LET’S FACE IT: HE’S ONE OF US!

By Edwin Cooney

I promise, I don’t like this any better than you, but it must be said: Donald John Trump, more than any president in American history, is one of us! That’s you and me, “us!” Here’s the root of my contention.

Back in 1965, I was sitting in a Binghamton, New York bar which was run by a gentleman named Dominic. Dominic was a reasonably friendly fellow, but he was increasingly disturbed about the path on which President Lyndon Johnson was taking us in both domestic and foreign affairs. America was still recovering from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The war in Vietnam was broadening and Americans had recently re-elected LBJ in large part because he’d promised not to expand the war. Most Americans hoped he could win the war before it became a real live war. After all, wars were declared by Congress and no such war had been declared. The civil rights struggle on behalf of black Americans was also broadening and for many it was becoming increasingly threatening to our homes, neighborhoods and schools.

At one point during the conversation Dominic asserted, “It’s a good thing I’m not running this country!”  He didn’t offer anything in the way of details, but somehow Dominic’s observation stuck and remains stuck with me. It has become increasingly apparent to me since last November 8th that Dominic is indeed finally running this country.

The problem is twofold. First, in order to go beyond today’s painful dilemma, we’ve got to be willing to face its origin and to grasp its nature.

The origin of the problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that in order to be successful, all, not just some, people deserve to prosper. We are far more interdependent than we were during the first 150 years of our republic (roughly between the years 1776 to 1926). During this period of time, America’s primary task was to grow and flourish. Plentiful land and resources hand-in-hand with laissez faire was enough to both enrich most of America. What was missing was the free market’s unwillingness to invest in the workers as they invested in materials to keep their factories and businesses flourishing. Suddenly when the Great Depression choked all or most of the profit out of free enterprise, business needed a new stimulus to reenergize the country. That stimulus came in the form of FDR’s New Deal which meant, of course, more government. In addition to what government meant there came the personality of a strong executive. That executive, in the person of the President of the United States, became a being on whom Americans began to personally depend on to solve their problems. Not until the New Deal had government begun to tackle the woes of the people.

This new personage took on a status, for good or bad, that our presidential giants  —Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and even Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson — didn’t match. Thus, the person of the modern presidency has reached a gravity that the Founding Fathers, understandably never anticipated.

The modern presidency, for both better and worse, is here to stay. FDR was right when in a 1938 Fireside Chat he asserted: “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.”

What has been occurring since then is a struggle between the forces, political and socio/economic, for control of the government. These forces include business (big and small), banking, merchandising, labor (big and small), civil rights groups, chambers of commerce, other service organizations, consumer groups, churches, and what President Trump labels “the dishonest media.”  All of these entities or, if you prefer, special interest groups, strive to manipulate presidents, congresses, and public service organizations for social and political power. The result is confusion and chaos.

To make matters worse, the political and moral conduct of recent presidents have lowered the prestige of the office. The office to which Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy were elected began losing its majesty in the wake of Friday, November 22nd, 1963. By the time Richard Nixon was elected, the White House had merely become the home for the most successful politician rather than for a potential statesman. Since Nixon, presidents have become “Liberals” and “Conservatives” just as much as they are Americans.

Thus, last fall, for the first time in American history, Americans elected a president almost entirely independent of ideological principles. As a “businessman,” he would outflank and outdo politicians of all ideological stripes, foreign and domestic. He alone would reshape the world regardless of what anyone else felt or thought and America would be “great” again. Many of us, myself included, underestimated him and it may well be (although it’s far from certain) that he’s bitten off far more than he can chew. After all, he now finds himself surrounded by politicians both at home and abroad. None of these politicians have to dance to his tune. Unlike corporate bosses, no individual leader, be he or she a party leader here in America, a prime minister, a president or even a king or queen is capable of ruling by mandate. What is happening under President Trump as I asserted above is chaos and confusion.

President Trump finds himself, whether he realizes it or not, in the same position as millions of his fellow citizens when they first enter parenthood. Parents possess, at least originally, all of the tools to “control” their children to the extent that they believe they’re obligated to do so. Eventually, however, they discover that with all their legal, financial, and moral power, they lack the authority to shape their children as they originally intended. Power without authority is only effective in the short run. Power promises the leverage to master the immediate. Authority is the reward for wise and reliable guidance once the severest test has been passed.

Like you and me at our worst, President Trump has convinced himself that, by his will alone, he can “master” America. After all, he is richer and supposedly better connected to the world’s most powerful resources than ordinary people and, like many of his corporate contemporaries, he believes that it is his responsibility to exercise his newly found power to reshape America, “…the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Unfortunately, like you and me at the dawn of every new experience in life, Donald Trump is just a baby. As such, in order to succeed, he must grasp the magnitude of his new responsibility by understanding as never before what it will cost him to succeed. After all, that’s what you and I have to do everyday.

Yes, indeed, President Trump, probably more than any 20th or 21st Century president since Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, is a total mystery to most Americans. The difference between Truman, Carter and Trump appears to be that the former were humble enough to realize how much they had to learn. Unfortunately, like too many of us, President Trump believes himself above the need to learn. If he’s lucky, if we’re lucky, we’ll all muddle through. If not, at least we’ll have the satisfaction of fully realizing from whence he came.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SO, WHERE LIES THE FAULT?

By Edwin Cooney

In the wake of the tragic murder of 32 year-old Heather Heyer on Saturday, August 12th, 2017 while she was protesting the unity rally of the far right, the country has been in intense turmoil. Sadly, most of this turmoil has little to do with the pain and suffering of Ms. Heyer, her family, or her friends. The turmoil has been largely due to President Donald Trump’s assessment of that tragedy.

Any time an incident occurs that casts a pall sufficient to fever the national brow, it has become traditional for the President of the United States to apply a cooling compress to that brow identifying the source and nature of the tragedy that has brought about the national heartache. Most of the time, our elected leader, be his name Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, has pretty accurately put his finger on or near the source of our pain thus allowing us to adjust to the conditions that brought about the tragedy. This time, however, our elected leader spread the blame over all of us rather than pinpointing its cause. He may well have decided that “no one is perfect,” so why should his supporters be blamed for what all political extremists do from time to time? Even more, he obviously decided that an increasing number of Americans have become sufficiently suspect of “the fake media” to take seriously any foolishness of which his supporters may be guilty.

Before we move beyond the tragedy of the event to the core of President Trump’s leadership dilemma, the fact of the matter is threefold. First, the left as a force in this country, as well as worldwide, has been diminishing since the late 1970s. The new dictatorships have been rightward-leaning — a mixture of doctrine and religion as opposed to the coldhearted and materialistic regimes of Marxism Leninism of the post World War II era. Soviet Russia has become an increasingly corrupt oligarchy far more corporate-minded than socialist-oriented. Second, here at home only President Obama’s healthcare program has passed the Congress in recent years. American progressives have been largely stultified since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson. Finally, the last time any leftwing organization threatened our sense of domestic security, Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton, and the Berrigan brothers were celebrities. Malcom X and George Jackson, were celebrated as martyrs of the left. Then there was the Symbionese Liberation Army, the SDS, and the Weathermen, all of which were nuisances except to their immediate victims. Their actual threats were negligible to our national security. Presidents Johnson and Nixon, along with Congress, spent little money combating them in comparison to the huge sums spent on combating the Viet Cong and the forces of North Vietnam, neither of which was a threat to our domestic tranquility (even if their American cheerleaders were annoying and hypocritical much of the time.)

In the New York Times last week, Linda Qiu observed that while violent leftist demonstrations such as the shootings at the GOP baseball practice and the bombing of the North Carolina Republican party headquarters have occurred, leftist demonstrations have largely been against property rather than people. She goes on to report that in the past 25 years, the left has fewer icons to draw upon for support. 

As has become increasingly true, fault for any individual act pales in significance to the  trend of political behavior here in America. As pointed out above, the left was far more deadly in the late 60s and up to the mid 70s than it is today. Sure, all human beings are sinners according to mainstream Christian doctrine. Clearly, however, President Trump hid behind that article of Christian faith, largely, I’m  convinced, to minimize the sins of the putrid far right. Unhappily, it is President Trump who provides the oxygen to fuel and energize the dastardly deeds of the far right. It is from within their ranks that he draws  the venom of suspicion from which, sadly, he hopes to redeem votes during the next two crucial national elections. Even sadder, too, many otherwise thoughtful Christians have traded in their spiritual values for the license to march in President Trump’s parade of personal pride and triumph.

At this writing, I’m on the edge, although not quite there, to advocate that this president be removed from office. Such a move would be politically, socially, and  emotionally wrenching to every patriotic citizen. For the time being, President Trump must be allowed to create his own legacy and he is doing exactly that.

No, Mr. President, as far as this observer is concerned, what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia was the direct fault of James Alex Fields, Jr. You, however, are his charismatic leader and lodestar. His fault might reflect everyone’s worst tendencies, but the atmosphere that fueled and energized Mr. Fields’ fault came directly from you and reflects your faults, Sir!

Is your attempt to minimize the violence of the far right an impeachable offense? Only time will tell! For the present, your political fate is in your hands. Be more prudent with that political fate, for sooner than you can possibly realize, it may be out of your hands!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AH, WHAT MAKES IT ALL MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

Last Wednesday evening, I received a call from someone I’ve thought of as a likely supporter of President Trump. To my surprise she wanted to know if any previous president had been as fumbling, bumbling, crude, deceptive and dishonest as President Trump. 

My response was that while no president had ever come close to DJT in pure cussedness, other presidents had caused considerable chaos at the executive level of government. Among these were John Tyler, the first vice president ever to succeed to the presidency, Millard Fillmore, the second vice president to become president, Andrew Johnson, the third vice president who succeeded to the presidency, and Chester A. Arthur who succeeded the assassinated James Garfield. They were all unelected presidents and, by their succession to the presidency, caused mass cabinet resignations.

In all of the above instances, the public perceived the new presidents to be lesser leaders than the president whose death brought about their respective successions. Consequently, none of these presidents were either renominated or re-elected. Not until the election of Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, Harry Truman in 1948 and, finally, Lyndon Johnson in 1964 were succeeding vice presidents elected to a full term of their own. (Note: Gerald Ford was nearly elected to his own term in 1976, but not quite!)

It is tempting to go through each case and explain its circumstances, but it really would be quite pointless. The reason for that has mostly to do with you and me.

Back in the fall of 1971, I was a student at SUNY Geneseo when George Reedy, the former press secretary to Lyndon Johnson, came touting his latest book “The Twilight of the Presidency.” Mr. Reedy, like many of his contemporary liberal scholars, was convinced that his old boss, LBJ, due to his Vietnam policy, had thus weakened presidential authority for the foreseeable future. He went on to remind us, members of the SUNY Geneseo political science club, how distant were the persons of the presidency from the public’s comprehension until the 1930s. Most Americans  had not heard a president’s actual voice until Franklin Roosevelt began addressing the American people over the radio in 1933. Throughout most of American history, except during a presidential campaign when pictures and posters and enthusiastic political parades blanketed the nation, was a presidential candidate anything more than a name to most voters. Thus, the president was more an institution rather than a flesh and blood individual.

Since my personal enlightenment by George Reedy nearly fifty years ago, the presidential, or potential presidential personality has become as much a factor in national elections as the “vital” issues of the day.

Probably more than any time in history, the outcome of a presidential election, despite the existence of the electoral college, depends on the mood of the people. Remember, there’s nothing secret about the existence of the electoral college. Its existence is a gift of the “Founding Fathers,” that very generation of rich merchants and planters who gave us the Declaration of Independence, our much valued federal system of checks and balances, along with other gifts. The electoral college was designed as a tool of  the states, not the federal government, to temper democracy with republicanism. The electoral college was, in short, designed to be a body of the just and the wise. Hence, the “predictable populous” could be checked by the better born and the better educated.

Thus, five presidents blessed by the constitution — John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Birchard Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George Walker Bush in 2000 and Donald John Trump in 2016 — legally, if unpredictably, have successfully defied the popular will of the American people.

Very few bloggers, columnists, or political pundits, predicted President Trump’s election — yours truly included. Thus, we can hardly expect to be taken too seriously when our personal political incredulity or outrage leads us to predict President Trump’s coming political demise.

Writing in Saturday, August 5th’s New York Times, columnist Nate Cohn points out how misleading political polls are. Specifically, he demonstrates how often positions taken by the Democratic party seem to mean very little when it comes to electoral power. The Democrats’ positions on gun control, immigration reform, health care, and even affirmative action seem to reflect popular support, but Republicans, conservative

Republicans in particular, now hold most of the state governorships, state legislatures, the congress and now the presidency despite the seeming popularity of Democratic party issues. He goes on to guess that this could have to do with the Republicans’ enthusiasm to back their party’s positions versus that of Democratic voters. Furthermore, he suggests that voters have a tendency to buck political trends. Thus, an incumbent president often finds himself, having succeeded, fighting a reverse headwind. That, he suggests, may well be the reason Republicans have been shocked to learn that large portions of their constituents were far more reluctant than they to repeal Obamacare.

Of course, it matters how the people vote! What is less clear is whether people vote because of what they have conscientiously learned or merely due to what they have thoughtlessly come to fear. However, if we’ve learned anything from the 2016 presidential election, it’s how defiant and fickle you and I can be. 

It may well be that the most powerful element of our personal freedom is our freedom to be fickle. Who shows up, who stays away from the polls may well constitute our unpredictable but inevitable national and personal fate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

STILL A BELIEVER!

By Edwin Cooney

July has been a difficult month for me emotionally, sentimentally, quasi-professionally (as a columnist) and even as a citizen. No, I’m not asking for anyone’s sympathy - to paraphrase what Jimmy Carter said of his presidential responsibilities, tough times “…go with the territory!” Still the discomfort is real even as part of the “territory.”

Just the other day, a good friend of mine (one of the two smartest men I know) told me that he’s lost respect for the Congress, the courts and the institution of the Presidency of the United States. Exactly how the other smartest man I know feels is something I haven’t yet discovered. I’ll consult him soon.

The two men, although very knowledgeable about a number of topics germane to the survival of 21st Century America, are very different personalities. While both are highly logical, my friend whom I’ll call “The Piper” is rather flinty when expressing his opinions or conclusions in that he shows little sentimentality in his judgments, but he’s scrupulously fair and non-personal in his social and political pronouncements. The second “Mr. Smart,” whom I’ll call “The Terabyte,” is more of a renaissance kind of a guy. He’s more combative in debate than is The Piper, but he’s less rigid in his pronouncements. He, I think, might have lost respect for the three institutions referred to above, but his loss of respect is probably more conditional and less final than is The Piper. (Note: both gentlemen will without doubt immediately recognize who they are. Although they’ve met on at least one occasion (my 2013 wedding), whether or not they’ll recognize the other one from this description, I’m not sure. Come to think of it, they may well not even recognize themselves after reading my description of them!) Both of them know that I consider them the two smartest men I know and my regard and respect for both of them is considerable and ongoing. My guess is that even after I’ve consulted Mr. Terabyte I’ll still be a believer. If The Terabyte strongly agrees with The Piper he’ll be more combative in trying to convince me to take his position than The Piper has been, but all will be well in the end.

Since the main focus today is on the presidency of Donald Trump, I’ll address that problem here. The presidency, even as it was founded during the 1787 and 1788 constitutional convention and ratification process, was founded with the name of one man alone who would occupy it: General George Washington. Washington was a man of both pride and discipline — pride in himself and his sense of national service and yet disciplined in his capacity to restrain whatever ambition and belief in his own personal authority he possessed. Thus, even as he assigned authority to cabinet members, to officers of the judiciary, and even to the presidency, President Washington limited, sometimes subtly, the scope of their authority. (Note: he suggested limited presidential terms by example rather than by a directive or amendment to the constitution.)

The ages of Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan, to name only a few, are part of our history. Their greatest glory was the expectation of achievement; that, whatever were the down sides of those achievements, they were designed to benefit the largest number of Americans possible. To paraphrase President Truman: Most Americans can’t afford to send lobbyists to Washington to do their bidding. There’s nothing wrong with lobbyists except they’re expensive. Thus, the president has a special responsibility to be the people’s lobbyist keeping the broadest number of people’s legitimate needs in mind.”

As things stand today as we enter the eighth month of Donald Trump’s presidency, the office he solemnly pledged to “…faithfully execute…” has been temporarily but severely tarnished, in record time, largely by the president’s personal behavior. Even worse, rather than a legacy of achievement, he’s left a legacy of conflict that encompasses the whole American body politic. Having asserted this, I hasten to offer a significant historic reminder.

On the evening of Tuesday, March 9th, 1954 Edward R. Murrow (who to me remains the greatest reporter and broadcaster of all times) broadcast a documentary on the behavior of Republican Wisconsin Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy. The documentary demonstrated in both pictures and Senator McCarthy’s own words the shallowness of his charges of Communist associations against his fellow Americans who appeared before his committee on investigations, the crudeness of his treatment of witnesses, the weakness of his evidence, and the unjustifiable damage done to their careers and to their persons. Having laid out his case against Senator McCarthy, Murrow reminded his fellow citizens that the ultimate fault for all of this was not Joe McCarthy’s. “He didn’t create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it — and rather successfully.” Then he ended with that famous admonition: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.”

Later in 1954, the United States Senate with its Republican majority still intact although functioning as lame ducks in the wake of the recent congressional elections, censured Joseph McCarthy for conduct detrimental to the United States Senate. In that instant, except in the minds and hearts of his most devoted supporters, Senator McCarthy’s political influence was gone.

As damaging and hurtful as Senator McCarthy’s conduct was, the Senate lost little prestige. Since then four Senators, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Obama, have gone from the Senate to the White House. Historically, almost every sin you can imagine — disloyalty, incompetence, thievery, and even murder — have originated in many of the most revered and even sacred offices throughout western civilization. Neither the British monarchy, the presidency of the United States or even the papacy have been conducted in such a way as to avoid humankind’s most horrific sins. Sins have marked and marred the papacy - especially the medieval papacy. Yet, these three institutions have been and are the most continuously sought after and revered institutions for the last thousand years. (Perhaps not by my friend The Piper, but by many other respectful personages.)

I am second to no one in their increasing repulsion of President Trump’s behavior including his disloyalty to others while expecting absolute loyalty from those he employs, his crude tweets, his failure to study and thus grasp the assets and liabilities of the office he worked so strenuously to achieve, and his absolute narcissism. However, to empower him with the capacity to permanently disgrace the presidency to me is a flawed assessment. Flawed, as are all humanly created institutions, their misuse is totally due to the acts of their individual occupants. Their usefulness is totally dependent on the capacity to do good.

For every Henry the Eighth there was a Victoria, for every sinful pope there was a Pope Paul the Sixth, a Pope John Paul the Second and a Pope Francis. Vulnerability to imperfection is the lot of us all regardless of the human-made institution we occupy: king, queen, pope, governmental official, husband, wife, parent teacher or preacher. Remember that old adage, “The sins of the father should not be visited on their sons.”

Earlier this month, I was sharply reminded that I lack any academic or professional standing as a columnist. I’ve yet to be hired by a single institution of learning or newspaper publisher. Nor am I an historian. Thus, as a mere student of history with perhaps just enough knowledge to be a tad dangerous, I offer my perspective on national and international issues of interest to stimulate thought. How seriously you consider or take my perspective is strictly up to you. My friends The Piper and The Terabyte, who are much, much smarter than I, have thus far genially tolerated my perspective. I’m grateful to both.

You’d be lucky too if you knew them!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY