GOING TO “THE ROOT OF THE MATTER!”

By Edwin Cooney

During World War II, one of  British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s favorite advisors was Harry L. Hopkins, President Franklin Roosevelt’s friend and chief all purpose advisor who was then living at the White House.

During the 1930s, Hopkins, who was a social worker by education and training, served as the New Deal’s Works Progress Administrator and later as Secretary of Commerce. Poor health had forced him to resign as Commerce Secretary and then to take residence at the White House with FDR. It was while serving as WPA Administrator or as Commerce Secretary that Hopkins demonstrated his ability to get to the heart of any question. During the mid-1930s, he was testifying before a congressional committee that was quite doubtful as to the need for and the efficiency of a government program. “In the long run,” one Congressman said, “this relief problem could be better handled by private enterprise, couldn’t it?” “People don’t eat in the long run, Senator,” Hopkins shot back, “They eat everyday.” That’s an example of why during World War II Churchill came to call Hopkins “Lord Root-of-the-Matter.”

It’s past time that Americans identified ‘the-root-of-the-President-Donald-John-Trump-matter.” If you’re reading this as a supporter of President Trump, I’m sure you’re about to hit your delete key. If you’re anti-Trump, and there was a “delight” key on your computer or iPhone, you’d probably be caressing that. However, there is a truism that I’ll save for the end of this commentary that brings what I’m about to write into its proper focus.

Twenty-one months ago, Americans entrusted Mr. Trump with even more of the powers of government than the electors of 1788 could give to George Washington (never mind that it was via electoral rather than popular vote). Mr. Trump appealed for our support on the grounds that practically every politician (even the president) since perhaps Abraham Lincoln had been a “failure.” Candidate Trump  would apply practical business efficiencies to remedy our woes. The question, therefore, is has he accomplished that? Has efficiency been the target of his administration?

On the positive side, President Trump has applied traditional conservative Republican values and principles to the nation’s fevered brow, some of which are pretty hard to swallow for those of us who have a different political and social agenda than the president. Nevertheless, such decisions as withdrawing from NAFTA, backing out of the international climate change agreement, his attempts to kill Obamacare, and even his “tax cuts for the rich” are not legitimate reasons let alone the “root of the matter.”

Every presidency has a flavor of some kind, or if you prefer, a culture that characterizes what it’s all about. Stability and legitimacy characterized the Eisenhower Administration. Vigor and youth and its possibilities stood out during the Kennedy administration. The possibility of a “Great Society” was the touchstone of the Johnson presidency which, tragically, was swamped by the Vietnam Conflict. The Nixon and Ford presidencies were ultimately about international detent, flavored unfortunately by the scandals stemming from the Vietnam War. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was about international human rights as well as environmental reform and regeneration here at home. However, the public saw President Carter as both naive and incompetent and sent him packing back to Plains, Georgia.

The culture of the Reagan presidency was “morning in America,” personal presidential affability and restoration of the workable over the mundane. President George H. W. Bush was about progressive conservatism under the twinkling of “a thousand points of light” which were snuffed out by angry GOP conservatives when he broke his pledge that there would be “no new taxes.” President Bill (“Slick Willie”) Clinton was a combination of both moderately progressive domestic and foreign policies which were vastly overshadowed by Clinton’s penchant for self-gratification and his opponents’ delight in calling him on it. 

Like Rutherford B. Hayes back in 1876, President George W. Bush was pushed over the “finish line” by his party. It brought about an administration that catered to his party’s hunger for tax revenue that could have been used to pay down the national debt, and for the GOP’s fears of and hunger for Saddam Hussein’s hide — and eventually Osama bin Laden’s hide as well. The second Bush administration’s culture was both defensive fear and an appetite for  foreign oil.

The Obama presidency was all about change, but many citizens’ lingering questions about the legitimacy of its black president’s citizenship overwhelmed his genuine attributes which stultified the change President Obama hoped to bring about.

There’s one conclusion with which I think both Trump enthusiasts and detractors will agree. Donald John Trump was elected to the presidency by an angry and bewildered people.  Rather than do what he could to decrease the nation’s anger and bewilderment, President Trump has obviously decided to depend on it both politically and morally. The American people have often been angered when voting for a presidential candidate just as they were in 1932 when they rejected Herbert Hoover and voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Rather than appealing to the people’s distress, Roosevelt sought to alleviate it, however imperfectly. The same was true of President Reagan in 1981. Unlike Presidents Roosevelt and Reagan, President Trump is an exceedingly angry man. Even more to the point, both supporters and opponents of President Trump are determined to be angry. Anger, rather than objectivity as to what ought to be done to calm the waters of our national discontent, is what sparks their very energy to participate in political affairs. Even worse, too many Americans have surrendered to professional “think tanks” and talk show networks and hosts to keep their anger stoked. Insofar as I’m aware, this is both a new as well as a poisonous factor upon our discourse which is more virulent today than at any time since just before the Civil War.

Being the obviously reckless man he has been so far, President Trump may well destroy himself before his opponents get the chance to do so. He nearly did that during that televised news conference in late July with Russian President Vladimir Putin. What might be the factor that does him in may well be either his mobster language and mentality or one of his public tantrums over someone’s disloyalty. One of the keys to understanding President Trump is his expectation of “loyalty” on the part of officials whose ultimate loyalty isn’t to a president but to the people they’ve been hired and hopefully honored to serve. I don’t recall even Richard Nixon appealing to members of his Cabinet for “loyalty” during Watergate. 

Mr. President, Attorney General Sessions, with all his imperfections, isn’t your Attorney General — he’s ours.

Hence, what lies at “the “root of the matter” is an determinedly angry and bewildered population which has allowed itself to be led by a president who, at least for the moment, is behaving like a cancer on America’s political soul.

The most imposing element at the “root of the matter” isn’t the personage of Donald Trump. His ambition and willingness to become our president is not one of his faults. His election and possible re-election would be our fault, not his.

Thus, the ultimate fault lying at the “root of the matter” has been — and perhaps will be — ours!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AMERICA: “GREAT AGAIN?” — WHEN DOES MR. TRUMP SAY AMERICA STOPPED BEING GREAT?

By Edwin Cooney

Except for being a reflection on how Americans assess their political system, our culture, as well as in general our domestic and foreign affairs, the argument over America’s “greatness” is silly, shallow, and quite boring. What is neither silly, shallow, nor boring is the apparent loss of that sense of togetherness that was predominant throughout America for over 60 years following the 1898 Spanish-American War. During that 60 plus year time period there was a general expectation of unity in both peace and war — an expectation that was much stronger than even the pull of political differences. That was the time that Tom Brokaw labeled as “The Greatest Generation.” Whatever their political differences, Americans were family first and foremost. This week, thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo, America’s “greatness” once again became a political issue rather than merely an American truism for all of us to hang onto and thus innocently take for granted.

Last Wednesday, in an effort to appeal to potential supporters of Cynthia Nixon, Governor Cuomo’s opponent for renomination from the left, Mr. Cuomo asserted that America never really had been all that great. In a rather eloquent New York Times editorial this past Saturday, Bret Stephens, among other things, chided Governor Cuomo for handing the Republicans a wonderful issue for the coming Fall campaign. Of course, Fox News and other Conservative mouthpieces took up the governor’s loose-lipped liberal lingo with “great gusto.” I read somewhere that a group of Republicans, it may have been the New York Republican Gubernatorial Campaign Committee, purchased a one way ticket to Montreal for the governor’s convenient use.

Mr. Stephens reminded voters that Mr. Cuomo’s 2010 campaign slogan was “Together, let’s make New York State great again.” Even more persuasive, Mr. Stephens reminded us that Bill Clinton’s 1993 Inaugural Address contained probably the best proclamation regarding America’s “greatness” when he said: “There is nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured by what’s right with America.”

So whether we like it or not, whether the argument over America’s greatness merits all of the negatives I just cited, America’s greatness is still there for the duration in 2018. So, here’s my two cents worth!

First, let’s get very personal. Are those you love important to you? If so, how have they earned that special place in your heart? Did they write a great document? Did they earn the Medal of Freedom? Are they collectively brilliant? Are they physically more beautiful than all others? Would those outside your immediate circle consider them significant?

Next, let’s get civic-minded. What about the teachers, preachers, doctors and nurses, police and firemen in your life? In your view, are all of them outstanding?

Next, let’s move to others we often consider “great.” Within their domains of occupation, many of them stand out by comparison with other sports heroes, entertainment figures, war veterans, business and civic leaders.

Finally, what about public servants? Okay, more specifically, politicians. Although that’s a subject for another time, we students of history insist that there have been great politicians who’ve earned a hallowed place in America’s Hall of Fame.

Those who’ve earned your love and regard, namely family members, have one thing in common — that’s you. That intimate proximity is their ticket to your personal Hall of Fame. In your heart, no matter what their imperfections may be, they have a significance you’d insist upon regardless of whatever teacher, preacher, judge or even jury might conclude about them or regarding a specific activity of theirs.

When the Founding Fathers began writing the Constitution, they didn’t promise a “great union” in its preamble. Nor did they promise a perfect union. What they did promise was a “…more perfect union.”

Of course, America is a great nation! It always has been and my guess is that it probably always will be. Ah, but there are other vital aspects to consider.

America never has held a monopoly on national greatness. The ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman homelands and empires were great. The British Empire was great, even though Americans from 1776 to about 1917-18 didn’t consider Britain a really great nation. Other nations such as France, Italy, Germany and even Japan, China and Russia have demonstrated greatness. Even more, most of the citizens of other nations regard their homelands as great.

As Bill Clinton asserted by at least implication in his 1993 Inaugural speech, what keeps America great is her built-in capacity to heal her sins and redress the grievances of her people.

Our love for our families and friends doesn’t require either perfection or greatness. I argue that neither relative nor actual perfection is the foundation of greatness.

Greatness is an outstanding or unusual subjective achievement. When we created our federal constitution with its checks and balances and its Bill of Rights, we achieved an outstanding system of government unprecedented throughout modern human history. However, throughout the history of our development, some European countries dealt with the injustices of modern industrialism faster than we did. In about 1909, Great Britain’s parliament passed the first old age insurance plan almost thirty years before Franklin Roosevelt and Senator Robert Wagner’s Social Security measure. One of the reasons for that had to do with Winston Churchill. Although his mother was well off, he needed to take care of his nanny Mrs. Everett who had taken such splendid care of young Winston. If you ask me, that act was a part of Britain’s greatness.

Yes, indeed, America is and always has been great. No one, insofar as I’m aware, has asked President Trump just exactly when America stopped being great so that he alone might make it great once again!

Finally, I’m convinced that America will continue in her greatness on the day we stop bragging about it.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

  

THANK YOU, MR. POPE SIR!

By Edwin Cooney

First of all, a disclaimer. Murder is always wrong and must be severely punished.

Yes, I know that Francis The First shouldn’t be addressed as “Mr. Pope Sir,” that he should be addressed as “Your Eminence” or even “Your Distinguished or Holy Eminence,” but I’m so pleased that human civility seems to have made an institutional breakthrough on the wings of the Pope’s latest proclamation, that some form of lighthearted expression of joy is most appropriate. Capital punishment has finally been declared by the oldest, and still the largest, Christian faith institution - the Roman Catholic Church - to be wrong in all cases. Praise the Lord and pass the wafers! Up until recently, the Catholic Church has only conditionally declared capital punishment acceptable when its use could somehow be seen as a possible prevention of future crimes. Now, it’s absolutely and under all conditions unacceptable.

Much of my life I’ve favored capital punishment:

First, because murder or severe bodily harm cruelly obliterates or, at the least cripples, the undeserving victim and members of his or her family and loved ones;

Second, I believed that revenge was both understandable and justifiable because it legitimately relieved the natural tension of living family members and friends;

Third, I believed that the threat of legal murder would always sufficiently prevent any increase in unlawful murders;

Fourth and finally, I believed that one who used murder as an instrument to achieve personal satisfaction simply deserved to suffer, within reason, the same fate as his or her victims.

One of the oldest human instincts is the desire for revenge against murderous enemies. We reason that the threat of death is the only workable antidote sufficiently powerful enough, short of his or her own demise, to stop a potential murderer. That assumes that most if not all murderers are rational. We also have a tendency to believe that, in his or her heart of hearts, murderers simply know better than to commit murder. In other words, murderers are as rational as you and me. So, from that standpoint, it’s preventive to have the threat of murdering the murderer on the books to protect society. “We’ll send the murderer a message,” goes the legitimate outcry of a righteously enraged society. History however demonstrates, as I see it, that no matter how legitimate may be our resentment toward both the act of murder and the murderer him or herself, duplicating the act of murder ultimately merely results in more and more as well as various types of murder.

Legal death is by its nature dispassionate justice, the dispassion aspect of it, supposedly removing the self-righteous aspect of the punishment. But, clearly, removing the outrage behind the administration of legal death by no means prevents its being outrageous on its own. Amnesty International can cite you case after case of prisoners who have been wrongly convicted, many of whom have gone to the gallows, the chair, the firing squad, the gas chamber and lately to the lethal stretcher.

Another aspect of “legal death” is war itself. War, devastating as it is, has historically been more manageable and preventable than pure murder because as they develop, rogue nations more readily display their defects than are possibly detectable in the workings of the private mind and heart.

My opposition to capital punishment has nothing to do with sympathy for any murderer. I’m totally sympathetic with the victims of crime. Not to have sympathy for the victims of crime is morally insensitive to say the least about it. Crime, and murder in particular, is anti-social. To be anti-social is to be anti-human. I have no objection to the permanent separation of the killer from society - in fact I vehemently support that.

Most debates over the legitimacy of capital punishment center on two propositions. The first one is that taxpayers should not be paying for the room and board of convicted killers. Room and board can cost as much as forty thousand a year. This argument can be countered by the fact that the continuous costs of legal appeals to avoid the death penalty vastly out costs the annual price of prison room and board. Also, prisoners eligible for capital punishment constitute only about three percent of the prison population. The second major argument favoring capital punishment is that the execution of a murderer provides the victim’s families with an understandable sense of closure in the wake of the horror of the crime. However, more and more lately perpetrators, especially of mass murders, often either commit suicide or are legitimately, as I see it, themselves killed by police during their acts of committing their crimes. Thus, there is no defense against such acts of mayhem.

The irony of all that is the public’s ongoing demand for fewer restrictions on the sale of assault rifles and the like.

My guess is that you and I, during our lifetimes, will be forced by both tradition and human behavioral habit, to suffer with the crucible of murder. It’s just possible however, that Pope Francis’s proclamation against what I like to call “legal death” over the years may well condition future generations to sufficiently abhor capital punishment.

One more thing: As I see it, it’s inconsistent to oppose abortion and to support capital punishment. If life is sacred, then it must always be sacred.

Insofar as I’m aware, no Pope has received the famous Nobel Peace Prize. My candidate for this October’s Nobel Peace Prize is Pope Francis the First.

Mr. Pope, Sir, “you’re a jolly good fellow!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY