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