NORTH KOREA - A NASTY PUZZLE!

By Edwin Cooney

When I was a very young lad, I learned from most of my elders that there were two types of Koreans — good Koreans and bad Koreans. The good Koreans fought against the bad Koreans as our allies and friends. The bad Koreans were friends of the very, very bad Russians. It was all very scary because we “little ones” often had to participate at school in air raid drills during which we were warned of the possibility that we could be obliterated in a Russian — or even a North Korean — atomic air attack.  Then, in July of 1953, the war came to an end! Or, did it?

As it turned out, the document signed between the North Korean government, the Soviet government and the United States at Panmunjom turned out to be a truce rather than a peace as largely advertised by the Republicans ever since. 

We Americans are traditionally so hungry for “peace,” that we are easily lulled into a mindset that ignores the difference between peace and truce. Thus, nearly 64 years after U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. handed a note to the Secretary General informing him that his organization had brought about an armistice with the North Koreans, we are invariably shocked to realize that technically we and the United Nations are still at war with North Korea.

The implications of this nightmare reality are almost limitless and horrifying. North Korea, led by the Kim family since its 1948 founding, is the victim of gangsterism as much as Communism. There are those who’ll assert that Communism, an ideology, is more or less a cover for gangsterism. (Note that no other Soviet or Communist state has been ruled by a “family!”)

Due to the irritation factor, there is the tendency to want to react violently out of pure frustration. The fact remains that the North Koreans won’t be intimidated by either our reputation or by our sheer military might. Let’s try a few scenarios.

(1) North Korea attacks Seoul South Korea with nuclear weapons. The fact is that because of the short distance between the 38th parallel, the truce line, and Seoul, the South Korean capital, there would inevitably be a severe fallout factor that would cost the Kim family considerably in both money and prestige even at home where they’re not used to either political or social resistance.

(2) An attack on South Korea would, under the SEATO Treaty of 1954 (the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, Southeast Asia’s equivalent to NATO), require an attack on North Korea by the United States and fellow SEATO members. This would bring China into the conflict most likely but not assuredly on the side of the North Koreans for it has been observed that North Korea has missiles pointed not only at the South Koreans and Japan, but also at the Chinese.

(3) An attack by the United States on North Korea, aside from bringing about a possible Chinese nuclear or mere conventional air attack on the United States, could bring severe repercussions (probably economic more than military) from the international community. In an era of severe U.S. trade deficits, this might well put a strain on our domestic economy with serious implications on our prosperity at a time when our attack on Korea would bring upon us new obligations to the world community that would make the Marshall Plan look like a mere charity event.

Now it’s time to tell some brutal truths - hang on tight!

(1) The American people were lied to about a “peace” in Korea especially by Republicans during the 1960s and 1970s as they promoted their brand of diplomacy over that provided by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam.

(2) North Korean leaders simply can’t afford a nuclear engagement against the South Koreans and the United States. They’d lose their lives and  their fortunes due to the fact that they are men of little honor.

(3) The North Korean leadership in Pyongyang are probably too vain and stupid to realize their likely fate.

(4) Should a conflict between North Korea occur and SEATO respond, Taiwan (or if you prefer “Free China”) could finally try and settle the score with “Red China.” This might well draw in the Russians as it’s not entirely certain that they have gotten over old Soviet habits!

(5) President Trump appears to believe, as President George W. Bush did, that the world will bathe us in glory should we destroy North Korea. After all, as he sees it, America will be “great” again. I can think of no time in world history when an aggressor earned the permanent gratitude of the world community.

(6) North Korea is not and will not be intimidated into a peace - no self-respecting government would be so intimidated.

Writing in the New York Times on the editorial page last Thursday, Joel S. Wit, a senior fellow who heads the North Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University, said that there is a way out of this potentially atomic quagmire. First, he writes, the United States must meet privately with the North Koreans at the United Nations, if not in Pyongyang, and assure them that it is not our intention to destroy North Korea. Next it should set up a strategy to allow the North Korean government to take the lead in ridding the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons. This would establish a domain of respect which the North Korean government has never had.

Joel Wit doesn’t assert that this proposal will immediately be successful, but it promises more possibilities than threats of sanctions or military intervention.

North Korea is indeed a nasty puzzle, but one thing appears sure. If North Korea is permitted to commit suicide, too many others will also die. If President Trump sees American “greatness” in such a scenario, he ought to build a Trump Tower in Pyongyang and reside there as long as he can!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A THREE WEEK PERSPECTIVE!

By Edwin Cooney

This column might have been sent to you on Monday, March 27th, just three days following the debacle of President Trump’s healthcare reform of the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare. Had I composed and delivered to you such a column I would have solemnly (yes, with a dash of delight!) waxed eloquent on the president’s demonstrated lack of control of his party.  Additionally, I’d have predicted that his tax cut hopes and his plan to build his “mighty Mexican wall” were in serious jeopardy.  A little perspective has altered the angle of my outlook on the whole matter.

It isn’t that I see the president’s promises and plans in less jeopardy than I saw them on Monday, March 27th.  The root of the problem isn’t the president as much as it is you and me.  I don’t care whether your name is Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, the late great newsman Paul Harvey, or even Edwin Cooney. If you solely follow the path illuminated by an idealogical star, you deserve what happens to you.  It’s just possible that President Trump with all his bombastic, reckless, naiveté is beginning to realize this.  Whether or not he can come to grips with it is another thing.  Of course, the president tried to bully Congress. When he told them to take the proposed reform of Obama’s Affordable Care Act or leave it, the Freedom Caucus simply left it — leaving the chief executive hanging out to dry.  After all, an ultimatum isn’t a deal, it’s a threat, and President Trump had nothing to offer the Freedom Caucus as part of any deal.  

Principles, as vital as they are in political thought, have limits in their application.  Opposition to abortion for instance costs the government more money to support the offspring of the poor.  After all, a poor baby is invariably a hungry baby and it’s a matter of morality that babies be fed.  The taxpayer will wind up paying for the feeding!  The reality is that good legislating, over a period of time, requires compromise, and compromise in this era of heavily financed liberalism and conservatism, is too often a political death knell to disobedient congressmen and women!

Presidents and Congress have been making deals for 227 years now.  While ideology has been a factor since Theodore Roosevelt’s and Woodrow Wilson’s differing brands of  progressivism, ideological politics didn’t really dominate the process of legislating until the election of President Reagan in 1980.

Sure Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson were generally regarded as liberals, but opposition Republicans found it practical to be more moderate than conservative in their politics as well as when it came to creating legislation.  FDR famously asserted that his left hand never knew what his right hand was doing.  Thus, he could and did support the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1933 which was pro business almost as much as legislation which was passed during President William McKinley’s day.  Modern conservatism didn’t get its start until William Buckley launched his National Review magazine in the mid 1950s.  

During the 1964 presidential campaign, when 27,000,000 of my fellow conservative citizens and I proudly supported Barry Goldwater, very few Americans identified themselves as conservative.  So, what changed?

During the 1960s and 1970s, four major issues came to the public’s attention that were generally regarded as moral questions. The first was the civil rights question.  Was it moral to discriminate against black citizens?  Was it moral or immoral for states to defy federal legislation forcing people to accommodate federal regulations which guaranteed the rights of black citizens?  Were human rights or states’ rights more legitimate?

At about the same time, the Supreme Court restricted prayer in the public schools in Engle v. Vitale in 1962 and Abington Township v. Schempp Murray and Curlett in 1963.  For the first time, Protestant Americans, who traditionally had so often historically discriminated against Roman Catholic Christians, felt vulnerable.

Then there was the morality of the Vietnam War.  Was the Vietnam conflict really a matter of national security?  If the war was to be regarded as legal, shouldn’t Congress have declared war as required by the Constitution?

Finally, the issue of abortion reared its ugly head on Monday, January 22, 1973.(Ironically, that was the same day on which Lyndon Johnson was stricken with his fatal heart attack!) Does a woman have a right to control her own body?  When does a human life begin within the womb?

All of these matters which dramatically affected life and death forced Americans into a new type of alliance.  Some insist that Americans have become family or tribal rather than socio/political in their emotional orientation — thus values have come to outweigh practical politics.

Last fall, for the first time ever, Americans elected a man to the presidency who lacked experience in the give and take of national and international politics.  Hence, many ideologues, especially conservative ideologues, are increasingly nervous as to how true President Trump will be to the conservative Americans who elected him.  Will a dealmaking businessman faithfully conform to the expectations of the moral majority?  Might President Trump find a way to forcibly institute a new era of practical politics?

If he does so, how long will it be before it takes effect?  What is the future of conservatism?  As of now, we have fiscal conservatives, moral conservatives and these new populist conservatives as exemplified by The Freedom Caucus.

As for the state of 2017 liberalism, as I see it, for the most part it is lying in the weeds without a clear agenda. This may be its best state of affairs as it seeks new leadership for 2020 and beyond.

I love concepts and ideas, and I admire principled people.  However, I’m convinced that the path back to national sanity is good old-fashioned political practicality.  By all means, Americans should have both priorities and principles.  Principles ought to be personal starting with the “Golden Rule,” and the most effective principles are those that are personally rather than politically practiced.

Someone has to start the good old political horse-trading in Congress because, after all, at the root of political horse-trading are two vital expectations we must depend upon: trust and tolerance!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SO, WHO’S UP!?

By Edwin Cooney

Almost a lifetime ago which was when I started loving baseball, there were only 16 teams covering the Northeast, nearly touching the South and extending as far west as Kansas City, Missouri.  Happily, the color barrier had been broken, but most of the players had names like Tom, Dick and Harry with occasional names such as Sherman, Roy and Vernon in the mix.  These were good old Anglo-Saxon names.  Today, in addition to generational Anglo-Saxon names like Jason, Justin, Aaron and Matthew, players are named Vladimir, Masahiro, or perhaps even Wong.  Baseball is rapidly becoming a global sport.  Soon, we may actually be able to truly assert after each season that baseball genuinely has a “World Championship” team!  In more ways than one, baseball is credibly playable by every able-bodied person. Note that in a modified form known as beep ball (due to the beeping softball designed for it), the blind can — and do — excel at it.

As is often observed, you don’t have to be exceedingly tall (like basketball players), bulky and muscular (like football and soccer players), or even speedy (like track and field and hockey stars).  Then, there is the well-known observation by Jacques Barzun that anyone who wants to understand the heart of Americans had better learn about baseball.

What’s especially exciting these days is that although major league baseball has nearly doubled the number of franchises from 16 to 30, most teams have at least an even chance to play post season baseball in October.  Between 1940 and 1950, nine of the then sixteen teams played in a World Series. Only seven of the sixteen teams got to play in the “fall classic” between 1950 and 1960.  Today, due to the advent of fall playoff baseball, the likelihood of your favorite team or mine realizing baseball glory is much, much greater than at any time in baseball history.  Last fall, ten teams had World Series dreams when the season closed on October 2nd following an exhausting 162 game schedule.

While I’m sure there are many fans who love the game for its symmetrics, its statistics, or for its traditions, for me, the human variables are what grab me.

Just the other day, I read of the passing of Washington Senators outfield/first baseman Roy Sievers.  Sievers, known by his friends as “Squirrel,” came up in 1949 and was the first recipient of the American League Rookie of the Year award.  By the mid 1950s, he was a reliable slugger for the Senators.  He led the A.L. in home runs with 42 and in RBIs with 114 in 1957.  What was interesting to me about Roy Sievers is the fact that he enjoyed a friendly relationship with Vice President Richard Nixon during this time.  When the vice president returned home following his famous “Kitchen Debate” with Nikita Khrushchev in July 1959, Roy Sievers was at Washington National Airport to greet Nixon.  Legend has it that even with all the political notables there to also greet him, Nixon spent a considerable amount of time with Roy Sievers talking baseball.  Roy Sievers died last week at age 90.  He played from 1949 into 1965 with the St. Louis Browns, the Washington Senators and the Chicago White Sox in the American League as well as with the Philadelphia Phillies in the National League.  He ended his career with the Expansion Senators after just 21 games in 1965.  He is one of only three players to have hit pinch hit grand slam home runs in both major leagues.

On my last birthday, I was given a fascinating baseball book called “The Baseball Maniac’s Almanac” edited by Bert Randolph Sugar with Ken Samelson, and Stuart Shea.  The book is packed with all kinds of interesting lists of players by various categories: tallest and shortest players, oldest and youngest, and the best all time hitters by position. There’s even a list of players who had the most hits by the state of birth.   (Note: I might wonder about that privately, but it’s not likely that I’d have publicly asked for that information!)  Here are some examples.

Tallest players in Major League History:

6’11” -  Jon Rauch - pitcher, Toronto Blue Jays, Washington Nationals, etc.

6’10” -  Andrew Brackman - pitcher, New York Yankees 2011

6’10” -  Eric Hillman - pitcher, New York Mets 1992-1995

6’10” -  Randy Johnson - Montreal Expos, Seattle Mariners, Arizona Diamondbacks and New York Yankees

6’10” -  Andy Sisco - pitcher, Kansas City Royals 2005

6’10” - Chris Young - pitcher, Toronto Blue Jays 2004-2005

Shortest Players: 

3’ 7” - Eddie Gaedel - pinch hitter, St. Louis Browns 1951

5’ 3” - Jess Cortazzo—pinch hitter, Chicago White Sox 1923

5’ 3” - Yoyo Davalillo—shortstop, Washington Senators 1953

5’ 3” -  Bob Emmerich—outfielder, Boston Braves 1923

5’ 3” -  Bill Finley—outfielder/catcher, New York Giants 1886

I find it rather interesting to speculate regarding at least two of the youngest players and the circumstances of their trip to “the big time.”  The youngest player ever to go up to the majors was 14 year and 10 months old Fred Chapman when he joined the Philadelphia A’s of the old American Association in July 1887.  He pitched 5 innings, gave up 5 runs, no home runs, and 8 hits.  I have no information about who he pitched against.  His home town was Little Cooley, Pennsylvania.  I haven’t a clue how far that was from Philadelphia.  He never pitched again in the majors.  Back then, a professional ballplayer was almost universally considered a ne’er-do-well.  His profession didn’t produce a product for the use of the public, it merely entertained.  The players were uneducated to a considerable extent, and it’s interesting to wonder why young Frederick Joseph Chapman didn’t pursue his profession.  Surely he explained it to someone, because he lived to be 85 years old.  He was born  on Sunday, November 24, 1872 and died on Saturday, December 14, 1957 in Union City, Pennsylvania.

On Saturday, June 10, 1944, just four days after D-Day, 15 years and 10 months old Joseph Henry Nuxhall joined the Cincinnati Reds.  Joe was born on Wednesday, July 30th, 1928 in Hamilton, Ohio.  He was just 15 years, 9 months and 12 days old.  He gave up five runs, five walks and a wild pitch in two thirds of an inning.  Again, I have no information as to what team the Reds were facing that day, but they were already behind 13 to 3 when young Joe was summoned.  Seven years later, in 1955, Joe would return to the Reds and have a career lasting through 1966.  He’d be good enough to play in the 1955 and 1956 All Star Games.

Of course, all experiences in and out of baseball are ultimately human experiences.  However, there’s something about this magical game that makes those experiences special.

Oh, I almost forgot:  my new book lists those born by state who had the most major league hits in his career.  Here’s one tidbit:

Alaska’s most prolific hitter is Josh Phelps with 380 hits.  If you want to know about any more of these native state heroes, just keep those cards and letters coming!

As for who is up next — just stay tuned to your radio, television or smart phone!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

   

AH! ITS WARTIME IN WASHINGTON - ARE YOU SURPRISED?!

By Edwin Cooney

Yes, indeed! It’s come down to bare-knuckled fisticuffs between President Trump and his congressional Republican colleagues and you shouldn’t (that is if you are) be the least bit surprised!

Of course, one of the most constant threads throughout our history is the ongoing conflict between the president and congress regarding the wisdom or folly of proposed legislation. Harry Truman, who fought with both Republican and Democratic congresses during his 2840 day presidency, often observed that “no president worth his salt can avoid quarrels with congress.” However, intra-party quarrels are invariably more dangerous than are the almost expected inter-party battles between the executive and the legislative branches of the government -- although it should be noted that there’s nothing new about intra-party fights either.

As we contemplate this squabble, it’s vital that we keep four truths in mind:

(1.) There are social and political fissures in all parties and within all party doctrines.

(2.) Parties that have finally triumphed by winning both the White House and Congress after many years of opposition find it difficult to finally go along with their new executive leadership. This was especially true during the Eisenhower years as the GOP struggled with the effects of McCarthyism and with the Bricker Amendment during 1953 and 1954. (Note: Ohio Senator John Bricker, who was the 1944 Republican Vice Presidential candidate under Tom Dewey, sought to tie the hands of the Executive branch’s power to negotiate treaties - an effort that President Eisenhower barely was able to fight off.) This intra-party squabbling turned out to be a factor in the GOP’s subsequent 26-year loss of the Senate and its 40-year loss of the House of Representatives.

(3.) There are today 3, not merely 2, parties in Congress. They are Republicans, Conservatives and Democrats and the gap between Republicans and Conservatives is widening rather than contracting now that both Republicans and Conservatives have reached the land of milk and honey.

(4.) The most significant truth is that Donald John Trump really and truly isn’t a Republican. He merely bought or is perhaps renting the party as an instrument toward the achievement of his personal political glory.

The question is who will win the struggle between President Trump and Congress? To answer that question here are some more truths.

(1.) The best 20th Century presidents have generally been the best politicians. Whatever they say publicly, they love the art of politics, and they invariably love their political colleagues. (Note: The 20th Century presidential greats I refer to are in order of greatness: FDR, Truman, Johnson, TR and Reagan.) I haven’t seen the precise figures by which the plan sponsored by Speaker Ryan and the President fell short. However, I’m sure that had Reagan put his weight behind the Ryan proposal, the count would have been close even if it didn’t prevail. 

(2.) Presidential political outsiders such as Carter and Hoover (both businessmen by the way!) ultimately go into free fall when they start sliding because as outsiders their contempt for insiders provides them with few insider friends in Washington to break their fall before they hit bottom.

(3. The GOP’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act (or if you prefer “Obamacare”) is deep and even systemic. Although moderate Republicans have supported such social measures as the establishment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development during Ike’s time, and even though Richard Nixon proposed a form of healthcare and his family assistance program in 1971, too many of them see help for the poor and the ill as downright unconstitutional and thus not within GOP DNA.

(4.) Lacking, as they do, social DNA, it’s almost impossible for Republicans and even more so for principled Conservatives to spend public money on matters of primarily social concern. The only legitimate gateway to liberty is the “free market” which, as I’ve reminded readers for years, is by no means free!

Beyond the above truths, there exists the myth that too many Americans cherish. That myth is that government can and ought to be run as a business. President Trump now faces the reality that he can’t force politicians, either at home or abroad, to respond to his orders. In government and politics, the president can neither fire the opposition nor institute a leveraged buyout. His continuous belittling of other nations and leaders during the late campaign, again at home and abroad, provides his opposition with little incentive to cooperate with him. Until he provides them with incentives, rather than threats, he’ll never fulfill his political promises.

I’ll always remember how I felt after George W. Bush’s 2001 Inaugural even in the wake of my disappointment over the Supreme Court’s election of the president. During his address, President Bush acknowledged the value that even his opponents could bring to his success. There was no belittling of his presidential predecessors even though his most immediate predecessor was named Clinton. Thus, hope for some moderate social legislation kindled even as energy shortages and the fruits of 9/11 germinated in the hearts and plans of angry and religiously-motivated Middle Easterners.

Few Americans, including former President Obama, would argue that there should be no changes to the Affordable Care Act. Fewer still I believe would totally obliterate it either.

Nevertheless, until President Trump alters his self-absorbed braggadocio and tantrum-laden proclamations, absolutely everyone will prevail over even his most well-intentioned presidential goals.

President Trump is right that the Affordable Care Act should be altered, but he’s already demonstrated that he doesn’t have a clue as to how to accomplish it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY