JACK KENNEDY - THE UP CLOSE BUT NOT TOO PERSONAL PRESIDENT

By Edwin Cooney

It’s almost impossible to imagine John Fitzgerald Kennedy being 100 years old on this day, Monday, May 29th, 2017. So, I won’t try to imagine the reality, I’ll just celebrate it!

May 29th, 1917 fell on a Tuesday. That day, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, second son of Joseph Patrick and Rosemary Fitzgerald Kennedy, was born at 83 Beals Street in Brookline, Massachusetts. He was raised in comfort as the second eldest of four brothers and five sisters. All of them, from Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., to Edward Moore Kennedy (Ted) became well known to most Americans. Since space won’t permit a mini-biography, I will instead try to put him into perspective.

John Kennedy (“Jack” to his many friends) was a strikingly handsome man standing about 6 feet, one half inch tall with a mass of reddish brown hair (some called it auburn). His health was generally rather poor and he was in nearly constant pain from his injured back (the result of football and war injuries) and the effects from jaundice, the root of which was Addison’s disease.

His character was strongly influenced, both negatively and positively, by the spiritual, social and political outlook of his parents, Joseph and Rose Kennedy. Their determination that Joe Jr, Jack, Bobby, and eventually Teddy succeed in elective office was greatly influenced by the way that white Anglo-Saxon Americans had treated Irish and other Roman Catholic immigrants and citizens since the mid 19th Century. The only way that early 20th Century Roman Catholic Americans could succeed was through knowledge, education, and competition. Jack Kennedy learned early that winning was more important than anything else in both politics and state craft. His personality, which was generally affable, enhanced his tall, slender, and usually tanned figure perfectly for American television. (It was ideal for crucial TV debates with less attractive opponents!) As for his public character, the president once said that his strongest asset was curiosity and his least attractive liability was irritability.

According to the chapter on President Kennedy in William DeGregorio’s “Complete Book of Presidents,” longtime friend and aide Kenny O’Donnell said that only twice did he see Jack Kennedy completely lose control of his temper. The first time was late in 1960 when there was a maddening snafu in the campaign schedule. The second time was during his clash with the American steel companies in early April 1962.

Politically, President Kennedy considered himself to be “an idealist without illusions.” His closest friends in the Senate were Florida Senator George Smathers, Missouri Senator Stuart Symington, and Washington State Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson. He wasn’t particularly close to either Texan Lyndon Johnson or the liberal Minnesotan Hubert Humphrey. Ironically, during the 1950s he was friendly with Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Their offices were right across the hall from one another in the Senate office building. When JFk nearly died in late 1953 in the wake of infections from back surgery, Vice President Nixon wrote a very warm and affectionate letter to Jackie Kennedy which was almost tearful in its tone hoping that God would spare courageous young Jack.

As the presidential election year of 1960 approached, JFK sought to strengthen his ties to such liberals as Hubert Humphrey (even though they competed for the nomination),  Illinois Senator Paul Douglas, and even Adlai Stevenson, the twice nominated and defeated Democratic presidential candidate. 

I think it’s fair to say that John Kennedy was never as “saintly” as he was portrayed in the wake of his national and world-wrenching assassination, nor was he as incompetent as he’s been portrayed by recent revisionist commentaries. Critics are right to point out that he had very little success with Congress. It took his martyrdom and Lyndon Johnson to get JFK’s Medicare, tax cut, and civil rights proposals through Congress. However, he was able to get congressional appropriation for the Peace Corps and signed the executive order creating it on Wednesday, March 1st, 1961. Finally, he was successful getting the Senate to endorse the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Still, among postwar presidents, Jack Kennedy had the least successful congressional relations.

Where Jack Kennedy stands out the most is the way he reflected the mood and style of early 1960s America. He was young and so were we. Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1965) were just beginning to populate the colleges, universities and armed forces. After all, he was the youngest elected president, 43 years and 224 days at his January 20th, 1961 Inauguration. (Note: Theodore Roosevelt was 42 years and 322 days when he succeeded to the presidency on the assassination of President William McKinley.)  Jack Kennedy was as manly as John Wayne, as much a star as Elvis Presley, and as wise and sophisticated as Adlai Stevenson. (“A Stevenson with balls” was the way many of his supporters thought of him.) He played in the fast lane as had his father and members of “the mob” (which I’m convinced was ultimately behind his assassination).

A husband and father of two young children, a girl and a boy, the youthful president appeared to be a carbon copy of millions of us, but his eloquence, his social station and his public office set him apart. According to Theodore White, author of the book “The Making Of The President 1960,” “there was that distance around him that must surround the chief.” In crisis, he was both tough and strategic. He would quarantine rather than invade Cuba in October 1962 during the Soviet Cuban nuclear missile confrontation. He would federalize the Mississippi National Guard but use them with restraint. He would stand up to Nikita Khrushchev during the Berlin and Cuban crises, but he would never humiliate him. He took responsibility for the failure at the Bay of Pigs as the “…obvious responsible officer of the government.” Beyond that he wouldn’t go.

Above all, he understood his fellow citizens as a Harvard man speaking to a Yale audience in June of 1962. In this, my favorite speech, he forecast the challenge all leaders face:

Every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality.  For the great enemy of the truth is—very often—not the lie: deliberate; contrived; and dishonest; but the myth: persistent; persuasive; and unrealistic.”

“Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.  We enjoy the comfort of opinion rather than the discomfort of thought.  Mythology distracts us everywhere.”

Kennedy’s departure from us was truly traumatic and ironic. Its irony lies in the fact that the canvas back brace that assisted him to remain upright in comfort may have caused his death. He was hit by two bullets, the first entering the back of his neck and emerging from his throat just above the knot in his tie, then passing through Governor Connally sitting on the jump seat in front of him. His last words before being hit in the back upper right side of his head shattering it and covering Jackie with blood and brain matter were: “I’m hit!”

The trauma to the whole nation was that the people experienced his death. The deaths of Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield and William McKinley weren’t experienced by a nation. Thus, in a way, Jack Kennedy’s mortality was America’s mortality. It may have been, as was written on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963, the end of America’s innocence.

He demonstrated that he knew us pretty well — certainly well enough to enchant us largely to our own benefit.  We only partly knew him and perhaps it was best that way. He was the last president to be loved by both dedicated Republicans and Democrats. After Jack Kennedy, presidents have received love that was largely partisan or defensive in nature.

I remember sitting in my room as Lyndon Johnson approached Washington D.C. aboard Airforce One. I knew that the President of the United States was about to address us, but it was a Texas accent, not a Harvard one I heard. I was hoping that the president would assure us that all was well in Camelot, but alas it was dark in a Camelot that never existed.

Fortunately, Jack Kennedy did exist, and in many ways our memories of his best assets still make us smile!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A MAN OF MANY MINDS! HOW MANY MINDS HAVE YOU?

By Edwin Cooney

How many times have you inquired of someone, “what do you think of this or that?” and they responded: “I don’t know for sure because I’m of two minds about that.” Perhaps you’ve never had that kind of a conversation with anyone, but I can assure you I’ve experienced many of those conversations over the years. I’ll also confess that seldom am I of one mind over a public issue or personality. Thus, I’m of “many minds” on the subject of Donald Trump’s presidency. It doesn’t matter whether you love, merely support, are indifferent, dislike, or even hate Mr. Trump. You might be enthusiastic about his priorities, his background, or who he isn’t (namely Hillary Clinton), and yet you can reasonably be unsettled about the way he responds to a situation or how effective he is with both his friends and enemies.

Personally, I’ve accepted his presidency as I have always accepted the election of the leadership  of the political party I oppose. Sometimes that has been difficult.(Specifically, the election results in 1980 and 1988 were hard for me to swallow). However, I came to have some tolerance and even affection for Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush! Second, whether I like it or not, the person who receives 270 electoral votes is lawfully the President of the United States of America, period — end of discussion. However, that doesn’t mean that I have to like it!

Back in 1960, former President Truman originally backed Missouri Senator Stuart Symington for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, once the balloting was over, Mr. Truman told reporters that he wholly supported Senator John F. Kennedy and Senator Lyndon B. Johnson for election to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. Then he added, “That is all the answer you need. The National Democratic Convention is the law for the Democratic Party. I am a Democrat and I follow the law.”

The hard truth is that I’ve found absolutely nothing admirable about President Trump whether it’s his money, his business acumen, or his political creed (if he even has one). So, there you have one of my minds about President Trump. Then, there’s his irresponsible behavior. Even today, I would scold my lads if they behaved toward others in such a rude, crude manner as our president. Thus you have my second mind, or mindset, as I consider President Trump’s behavior. Ah! but I have a third mind, or mindset, about the president’s survival in office.

I think it is increasingly evident that many Republicans are very disenchanted with President Trump’s bullying, bragging leadership style. They certainly weren’t overwhelmed or cowed back in mid-March when he told the House leadership to either get on board with his version of repealing Obamacare “or else.” House Freedom Caucus Republicans simply rejected it. Perhaps that was the president’s first taste of bitter reality as it pertains to politics: orders may be bullets in business or in the military, but they are often marshmallows in politics! Be that as it may, I’m beginning to get a sense of satisfaction with the ongoing and increasingly tense relationship between President Trump and the various elements of 21st Century Republican Conservatism. It’s amazing to me how willing the party is to tolerate the president’s brand of behavior, when, just a heartbeat away, there resides Michael Richard Pence, a perfectly acceptable socio/political conservative — solid in mind, body and spirit. There are those who insist that the Republicans will gang up on the president and declare him “disabled,” under previsions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution if the GOP takes a shellacking in the 2018 congressional elections. Under that amendment, if the Vice President and two thirds of the cabinet and two thirds of both houses of Congress submit to the President pro tempore of the Senate that the President is unable to assume his duties, then the Vice President will become the Acting President. (Note: the above is the concluding portion of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, not the whole document.) The point is, without impeaching the president, the GOP Congress could nullify his powers and turn them over to Mike Pence.

I hope they don’t. It’s likely, as I see it, that President Trump and his fellow Republicans are sufficiently dysfunctional as things stand and, except in matters where our national security is at stake, Trumpian and GOP dysfunction suits me just fine, thank you very much!

As stated above, I’m of more than one mind on many topics. For instance, I consider myself a Christian, but I struggle with some Christian doctrine. I’m a Democrat, however, I’m not terribly “pro choice” when it comes to abortion rights. I love my lads, but I often disliked what they did while growing up. I’m a Yankees fan, but the Steinbrenners almost always make me nervous!

As disconcerting as it often is to have more than “one mind,” I’m as certain as I can be that, in the long run, uncertainty is mentally, emotionally and even spiritually healthy!

Your next question to me ought to be: “Are you sure about that?”

And my response would be: “Sure… Struggle is sometimes painful, but comfort is too often mentally, emotionally, and spiritually stultifying!”

If you press me further by demanding to know why that is, I’d say: “Beats the hell out of me!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

    

HOW ABOUT ELECTING A LEADER ALL CAN RESPECT - WOW, WHAT A CONCEPT!

By Edwin Cooney

Today, Monday, May 8th, 2017, marks the 133rd anniversary of former President Harry S (“for nothin”) Truman’s birth. Yep, everyone loves Harry these days, but they didn’t used to. During the early days of his administration (from that Thursday, April 12th, 1945 when the death of FDR thrust Truman into the presidency, through the 1946 congressional elections that brought the GOP back into control of Congress), his problem was that he wasn’t Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Between 1947 and the 1948 presidential election that he wasn’t supposed to win, his problem was that he wasn’t Dwight D. Eisenhower whom both Democrats and Republicans coveted. Between his startling and historic Presidential victory and inauguration on Thursday, January 20th, 1949 and Sunday, June 25th, 1950, President Truman’s problem was that he lost China when the Communists took that beleaguered nation on Saturday, October 1st, 1949, and he “of course” allowed the Russians to explode its first atomic bomb that fall. Harry was slow, inept, and naive about the advance and danger of world communism. Between Sunday, June 25th, 1950 and Inauguration Day 1953 when Ike finally took over, President Harry Truman was a  buddy of the Pendergast gang of Kansas City, Missouri and an indecisive Commander-in-Chief in Korea. He had the gall to fire General Douglas MacArthur, a man of proven patriotic passion, military professionalism, and all-American pride. Additionally, according to the 1952 GOP campaign, he was primarily responsible for the ill deeds of crooks, political cronies, and the triumph of godless world Communism. As he bade the nation farewell in January 1953, it was popular to change the phrase “to err is human” into “to err is Truman.”

I never heard a civil word about Harry Truman, particularly from Republicans, until… the 1976 campaign. President Gerald R. Ford, like President Harry Truman, was behind during the fall campaign. Old Harry, through a combination of tenacity and guts, beat Dewey in the fall by 2.2 million popular votes and 114 electoral votes. In 1976, Republicans were determined to beat that upstart, Jimmy Carter, and so, suddenly, Harry Truman became a GOP hero. Having passed away on December 26th, 1972, Harry Truman missed the GOP Truman “love fest,” but he’d have understood it. After all, it was plain old American politics. Suddenly, Republicans loved the man they once hated, bitterly hated, because their man Jerry needed to achieve like Harry. Even more ironic, 1948 was the year Jerry Ford won the first of his 13 straight congressional elections in Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District. You can be sure of two other things. Neither Jerry nor his fellow Republicans, in Michigan or nationally, had anything good to say about Harry Truman that fall and they despaired at the Truman triumph. So, you ask, what’s the point of all this?

In last week’s musing, I pointed out how, when I was growing up, people inevitably insisted that they vote for the man and not the party. Hence, a war hero named Ike, and young, handsome Jack, could force party hacks to get behind their candidacies for their own election and political protection. By choosing Ike Eisenhower and, just eight years  later, vigorous Jack Kennedy, the presumption of the existence of free and independent voters was sustained in the American mind.

Then, during the 1960s, the twin marauders of political assassination and unsolicited war changed everything. Youthful Americans who were unhappy considered assassination and war to be the products of party and congressional hacks. Bosses had to be controlled. Thus, beginning in 1969, party and congressional leaders began to tear the structural guts out of politics, city and regional, state and national. Open primaries and caucuses took the place of party hacks. Quotas of women, ethnic groups and other underrepresented groups were called to man the watchtower of political freedom of choice. As things progressed, maximum opportunity for choice became more important than duty and responsibility when it came to  decision-making. Even worse, political ideology replaced knowledge and experience. Back in 1964, the conservatives sought to gain control of the GOP, but the vast majority of voters voted for Lyndon Johnson largely because he represented the legacy of Jack Kennedy, an ideological moderate, not a liberal.  

Politics, due to its natural fickleness, is, like medicine’s most powerful drugs, a dangerous tool vulnerable to misuses by voters and candidates alike. Today, stripped of its genuine independence and loaded with the false pretenses of both Liberalism and Conservatism, the body politic is on the verge of being drowned by the ultra rich. Only the ultra rich possess the resources to manipulate people beyond the capacity of the lawgiver. Thus, in 2016 we saw unfettered wealth destroy the traditionally financed and experienced Republican party.

As I see it, America is closer to political anarchy today than ever before. However repelled some of us may feel toward President Trump, the fact is that we, the free men and women of the United States, have made the president’s economic, political, structural and social prerogatives lawful whether or not we voted for him. We invariably nurture our own grievances and undervalue he grievances of others. Finally, in our tendency toward self-righteousness, we over-advertise our own wisdom and patriotism. The causes we champion in politics, too often unnecessarily and I think arrogantly, cheapen other’s legitimate aspirations. The question is: how do we put the genie back in America’s magic political lamp? When will we be confident and free enough to elect a president who all can respect however we might disagree  with that leader? The answer is that we probably can’t until most of us at least come to grips with the following realities:

(1.) Instead of solving our problems, we’ve institutionalized the tools needed to solve them for personal livelihood  and corporate profit. This includes the church, the press, social service agencies, law enforcement agencies, consumer protection agencies and projects, medicine, and what Ike once called “the military industrial establishment” designed to protect our freedom which ultimately is up to us to secure.

(2.) We demonize both the rich and the poor, the wise and the ignorant, the uneducated and the scholarly with equal contempt rather than putting them in proper perspective.

(3.) Despite pockets of poverty and want within our borders, we as a people are more comfortable than we even need to be. We’re literally a hothouse society that tends to prescribe that people and groups which don’t include us sacrifice their benefits and prerogatives so we don’t have to.

(4.) We happily spend more for entertainment and entertainers than we do for vital professionals. This may be because no one requires us to establish a market for entertainers while our mutual  security and prosperity require that we construct and maintain public institutions. 

The above tendencies doesn’t make us, or even our leaders, unworthy of a peaceful and prosperous future, but failure to require such establishments would make such a future less likely.

Harry Truman was far from a perfect leader. After all, he was the only human being ever to drop an atomic bomb. However, his humanity, his determination to tackle, in an intelligent way, complicated domestic and international problems caused his natural political foes to want to duplicate his success after his death.

Of course, as wise and forthright as Harry Truman was, not everyone liked him, especially when their own hopes and demands got in the way during his administration. However, in 1948, he demonstrated that on his own, without the benefit of the rich man’s banks, and the prognostication of political polls, he could win at least their political respect. He spoke simply as he criss-crossed America’s landscape 69 years ago this fall, saying:

“I’m Harry S. Truman. I work  for the government and I’m out to keep my job… and I’m going to do that on the second day of November.”

As for “S” standing for nothing, that’s exactly so. He might have received the full name of the paternal uncle for whom he was named, Harrison S. Young, or after his maternal grandfather, Solomon Young, or the middle name of his paternal grandfather Anderson Shipp Truman. The Trumans, to the delight of Harry’s political detractors, finally decided to let the “S” represent all three people. Ah, “S for nothin’ Truman” - how delicious! Sadly for them, it never bothered Harry!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

          

THE ALMOST, BUT NOT QUITE, BITTER REALITY

By Edwin Cooney

One of the most common or, if you prefer, lingering threads since I became aware of voting around 1956 when I was 10 years old and Ike was running for a second term, is that most Americans tend to insist that they “…vote for the man, not the party!” Being interested in the effect and significance of political parties and their ideologies, I’ve been dubious about this disclaimer for the most part. My dubiousness in the midst of the current administration’s fifteenth week appears downright naive!  As President Donald John Trump completed his first 100 days on Saturday, April 29th (today being his 102nd day), nonpartisan politics could be a “critical reality!”

Americans are a busy and largely self-indulgent people. Many are busy parenting and earning a living while others may really and truly have little interest in the details of civic affairs. Many of them are interested more in civic affairs at the state, regional or local level than they are about the intricacies of national and even international politics. Even worse, that dirty word “politics” appears to give them permission to ignore some vitally significant issues that often mean the difference between poverty and prosperity, peace and war, and, ultimately, life and death.

Here are three truths as President Trump insists that his first 100 days have been a sterling success:

(1.) The whole discussion is pointless. FDR’s phenomenal success between March 4th and June 16th, 1933 was largely, although not totally, due to desperation on the part of the whole nation which was simultaneously affected by bank closures, home and farm foreclosures, and the crisis of high unemployment. Although FDR was a highly skilled and charming president, he eventually misjudged the temperament of both the Congress and the people in 1937 when he sought to “pack” the Supreme Court.

(2.) Lyndon Johnson, from the White House, was still a master of Congress passing bills affecting civil rights, education, and much controversial consumer legislation during his presidency, but he left office in 1969 in near, although not total, disgrace in wake of his failure in Vietnam.

(3.) Most significant of all is the myth that the “one hundred days” of 1933 was solely  about President Roosevelt’s historic accomplishments. FDR took office on Saturday, March 4th, 1933. His 100th day in office occurred on Monday, June 12th, 1933. Congress met to confirm FDR’s cabinet on Saturday, March 4th, but didn’t begin its second day of business until Thursday, March 9th. Thus, the “one hundred days” which was  marked on Friday, June 16th, 1933 had as much  to do with the 100 day Congress (the final session of the 73rd Congress) as it has to do with FDR.

President Trump’s success continues to be, like it or not, what it ultimately was last November:

(1.) A divided Democratic party which, during the recent campaign, focused more on socio/political issues and seemed to forget the reason it was the most successful political party throughout the 20th century when it was all about jobs. Today it is a minority party in both the House and the Senate and is devoid, at this point,  of a sufficiently inspiring and potentially electable spokesperson.

(2.) Since trust of both political parties is in short supply, President Trump wasn’t elected because he was, or is, a Republican. Even after 102 days of reckless and irresponsible tweets and pronouncements, and despite his failure thus far to sign a single piece of congressionally approved legislation and despite the fact that he’s largely governed, by executive order as President Obama did (although not all of them have been upheld), Trump remains popular with his base. His popularity lies to a great extent in his defiance of standard political conventions. To those who still love him best, he’s the anti-politician’s politician. Therein lies the almost, but not quite, bitter reality.

Popular and potentially re-electable presidents are sustainable in office by a vital factor that, I think, is too often not taken seriously enough by sophisticated political pundits and scholarly academicians. A president’s reputation and temperament must match the mood of the electorate if a president is to be re-elected. Consider the following:

(1.) FDR was politically and personally charming and skillfully used the medium of radio to his and the nation’s advantage. Plus, he was a superb campaigner. FDR easily mastered his opponents Herbert Hoover in 1932, Kansas Governor Alf Landon in 1936, businessman Wendell Willkie in 1940, and New York Governor Thomas Dewey in 1944.

(2.) Harry Truman was plain and decisive as the average American needed to be if successful at home or in the workplace. Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey by 2,000,000 votes in 1948.

(3.) Ike could have had the nomination of both political parties in 1948, but was almost irresistible by 1952 when the GOP snatched him up. As president, he was everyone’s wise and heroic grandfather whether speaking before the U.N. or playing golf at Augusta, Georgia. Adlai Stevenson’s entertaining intellect had no chance against Ike either in 1952 or 1956.

(4.) Young, vigorous, athletic, intelligent, handsome, a war hero, and entertainingly articulate, Jack Kennedy as both a parent and politician, appealed to students and working people throughout the nation. JFK was exciting while Richard Nixon was just plain serious and excitement usually bests seriousness.

(4.) Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 because, unlike the likable Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Nixon wasn’t tied to the creation or continuance  of the Vietnam War. He was re-elected, not for a “hundred day” significance, but because he was seen by the nation as solid on foreign policy matters while Senator George McGovern appeared dull and bumbling by comparison.

(5.) Ronald Reagan was, whether right or wrong,  class and eloquence personified. You just had to love him, at least a little bit, because although he was quite dogmatic, he was friendly and believable — until the second half of his second term when along came Iran-Contra. President Jimmy Carter, in all his earnestness, and Walter Mondale, invariably linked to Carter, were totally outclassed by Reagan.

(6.) Bill Clinton was kind of everyone’s brilliant, but rather wayward kid. His first opponent, President George H. W. Bush, was, with all his hard earned conservative credentials, still something of an elitist. Clinton’s second opponent, Senator Robert Dole, was politically past his prime as an effective politician, so “Slick Willie” was re-elected.

(7.) George W. Bush was the son of an “elitist,” but he was mostly a well-connected Texas cowboy. He was re-elected because the people needed a cowboy’s protection from possible weapons of mass destruction whether from Saddam Hoessein or the still  at large Osama bin Laden. Besides, he was genuinely shy and plainspoken in comparison to both Al Gore and John Kerry.

(8.) Barack Obama was an inspiring orator who was both polished and personable. Even more important, the fact that he was black was augmented by the fact that he didn’t campaign as an angry black man in search of “justice.” Thus, he “wore well” with most people and trounced Senator John McCain and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in 2008 as they inherited George H. Bush’s growing recession.

(9.) As for 2012, President Obama’s progressivism clearly appealed to American voters more than did Mitt Romney’s businessman’s approach to governing.

I’m increasingly convinced that President Trump’s magic is that he’s really and truly neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Thus, his continuing, and even frustrating to many (me included) successful identification with working Americans is unfathomable.

Hence, after 102 days in office, both his successes and failures are still deliciously ahead of him. It’s still not certain that he really knows how to do his job. He should be more aware than he appears to be, that his success in business won’t be instructive in either domestic or international politics.

Guess what? The American voter, on the whole, is clearly impatient with purely partisan politics. Both Conservatives and Liberals may stubbornly be concerned with dogmatic consistency, but I’m convinced that the great majority of the American people still ask that historic question: “what have you done for me lately?” The answer to that question will, more than any other issue, ultimately dictate President Trump’s political fate.

Remember, a presidential term isn’t 100 days, it is 1,461 days. As Winston Churchill observed about World War II: “…everyday a day!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY