of 1850 thereby destroying much of his moral credibility and reputation for wise executive judgment.  When he did run for president in 1856, it was on the bigoted Nativist or “Know Nothing” party ticket.  Fillmore biographers insist that he wasn’t particularly sympathetic to “Nativism,” but it was there as a political instrument to be utilized by an angry and suspicious constituency.  Fillmore only carried the State of Maryland in 1856.  He then returned to Buffalo, thus becoming a solid, civic-minded citizen until he was felled by a stroke in 1874.

The brilliant, resourceful, decisive-thinking and active Theodore Roosevelt was the next major third party candidate in 1912.  TR had been a brilliant and popular president.  However, most historians believe that had he not been boosted to the vice presidency by unhappy Republican colleagues in New York State, he would probably never have been nominated for President on his own by the rather staid conservative Republican Party. In 1912, with all his presidential achievements behind him, TR, as leader of the Progressive Party,   carried only six states: California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington State.  His electoral vote total was 88.  He outdid incumbent President William Howard Taft’s 3,484,980 popular votes with 4,119,538 of his own. However, the “rambunctious Bull Mooser” was no match for New Jersey Governor (Thomas) Woodrow Wilson’s 6,293,454 popular votes. (Note: President Taft carried only two states, Utah and Vermont, receiving a mere eight electoral votes.) Sure, TR and Taft together outpolled Wilson, but their electoral vote total was only 96 to the new president-elect’s 435.

In 1924, Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette carried only his native state of Wisconsin.  La Follette was popular with like-minded progressives but he lacked TR’s dynamic personality and vote-getting ability outside his home state.  In 1948, the third party candidate, in popular votes, was  South Carolina Governor James Strom Thurmond.  His popular vote was 1,169,021.  Thurmond carried four states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and his native South Carolina.  Thurmond’s electoral vote was 39.  Although affable enough for election in South Carolina, his temperament tended to be meanly self-righteous towards colleagues and opponents.

Finally, Governor Ventura, let’s look at 1968 and 1992, the years of George Corley Wallace’s American Independent Party and (Henry) Ross Perot’s independent candidacy.  Nineteen sixty-eight was a turbulent year in America.  Vietnam, assassination, racial unrest and George Wallace’s dynamic personality inflamed millions of hearts to consider his third party ambitions.  When the election was over, Wallace had 9,446,107 votes.  Although affable and charming, his threats to run over protestors dare they block his presidential limousine was regarded as “over the top” by most voters.  Again, unlike the leaders who come up through the ranks of a party, Wallace was always the major force behind any movement with which he was associated.  Wallace carried five states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.  Note: he received 1 electoral vote from North Carolina.  

In 1992 (Henry) Ross Perot, the brilliant, independent-minded business executive, won 19,721,433 popular votes. However, he received no electoral votes.  Still, third party devotees hailed Perot’s votes as being greater than TR’s, and as such, invoking a definite political trend that would eat into the traditional two party system. It’s also likely that his on and off again candidacy dulled his otherwise vote-getting prowess.

Third party voters are (of course) highly intelligent and generally progressive.  They particularly pride themselves on their logic. “The two party system is corrupt, outmoded, and undemocratic,” they assert.  “Furthermore,  Republicans and Democrats are out of energy. They need new ideas. Hence, the need for a successful third party presidential candidate.”  The flaw in this thinking is its shallowness.  The two party system blends well with both our political structure and tradition.  It won’t become obsolete until the electoral vote is replaced with the popular vote.  Since it takes 270 votes to form a majority in the Electoral College, all one has to do is divide 538 electoral votes by the four 2016 candidates to realize how small the electoral pie really is. Two additional alterations would have to be made.  Voting rights and regulations that now exist in the separate states would have to be standardized to simplify party eligibility requirements in the separate states and territories throughout the union.

Governor Jesse, you won in Minnesota because you probably were the best candidate for Governor in 1998.  You know as well as anyone that your native state has a history of supporting third party candidates. You also know how fickle those parties can be.  Finally, you yourself recently noted that a successful third party nationally would mean that we would have a “three-headed political monster rather than merely a two-headed one.”  You know from personal experience that in order to elect a national ticket you have to satisfy the requirements of 50 state jurisdictions. The requirements would be structured in such a way so that you could elect a presidential candidate, and then sustain your president once he or she is elected.

No, Governor, it’s not I who is ridiculous, it’s you!

Okay, Jesse, the truth is I’m readier to mumble than I am to rumble!  However, don’t look now, Governor… the guy standing in that partially open door behind me is Hulk Hogan!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE DEATH OF A DEADLY CRISIS?

By Edwin Cooney

As candidates Clinton and Trump warn us of present and coming crises that only they can solve, have you ever wondered what it’s like when a crisis actually is surmounted? It has happened, you know! In fact, today, September 12th, 2016, marks the 26th anniversary of the slaying of what nearly was a very catastrophic crisis. 

History is indeed tricky!  Sometimes we think a crisis is surmounted when an immediate conflict is over.  For example, when George Washington and the French Navy cornered Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, the Revolutionary War was over, but the new nation had a long way to go before becoming functional as well as independent. The Revolution was only really and truly complete when the original thirteen states, under the Articles of Confederation, adopted the 1787 Constitution, established the federal government and inaugurated George Washington as the first president on Thursday, April 30th, 1789 at Federal Hall in New York City.  That was thirteen years after our much vaunted July 4th, 1776!

When Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox that Sunday, April 9th, 1865, the immediate crisis of the union was settled.  However, there was a president yet to be assassinated and a race of blacks to be “dealt with (wisely or foolishly)” depending on how Americans, on both sides of the Mason Dixon line, were inclined to behave.

On Sunday, September 2nd, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur cut a splendid figure as he stood on the deck of the USS Missouri along with Britain’s General Percival and America’s General Wainwright (both of whom had been Japanese prisoners of war) to humble the Japanese military constabulary.  Yes, indeed, World War II was over, but it was hardly to be followed by “…peace on earth, good will toward men!”  Victory over Italy, Germany and Japan, satisfactory and necessary as they were, merely turned a hot war into a “cold war.”  Nevertheless, there was a need to celebrate, because even as there was to be another era of suspicion, at least the guns were silent.

As politicians, the media, and “we the people” argue about Mrs. Clinton’s integrity and Mr. Trump’s wisdom or knowledge about public issues, the fact of the matter is that it’s difficult to measure these two conundrums, let alone be certain of all they imply.  What you can be sure of is that regardless of which candidate is elected, it is more than likely that one of his or her actions will invariably result in an unintended consequence which will create some kind of crisis.

Not all national crises are military.  In April of 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk brought an annual national crisis to a successful end when he released the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine.  Additionally, in July 1969, we triumphed over the perceived Soviet lead in outer space when we achieved President Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the moon before 1970 thereby triumphing over the Soviets whose Sputnik satellite launching had so frightened us in October of 1957.  The medical and technical blessings that the “space race” brought us continue to be monumentally beneficial to our national well-being.

The crisis conclusion we can celebrate today occurred on Wednesday, September 12, 1990.  That crisis had threatened the possibility of World War III in 1948, 1959, and 1961. The deadly core of the crisis was the pride of the two most powerful nations on earth: the United States and the Soviets.  Both sides considered the geographical and political circumstances of this situation a matter of the gravest national security. The crisis was over the legitimate geopolitical status of Berlin, the capital of Hitler’s Germany.  Berlin, located 110 miles into East German territory, was occupied by Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union.  A non-Communist government in the sovereign state of Communist East Germany was a bone in Soviet throats.  Free territory under a negotiated agreement became an American principle worthy of our very existence and survival.  Then suddenly it was over when the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union signed an historic agreement enabling Germany to unite once again.  That agreement occurred exactly 26 years ago today.

Yes, indeed!  A deadly crisis was over and we declared ourselves as winners of the Cold War.  At home, Republicans insisted that Ronald Reagan was the key figure in the unification of Germany and of the ultimate end of the Cold War.  After all, hadn’t Mikhail Gorbachev responded to President Reagan’s May 1987 demand that he “…tear down that wall”? The Cold War was over and we were both safe and triumphant. What we didn’t fully grasp however was that another international crisis had been born on the other side of the world a month earlier with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.  The fruits of that crisis have been 9/11, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the birth of ISIL.

International conflict, henceforth, will be a continuous threat to our security as well as an opportunity for progress toward world peace.  After all, military conflict invariably fathers unintended and unforeseen political conflict even as it accomplishes victory for a particular nation’s safety, might, and pride.  However, we may take some comfort as we strive to solve crises, both foreign and domestic, by recalling how past crises were overcome.  Thus, as I see it, September 12th 1990 is as worthy of celebration as are Yorktown, Appomattox, VE Day and VJ Day.

Such recollections or, if you prefer, contemplations may not be as exciting as righteous anger in the face of a looming threat by a Communist or an “evil” caliphate, but knowledge of our success with historic crises may well help us sleep better at night.  A better night’s sleep provides sufficient energy to overcome almost anything!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MONEY — WHEN IT REALLY DOES TALK!

By Edwin Cooney

It’s my guess that if you have any sense of importance, priority, or especially a sense of high purpose, the chances are you’ll dismiss this week’s musing as a lot of trivial nonsense!  Well, that’s okay with me, but be careful. I may be about to put my finger on a future element of exceedingly dangerous national insecurity!

With all the fear and suspicion that 2016 politics offers voters including panic over ISOL and disdain for our present and future national leadership, perhaps the most unsettling reality of all is the possibility that the Russians and Chinese have access to our national intelligence and security systems, to our bank accounts and, worst of all, to our private emails and perhaps to the entire internet.  Fanciful as it may be, the most effective gateway to our national vitals (which can be defined as that which matters to us the most) would surely be if a foreign power could monitor our money.  After all, more than anything else, money is what really matters to 2016 America!

I know, you’re about to scold me insisting that “freedom” is America’s most valuable asset. Nuts! Everyone welcomes money! It doesn’t even matter if they already possess a lot of it; the more the merrier!  As for individual freedom, it’s okay so long as the freedom of certain political, ethnical, and religious people is limited and ours is maximized or otherwise protected.  Money, on the other hand,  is the object of unconditional love.  It’s even dearer than Old Glory and freedom combined. After all, a thousand American flags won’t come close to buying you a used automobile! Additionally, money possesses value which is second only to the continuance of our beating hearts!  (These days, if you have enough of it, money can even buy you a beating heart!)  Freedom is merely conditional on good behavior, likability and, very often, on whether or not one possesses enough of it.

One of the most heartfelt traditional beliefs in America is that “money talks.”  Of course, it’s the value of money that talks the loudest. Still, no matter the economic conditions under which we live, whether it is President Herbert Hoover’s deflation in the early 1930s or Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation” in the 1980s, if you have enough dollars, life is very good indeed.

Thus, you might ask what could be worse than our present concerns about ISOL, immigration, climate change?  Is it Hillary Clinton, “the liar,”  or Donald Trump, “the scheming ignorant con man”?  The answer is obvious — talking money!  Talking money could be more deadly than worthless money.  After all, worthless money is no longer money.  Just ask those who still possess Confederate Money!  Now you ask, what could make money talk?  The answer is simple — microchips, stupid!

I’ve often wondered, who are some of the people who once possessed the dime with which I used to buy a cup of coffee?  Back in 1964 when I was just 18, it wasn’t unusual for me to be carrying a dime that had been in circulation for 8 or 10 years.  Perhaps Mickey Mantle or Elvis Presley once owned that dime, nickel, penny, quarter  or fifty cent piece.  It’s not at all unlikely that you may yourself possess a nickel that once graced Donald Trump’s pants’ pocket or Hillary Clinton’s purse.  If money could only be doctored in a certain way, that money might yield far more than its value.  Another way of saying the same thing is: “if only money could really talk!”

Of course, very few of us take time to gaze at FDR’s left profile on the dime, Thomas Jefferson’s new full face engraving on the nickel, George Washington’s changing left profile on the quarter, or John Kennedy’s handsome left profile on the fifty cent piece.  Recently, there has been a debate about whether to redesign the ten dollar bill or the twenty. When I last checked, it had been decided to replace Jackson on the twenty with a woman for the first time, Harriet Tubman. 

The irony here is that by honoring the great among us and stamping our coins with “In God We Trust,” we already have a tradition of humanizing money.  Of course, in numerous ways money is already “human” in that it is fallible.  Money, like all human institutions, is vulnerable to noble or mischievous uses by creative and powerful entities, foreign and domestic.

If only money could reveal where it has been and what it has seen, imagine how it might well increase what we already know about one another.  It would be far superior to the often imagined “fly on the wall.” Flies don’t usually live very long.  Coins, on the other hand, are exceedingly rugged.Even more to the point, coins are invariably stored beneath the cushions of couches or chairs in living rooms in which very revealing conversations take place.  Thus, is it any wonder that someone sometime may seek to enable money to possess more than monetary value?

I think that’s possible.  Fortunately, such a likelihood seems rather far off.  Perhaps its revelation is sufficiently far enough ahead to be an issue in the 2116 presidential campaign. The debate will be over the taxability of our money. Since money already “talks,” imagine by 2116 our money is even more human than it is today. That being the case, Americans will actually have gained another legitimate freedom, a right we can brag about from the housetops without fear of any legitimate retribution. Our money will be like our children, lovable and even more — tax deductible. If money isn't taxable, then nothing can seed government sufficiently to “…elicit, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” 

If our government can no longer collect any taxes, that’s a definition of national insecurity if you ask me. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY