By Edwin Cooney
A few days ago, a sweet friend of mine, I’ll call her Ms. B, contacted me in considerable distress. An avid Hillary Clinton supporter, she was stumped when a “nasty” cousin of hers (my designation, not hers!) demanded that she name three positive things Hillary Clinton has done during her career. Such a challenge can be formidable to someone who isn’t steeped in current affairs or politics. The fact of the matter is that most voters aren’t students of current affairs, history, or politics. Even more, there’s a subtle trick in such a challenge designed to both embarrass and cause at least some emotional anxiety. Often the challenger has less knowledge than the one who’s being challenged but is more skilled in pure argument. Whatever the case, it seems to me that the challenger, more than the one being challenged, is guilty of gross political malfeasance!
Ms. B’s cousin demanded that she spell out three positive actions in Mrs. Clinton’s career without defining what good things Mrs. Clinton has done or could do that would constitute a positive action. It is likely that Ms. B’s cousin is a conservative and is incapable of being satisfied with anything Hillary Clinton has accomplished. Therein lies the subtle deceit in the challenge issued by my friend’s cousin. What makes the challenge especially nasty is the unlikelihood that her cousin is really seeking information. In the face of that likelihood, my friend is confronted with the kind of deception worthy of the label with which Mrs. Clinton’s chronic enemies consistently brand on her.
Ideologues of both the right and the left are invariably pickled in the brine of emotional and intellectual illusions. What ideologues especially detest is political accommodation or, more to the point, practical compromise that satisfies a broad spectrum of voters. Not too long ago it was considered not only good politics but civic-minded patriotism to please as many voters across the political spectrum as possible. Now it’s patriotic and civic-minded to humiliate your ideological and political opponents - especially when they are “radical liberal socialists”!
With all of their much trumpeted sins and liabilities, Bill and Hillary Clinton have largely dedicated their adult lives to public service. Nevertheless, they both have talents that would pay them handsomely in legal and academic circles. If that isn’t a positive career choice, I don’t know what is! (Note that Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John McCain, both George Bush’s, and Ronald Reagan — GOP saints and heroes — all made money before offering themselves for public service.) An objective read of Hillary Clinton’s biography informs the reader that young Hillary was drawn to public service not by the lure of electoral glory, but by the poverty she came across as a young high school Methodist volunteer in the ghettoes of late 1960s Chicago. Her sense of duty was further nurtured by the human waste provided by the Vietnam war. (Note: if that isn’t idealism worthy of positive review, it’s hard to imagine what Ms. B.s cousin is really looking for!)
Finally, read the history of American First Ladies and you will see that only Eleanor Roosevelt equals Hillary Clinton in public service. These three realities or, if you prefer, positive actions occurred before Mrs. Clinton’s official public service in the United States Senate and her stint as Secretary of State even began!
It would be foolish to assert that no one outside of politics could ever be capable enough to make a difference as president, but the fact is that up to this point in our 227 year history as a Republic, our greatest presidents have been politicians: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and, yes indeed, Ronald Reagan! Still, Americans are under the illusion that we can only be saved by someone outside of politics. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter are the only two presidents to come out of the business community. Sadly, history records that at the close of both their presidencies, political practitioners led the way to prosperity.
Harry Truman and Ulysses Grant were utter failures as businessmen. Yet, both of them brought their humanitarian principles with them to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In 1875, Grant urged the passage of the first civil rights bill — a bill that was eventually struck down by the United States Supreme Court. Harry Truman ended segregation in the military only a year before election day on November 2, 1948. Men in business invariably make progress or fail by the strength and wisdom of the orders they issue. Civic leaders, especially since the political reforms of the early 1970s, have little authority to give orders. Perhaps the greatest lesson of the political year of 2016 will be the realization that it really is time to start practicing productive politics once again.
Remember, the Tea Party of 2010 didn’t pick Donald Trump. If you don’t believe me, just ask Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz! Donald Trump will tell you that “law and order” is what’s missing in civil government. Nuts! Law and order is exactly what’s missing these days from the political process!
So, Ms. B, don’t be mad, be cool. Just ask your cousin to name three presidents from business who have been as well-trained for public service as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Unlike Cousin’s question, your question contains nothing either subtle or devious. As “The Donald” told us during the most recent presidential debate, business is about money. He clearly implied money is business’s business and how business acquires money is exactly none of the people’s business!
RESPECTFULLY SIBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment