DOES YOUR INTEGRITY DEPEND ON YOUR POLITICS?

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, as the late great news commentator Paul Harvey used to say, “Let’s shuck right down to the cob!” Or, as the late great New Dealer Harry Hopkins used to insist, “Let’s get to the root of the matter!” (Remember Winston Churchill’s “Lord Root of the Matter”?)

One of the most painful experiences one can go through when discussing issues of the day, especially when one has a regard for the person one is talking with, is to hear that person insist that someone, specifically a public personage for whom you have both affection and regard, is a liar.

I for one have striven all my life to avoid lying to others because contriving a lie invariably leaves a stain on my sense of self esteem. Accordingly, it is painful to think that people you admire, whether or not you know them personally, have a tendency to lie. Before getting to the root of this week’s matter, let me give you two examples of presidential lies.

I admire Presidents Lincoln, Carter, and Obama but especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Part of FDR’s personality was a natural obfuscation. As he openly admitted, “My right hand never knows what my left hand is doing.” Knowing that from the beginning (and FDR never hid that part of who he was), one could adjust oneself to it. Another example is circumstantial and most fascinating. It has to do with one of our most forthright chief executives, Dwight David Eisenhower.

When the Russians successfully beat us into space with Sputnik in October 1957, Ike assured the public that as dramatic and even traumatic as the Soviet’s action appeared to be, we were more than equal to the Soviet Union when it came to the sophistication, precision and power of our weaponry. As Democrats including JFK and LBJ openly and loudly worried (to their political advantage, of course) about our ongoing national security comparative to the Soviets, President Ike knew that so long as we kept busy we were in pretty good shape. How did he know that? He knew because of the information he was getting from the U2 espionage spy planes which we were flying over Soviet Territory. Then came that fateful Friday, May 5th, 1960 when  Nikita Khrushchev announced at a May Day celebration that he had proof that the United States had been spying on the Soviet Union. Ike, in a statement immediately released after Francis Gary Powers was captured by the Soviets, said that we had a weather plane missing near or over Soviet Territory. Two days later when the Soviets put our U2 plane and its humble Virginia-born pilot on television, a presidential lie was embarrassingly exposed. Subsequently Americans were forced against their will to realize that both spying and lying were essential realities in a danger-laden world.

Since that May Day in 1960 on which America’s sheer national innocence was exposed, we’ve all become increasingly hardened to both foreign and domestic political lies and obfuscations. Therein lies the emotional and even the spiritual termite that is slowly eating the substance out of our national unity.

Earlier this week, I was discussing 21st Century politics with a gentleman with whom I hope to become personally friendly. It turns out that my potential friend is a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of President Trump. As lovers of our leader often do, this gentleman insisted to me that Barack Obama lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their own doctor if the Affordable Care Act became law. That was hard to listen to, so I asked a friend to assist me in looking it up. Here’s what we found.

Since ninety-five percent of working Americans belong to comprehensive health insurance  plans purchased by their employers, Senator and later President Obama assured us that the Affordable Care Act would not interfere with the insurance Americans loved best. The issue during the 2008 Presidential Campaign was whether Senator Obama was proposing a Single Payer System which would eliminate all private insurance. What that debate didn’t address was the type of insurance coverage that would be available on the insurance networks that could be offered in response to “Obamacare.” While the Affordable Care Act didn’t mandate changes in the insurance network, many employers and employees became more interested in cheap premiums than in comprehensive insurance coverage. After all, when you’re young, healthy and financially established, sickness means little to you. Obama failed to address the insurance markets outside of the Affordable Care Act that premium cutting-minded employers and private customers would sign on to. Thus, by the time Obamacare was passed, an increasing number of insurance plans were available, thereby altering the insurance network marketplace.

Obama’s mistake was not a matter of integrity, it was the difference between advertising and educating. He advertised using a slogan to “Support the Affordable Care Act! Keep both the plan and the doctor you like.” What he failed to realize was that Obamacare in the marketplace was a commodity the same as toothpaste and is therefore vulnerable to competition. Single Payer Healthcare on the other hand is a systematic concept that would absorb the healthcare marketplace. Accordingly, I’m satisfied that President Barack Obama did not lie to the American people when he assured them that if 95 percent of American working people kept the plans they currently had, they didn’t need to make any changes in their healthcare plans.

American history is bedecked with plenty of material that, in all reasonableness, can be construed as presidential lies. Unfortunately, most Americans today get more of a thrill when they uncover a lie than when they discover a truth — unless of course the truth they discover uncovers a lie. Thus a slogan that demands no explanation such as “Make America Great Again” is all you need to elect an impulsive liar.

Yes, you can be either a Conservative or a Liberal and maintain your integrity. After all, no ideology possesses  a monopoly on truth. But ideologically-based truth is merely canned truth. It is resistant to all thought and is ultimately vulnerable to even the smallest lie.

Hang on tight. I’ll have more to say as 2020 gets closer!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

ELECTION MOP UP

By Edwin Cooney

By the time this message reaches your inbox, 13 days will have passed since we last went to the polls. A number of events have taken place (including a most interesting response I received from one of you readers) that I believe are worth all of our whiles.

First came the news that President Trump finally dismissed Attorney General Sessions. Whether Mr. Sessions was actually fired or whether he resigned may actually come to matter. Sessions’ replacement, at least temporarily, is Matthew Whitaker who on the one hand insists that the Mueller investigation has gone too far (which has to please his boss), but who also insists that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to review legislation. (So much for eliminating Roe v. Wade!) How well do you suppose that will go down in Peoria or Paducah or anywhere else in Trump Nation!

Second, there are the three contested elections in Florida between Governor Rick Scott and Senator Bell Nelson for the U.S. Senate, between Andrew Gillum and Ron DeSantis for the Florida governorship, and two candidates for Florida Agriculture Secretary. Florida voters will ultimately settle the gubernatorial and agriculture secretary races, but the U.S. Senate race is likely out of their hands! Here’s the little known truth about the Scott versus Nelson race for the US. Senate. Should Bill Nelson be declared winner under the laws of Florida, Republicans in the Senate are permitted under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution to use their majority to declare Governor Scott the winner. This has happened at least twice before. In 1975, after considerable political activity in New Hampshire, the Democratic Senate vacated the 1974 election between John A. Durkin and Louis Wyman allowing New Hampshirites to hold another election that would send Democrat Durkin to the Senate. In 2008, candidate Al Franken appealed to the Democratic Senate to settle his electoral contest with Norm Coleman. Fortunately, Coleman finally conceded the election. Thus, although currently the Scott/Nelson election is before the Florida judiciary, it is likely that it will end up before the majority Republicans in the Senate whether or not the citizens of Florida like it.

Third, as time passes, my babbling brook has become a rather swift stream even approaching “Big River” status. As of election night, Democrats had picked up 28 seats to give them a 5 seat lead in the House. As Tuesday became Wednesday, good news steadily came in for the Democrats. In California,  4 of the 7 seats which Democrats had marked to flip in their favor actually had been flipped as of Thursday, November 15th. Amazingly, Tuesday night’s babbling brook has increased its momentum to the point that it is possible that it will be a formidable political factor for the next two years. Then on Friday, November 16th, came the news that Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin has just been defeated by Democrat Jared Golden in Maine’s Second Congressional District. Congressman Poliquin was the lone standing Republican member of the House of Representatives in New England. The only prominent Republicans holding high office in New England are Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Vermont Governor Phil Scott, and Maine’s Senator Susan Collins, all of whom are moderate members of the GOP. Then, came more bad news for Republicans in California when it was announced that Republican Mimi Walters, a two-term Congresswoman, had been defeated by Democrat Katie Porter. This means that three of four House seats in Orange County, California have gone Democratic. As far back as I can remember, Orange County has been a bedrock of Conservatism. 

So, what does it all mean? As I see it, that depends on three factors: President Trump’s reaction to the election, what unfolds from the Mueller investigation, and how the President handles another government shutdown crisis that awaits the end of December. However, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.

On Wednesday, November 14th, President Trump announced that he would support Democratic efforts to pass significant criminal justice reform. President Trump, as are all presidents, is most effective when he gets out in front of an issue and he appears to be out in front of this one. Democrats and moderate Republicans believe that there are too many people in prison for too many questionable reasons. Two Senators, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, are pushing penal reform, as seems to be the president. The strongest opponents of penal reform are a set of Conservative Republicans who insist that penal reform is nothing more than the ticket for criminals to get out of jail. This struggle may well have some dramatic and fascinating outcomes. By all means — stay tuned!

Finally, last week I issued a challenge. I asked if anyone who deliberately sets out to control you by fear is someone who respects you.

I received a response from a lady who clearly sees socialistic forces behind the approaching caravan, because she says that up until now she had thought that I was an intelligent person. She asserts that no one who lives or has lived under socialism is happy.

What fascinates me about that observation is the assumption that political (or even religious) ideology is a barometer of intelligence. I wasn’t offended in the slightest by her wonderment, partly because as a youth I believed that all really intelligent people agreed with me politically. However, as I made contact with a wider group of people, I found that I had more in common with political extremists than I did with those of moderate or more indifferent views. Another interesting reality in our ongoing culture war is the number of ideological Conservatives who wonder (out loud too often) if liberals aren’t basically mentally ill. That’s precisely what the Soviets not only wondered about but insisted upon doing something about when dealing with its unhappy constituency. As for happy societies, some months ago I wrote about that very topic. According to “The World Happiness Report,” the world’s ten most happy nations are Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and Australia. The following aspects of life measured were income GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy,  social support, freedom to make life decisions, trust (the absence of corruption in government), and generosity. (All of these are highly socialistic. We ranked 14th among the approximate 150 nations measured in 2017. By 2018 we’d dropped from 14th to 18th happiest nation in the world.)

I assert that there are too many people who haven’t taken the time to examine what constitutes socialism and what a society without a sense of social purpose would be like!

I love the assertions made by this reader.  They’re even more interesting to contemplate than the significances of recent election returns!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

FIRST THE POLITICAL POINTS - THEN AS I SEE IT ALL!

By Edwin Cooney

Hope and disappointment are a part of most election nights. I’d hoped for a “blue wave” and got merely a “blue babbling brook.” It’s far, far better than 2010, 2014, or 2016, but Donnie Johnny deserved a much, much deeper dunking than he got! As for we Americans, more about that later.

With only one side of Congress in their hands, Democrats can and will save the Affordable Care act — “Obamacare.” Only the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to declare it unconstitutional and the newest member of the Trump administration, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, disparages the high court’s power to do that. Control of the House means the Democrats appoint the chairs of all committees who have the power to set their agendas. All of the good or bad things that can come out of the above reality depend upon how well these eager beaver Democrats can cooperate with each other and do their jobs. Should there be a prolonged dispute over ideology in the 116^th Congress as there has been in the last several GOP Congresses, the Democrats won’t fare any better than have the Republicans. Their first snarl will be whether or not they should or can elect Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives. (I think they should!)

As for the United States Senate, although no objective observer regardless of where his or her heart is, can deny that this expansion of Republican power bodes well for the Trump administration. It would appear that any conservative candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States, even if he or she has violated any law (especially if the existence of that law frustrates or angers the president), will be easily confirmed. Even more gratifying to President Trump must be the fact that Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski will not have the power to overturn close votes in this Congress as they do in the closing session of this, the 115th Congress.

Another possibly significant factor in last Tuesday’s results is twofold. First, the solid GOP grip on Midwest governorships has been broken. Laura Kelly in Kansas, Tony Evers in Wisconsin, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and J. B. Pritzker of Illinois certainly indicate that a lot of Americans had other priorities other than the existence of caravans of destruction populated by illegal immigrants.

Second, while there is little, if any, indication that President Trump is in serious trouble come 2020, not all of the trends are in his favor. Although he holds onto a loyal rural constituency, his hold on most of the key states that gave him his electoral college majority, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas and even Florida, is definitely tenuous.

However hopeful or discouraging midterm elections may be, seldom are they a clue to the upcoming presidential election. For instance, the Republicans gained 47 seats in the House of Representatives in the 1966 election, but Richard Nixon was only barely elected over Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Bill Clinton in 1994 was overwhelmed by Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” but “Slick Willie” was easily re-elected in 1996. Then, there was the fate of Barack Obama in 2010 as compared to his fate in 2012. What are most encouraging are the trends that appear to be occurring.

First, President Trump’s constituency is old and not getting any younger. Second, millennial voters are voting overwhelmingly Democratic. Third, the movement of highly educated white women away from the Republicans is most gratifying. What’s especially significant is that where two years ago Mr. Trump won the majority of the white women vote, the Democrats picked it up last Tuesday. There are now approximately 100 women in the House and Senate — a remarkable increase over just a few years ago. Those trends definitely auger well for the future. Now we come to what doesn’t auger as well for the future.

Americans are now and always have been vulnerable to fear, and it’s my experience that the GOP are masters of fear. I can only remember the Democrats being guilty of using fear twice in my lifetime. The first was after Sputnik when they sought to take political advantage of the people’s fear of Soviet Russia’s intentions to the degree that they minimized President Eisenhower’s reassurances as to our national security. The second time was how they reveled in their reaction to the Goldwater candidacy in 1964 with the famous “Daisies ad.” Republicans on the other hand have for years banked on scaring the public.

As a Californian, it seemed to me that between 1982 and 1998, every time the Democrats got ahead in a gubernatorial race, the GOP would remind Californians that the Democratic candidate opposed capital punishment. The message was “elect a Democrat and a killer will soon pay you a visit.” Fair enough, I suppose. After all, politics are politics, but it is and always has been exceedingly misleading — even if you don’t ask me! Then, invariably there are issues such as furloughed prisoners who’ll endanger the public’s safety (1988), weapons of mass destruction (2002 and 2004), and finally, “there’s a “fake” American, but a fully dedicated black Muslim running for president” (2008-2012).

“Fear is power,” according to President Trump. “Scare ‘em and you’ve got ‘em,” seems to be the mantra of the Republican Party more than anything else. Most observers seem to agree that in the wake of last Tuesday’s election, the Republican Party has totally become President Donald J. Trump’s party. Every asset which might conceivably belong to the party, ideas, agendas, principles (conservatism included), are now the personal property of President Trump. Whether your name be Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, or even Hannity, you may borrow conservatism, but remember, Donald Trump owns it.

I find the apparent fact that so many Americans can be frightened by the idea of this “caravan” so silly that both a memory and an idea come to mind.

The memory is part of a poem that was popular during my childhood. I can’t recall if it was from “Little Orphan Annie” or if it came from somewhere else. The ending went like this “…the goblins are gonna get you if you don’t watch out!” What’s so incredible is that those who supposedly make up the “land of the free and the home of the brave” really and truly fall for such utter nonsense.

First, does it make sense that an agent sent to destroy America would be expected to endure a 6 or 8 week hike suffering heat, cold, hunger and malnutrition when there are ways to get that agent here in ease and comfort? Second, is President Trump really ready to go to war with Mexico with all that implies to protect us from this caravan? In order to do so, he’d have to fire on Mexican territory. If there was a war with Mexico, would he expect there would be no loss of life on our side of the border? How stupid does our president really believe we are?!

As I see it, this whole anti-American caravan idea is a much bigger hoax than anything the Democrats have thought up to hang on President Trump! Trump, of course, is really tough, as tough as his supporters believe they are. What’s even more incredible is how tough people think they are when they’re really and truly merely scared to death!

Final question — does anyone who knowingly and willfully scares you to his or her personal advantage, really respect you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE WORLD SERIES: 1916 REPLAYED?

By Edwin Cooney

The just completed  2018 World Series was hardly a duplicate of the 1916 fall classic, but the result was pretty much the same.

Each year as the names of the participants become clearer, the media, the cities,  mayors and local celebrities proclaim their favorites and the denizens  of the other 28 major league cities whose favorites have been eliminated resignedly but usually gracefully pay respectful interest in the outcome of the event. Mayors and governors often indulge in public bets with each other. Fans are invariably encouraged to take advantage of the odds on the series out of Las Vegas. After all, where baseball matters most, the significance of the outcome intensifies. Usually, there’s something significantly unique about each World Series.   

In 2018, the American League Red Sox played the National League’s pennant winner  the Dodgers for only the second time in 102 years.

In 1916, the World Series and indeed the world itself was so much more informal than today. An example of what I mean can be found in the very name of the Brooklyn franchise. Although they were officially the Brooklyn Dodgers, their manager, a lovable roly-poly gentleman by the name of Wilbert Robinson, was known as Uncle Robbie. Thus, the Red Sox played the Brooklyn Robins, not the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Red Sox manager, Bill Carrigan, like Uncle Robbie, was a catcher during his playing career.

Boston hosted Game One of the 1916 series on Saturday, October 7th. The venue was the Braves field, home of the 1914 National League champions and World Series victors known as “The Miracle Boston Braves.” The reason for the switch was because the Braves’ field had a larger fan capacity than Fenway Park. Thus, 36,117 fans were on hand as Ernie Shore took on Richard (Rube) Marquard of the Brooklyn Robins. The final score was 6 to 5 with the Robins scoring 5 runs in the ninth to make it close.

Game Two took place on Monday, October 9th after rain spoiled play on Sunday the eighth. The big story was the pitching of Babe Ruth who started and completed a 14 inning game. Ruth struck out four batters and walked just three in front of 41,373 Bostonians. No World Series game would go more than 14 innings until — guess when! The big left hander who would become known for his hitting rather than his pitching, was pitching in only his second full season in the Majors.

The third game which was played at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn on Tuesday, October 10th before 21,087 would be the Robins’ only series victory. The final score was Robins 4, Red Sox 3. Jack Combs became the first pitcher to get World Series victories for both American and National League pennant winners. In 1910 and 1911, he’d pitched and won games for Connie Mack’s Philadelphia Athletics. One-hundred and two years later, Game 3 would be the only victory for the Los Angeles Dodgers over the Red Sox..

On Wednesday,  October 11th, before 21,662 Brooklynites, the Robins scored twice in the first inning, but that’s all they would get off Red Sox left-handed pitcher Hubert Benjamin (Dutch) Leonard. The Sox won 6 to 2.

On Thursday, October 12th (Columbus Day), Red Sox manager Bill Carrigan announced that should Boston win this day, it would be his last as manager. Then, before a World Series attendance record crowd of 42,620, Boston became baseball’s World Series champions for the second year in a row, for the third time in five years, and the fourth time in their history. Note: the Boston Americans or Pilgrims (take your pick) won the first modern series over the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1903. They would win their last in 1918 until the year 2004!

I’m sure most readers know few of the men among those in the Red Sox and Robins of 1916, but two names still shine today in the baseball hearts of fans everywhere. The leading Sox pitcher with a 0.64 earned run average was Babe Ruth. The Brooklyn Robins’ leading batter for the series with a .364 mark was a former Kansas City left-handed dental student by the name of Charles Dillon (Casey) Stengel.

As for the two managers, Bill Carrigan of the Sox would retire to his native Lewiston, Maine where he would become a successful banker. Note: Ten years later, Carrigan would be brought back to lead the Sox out of their doldrums. Sadly, the game Carrigan had known and conquered had changed so much that after three seasons he returned home from the baseball wars for the last time. (One winces to recall that banking during the early 1930s wasn’t doing so well either!) Fortunately, Bill would survive until 1969 in his native Lewiston, Maine. 

Uncle Robbie’s managerial career would continue through the 1931 season. It would include another trip to the World Series in 1920 against the Cleveland Indians. That series would go six games with the Indians winning four games to two. There would also be that incredible unassisted triple play in Game 5 by the Indians’ second baseman Bill Wambsganss. The Robins would go from World Series contenders to being losers — but lovable losers as the Mets would be later under Casey Stengel in the 1960s. The Robins would be known affectionately as “the Daffiness Boys.” (It has been said that when Robins fans were told that there were men on base, they would invariably ask, “which base?”) Robbie would leave Brooklyn after 1931 and move to Atlanta as President of the Southern League Crackers. He died of a stroke in August 1935.

As in 1916, the Red Sox would need only five games in 2018 to conquer the Dodgers of Los Angeles. Much has changed from the days of Uncle Robbie, Carrigan, Ruth and Stengel. Planes have long since been substituted for trains. Free agencies have inflated players’ pay envelopes. The layback social and political cultures have become stunningly intense.  Still, men named Mookie Betts, Steve Pearce, J. D. Martinez, Clay Kershaw, Cody Bellinger, and Manny Machado excite the imagination and increase the pulse rates of fans from Boston Harbor to the West Coast. Every World Series has at least one incredible game. In 2018, it was Game 3. Down two games to one, it took the Dodgers 7 hours and 20 minutes and eighteen innings of play to beat the visiting Red Sox by a score of 3 to 2. A total of 45 players were used between the two teams. Exhausted as both teams must have been, Games 4 and 5 followed without a break.  .

World Series play brings forth the player’s adrenaline, fills the bank account, inflates the sense of belonging and professional pride just as it did 102 years ago. The world of 1916 and the world of 2018, as different as they are, have one thing in common. The uncertain future looms in the distance, so close and so unpredictable. Red Sox and Robins’ fans of 1916 hoped to stay out of “the Great War” in Europe. Many even voted for Woodrow Wilson because thus far he’d kept them out of war. Within two years, however, hundreds of Sox and Robins’ fans would be casualties of World War I. Exactly what lies in wait for you and me is just as unpredictable as the fall of ancient European states and dynasties in the fall of 1916.

A thought occurred to me last Sunday night, October 28th, as the Los Angeles Dodgers and their fans for the second time in two years saw the visiting team win the series in their home ball park. As vital as ambition and competition are in the minds and hearts of fans and players, there lurks below the surface of immediate awareness a healthy sense of perspective. Unlike that which exists in our political culture, there is a sense of social equity, a realization that if there’s to be value in a future victory, there must be a recognition of the legitimacy of today’s champion. As thousands of Dodgers’ fans cleared out of Chavez Ravine and sadly made their way home, the Red Sox and their fans could celebrate on Dodger turf sure in the knowledge that even the most rabid Dodger fan, as jealous as he may feel for the moment, would still grudgingly salute them. That salute, as difficult as it must have been, insures the value of success when it is at last your turn to bask in its glory.

President Trump, you should be taking notes!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY