By Edwin Cooney
As I’ve written on many occasions, I write these weekly musings for three reasons and for three reasons only.
First, I write to inform the reader in as nonjudgmental a way as I can, as to the who, what, where, and how historical and current events have taken place as well as about the meaning or significance of those events. Second, I write to stimulate thought as opposed to mere opinion. After all, when you are really thinking, you are often compelled to entertain conclusions which are quite uncomfortable for you. Finally, I write to entertain the reader when possible.
Also, as I’ve written numerous times, I am neither a politician nor a historian. I am a student of history. I try, on a weekly schedule, to teach my readers by passing on what I know and how it affects my thinking and my outlook on the human dynamic.
What I try to avoid doing is to deliberately anger anyone who takes the time to read and consider my musings. Nor am I interested in enflaming anyone’s prejudices or resentments.
Having considered and written all of the above, I am nevertheless obligated, as something of a commentator, to inform my readers as to my conclusions about people and events, especially when compelled by the urgency of some events and the people whose actions cause and carry them forth.
In case you haven’t guessed, my topic this week is President Trump. I am profoundly affected by his “modus operandi.” I have drawn a final conclusion about him and his leadership that I believe goes far beyond politics or the mere political. This conclusion requires that I draw distinctions between the political and the temperamental aspects of the politician versus the conclusion I will assert at the close of this commentary.
I recently read in Paul F. Boller, Jr.’s 1990s book about presidential campaigns from 1788 through 1996. He cited a dilemma that faced Dwight Eisenhower during the 1952 fall campaign. He was traveling through the midwest in company with two influential United States senators. One was Bill Jenner of Indiana and the other was Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin. Those two men were conservatives, but even more, they were sour reactionaries. (Robert A. Taft whom Ike defeated for the GOP presidential nomination was a conservative, but he wasn’t a sour reactionary.) Ike had wanted to make a positive reference to General George C. Marshall who had advised Presidents Roosevelt and Truman during and after World War II. After all, General Marshall had chosen Ike to be the Supreme Commander of “Operation Overlord,” the June 6th 1944 invasion of Hitler’s Europe. Ultimately, Ike was intimidated by the irascibility of those two influential senators and refrained from the complimentary remarks he’d planned for a speech in Wisconsin. He later told friends that he felt “dirty” just standing on stage with those two men. Even though Ike was a moderate Republican and no conservative, he came to realize the label of “conservative” was too often applicable when the label was being used to camouflage a politician’s temperament.
President Trump has proven to be far more temperamental than he is conservative. When President Trump works to overturn Obamacare, as repulsive as that is to me and other progressives, that’s being conservative. When President Trump appointed his two Supreme Court justices, that was conservative. Even when he withdrew from NAFTA and when he denied the legitimacy of climate change, he was being a conservative.
However, when he indulges in character assassination, advocates body-slamming a reporter, or excuses these two behaviors by insisting that liberals are guilty of the same thing, he is not behaving like an ideologue.
As Bob Woodward points out in his recent book, Donald Trump believes that the most effective method of presidential leadership is the application of fear.
In my opinion, President Trump is clearly not a conservative because he has no principled guidelines or star by which he travels. Often ideology can range between silliness and deadliness. (Hitler and Stalin were political and social ideologues, but especially Hitler’s Nazi ideology was unique in that it was homegrown. On the other hand, Stalin perverted the genuine idealism of Communism into a Fascist state.) The real value of ideology lies in a certain discipline of attitude and outlook. It is obvious that President Trump almost totally lacks discipline. Even worse, he obviously possesses absolute contempt for discipline.
Almost a week has passed since the news that the first of fourteen mail bombs to the president’s opponents was sent by one of his followers. The president insists that he’s in no way responsible for the behavior of his supporters. While that is strictly true, as a leader, he has an obligation to demonstrate civility in his political discourse to unite, rather than divide “we, the people.” He is, after all, the President of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! In the absence of his fulfillment of that obligation, there is only one possible conclusion I can come to about him.
Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, is a gangster. A gangster is one who leads exclusively according to his own will and convenience. His primary strategies are belittlement, fear, and intimidation. He’s seldom interested in political or social cause and effect. Winning is all that matters.
As the great Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once wrote, freedom of speech isn’t mischievously yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. I hope there is no indication that the President had anything directly to do with Cesar Sayoc’s mailing of those bombs, whether or not they’re deadly. It is clear, however, that he’s created the atmosphere for Sayoc’s attitudes, outlook, and action.
What is yet to be determined is whether Trump’s fellow Republicans see him as politically or socially culpable for Sayoc’s clearly criminal behavior.
Back in 1954, a number of Republicans joined in the censure of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. By so doing, they redeemed the good name of the Republican party. Unless the leadership of the Republican Party acknowledges the recklessness of President Trump, Mr. Lincoln’s party will have receded from being a legitimate political party into Donald John Trump’s personal gang.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment