HEY! LET’S “GO FIGURE” TOGETHER!

By Edwin Cooney

As I compose this musing, 35 days have passed since the federal government shut down. Even in the wake of all the financial and emotional tragedy due to the political impasse, what primarily dominates the news and commentaries is whether Congress (specifically the Democrats) or President Trump is to blame for this national debacle. From the standpoint of cause and effect, both are to blame. However, blame — tempting as it may be — is pointless, unless all of us in one way or another accept responsibility and search for a solution to this ongoing and nearly annual kerfuffle. 

(WAIT! Guess what? As I write this, it is over, over for at least three weeks! Even more spectacular, the “shutdown” has been shut down with no change in either the circumstances or conditions between the President and Congress. Wow!)

The heart of the shutdown epidemic is self-centered ideological willfulness. There have been a total of 21 federal government shutdowns going back to President Gerald Ford in 1976. The vast majority have been mercifully of short duration. Two of the last four shutdowns were against Bill Clinton (November 14th through 18th 1995 and December 15th 1995 through January 5th 1996). The next shutdown, January 1st through 17th, 2013 was due to a disagreement over Obamacare. This most recent government shutdown lasted 35 days. 

They all have one thing in common and, until the public recognizes and deals with that common cause once and for all, it will continue to rear its ugly head. There is a myth out there that insists that we, the free people of the United States, just don’t need government except to ensure our national security. The conservative wing of the GOP (to which I once belonged) openly and proudly boasts its contempt for government. Government means power and they insist that “power corrupts.” Specifically, they go on to quote Lord Acton, a Nineteenth Century British Baron, who wrote in 1887 “…power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men…” (As an aside, here are two observations: Lord Acton was a Baron and thus a pretty well-heeled and comfortable nobleman, and I’m guessing that somehow “bad great men” does not include men like Bob Taft, Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen, Ronald Reagan or perhaps even a Bush or two! It can’t include Mr. Trump because he’s no conservative.) 

However, there are several ironies here. First, once any man or woman takes the oath of federal office, they instantly become part of the government against which they’ve usually campaigned.

Second, if they refuse to sustain the legal functions of government without first changing the law, they violate their oath of office.

Third, history clearly demonstrates that government grew in the early Twentieth Century under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson because “free enterprise” (which I insist once again has never been free) up to that time had failed to care for the well-being of its workers or even their customers and the communities in which they lived. Had free enterprise invested sufficiently in the well-being of both its workers and its customers late in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, there would have been no (or at least very little) need for government.

Fourth, the current government shutdown reflects Republican ideology more than it reflects modern Democratic doctrine.

Fifth and finally, since the current crisis through which we’ve just passed marks the fourth time since 1995 that a Republican Congress has voted to shut down the government it despises, it is time to take notice and call in the chips. This time we’re being taught a lesson we will forget only at our own peril. The idea that we don’t need government is downright silly. Too many workers aren’t getting paid. Too many services we legitimately rely on aren’t being carried out. After all, is it too much to expect  the government to forecast the weather, inspect the quality of our food and medicine, control the quality and safety of our air travel, and even pay private contractors for their legitimate services that enable these functions to be carried out?

Even worse, there exists among this cadre of largely successful Americans a list of suspicions and resentments which inevitably fuels these periodic national political temper tantrums.

Insofar as I’m aware, none of these political temper tantrums have saved you or me a dollar or made America safer.  Nor have they been in any way a gateway to a sense of national contentment.

As for President Trump’s wall, as far as I’m concerned, since he promised it to us, let him find the resources to pay for it without the support of Congress. (Note: maybe he can get a newly constituted Brazil or Venezuela to pay for it. My guess is that Mexico just won’t accommodate President Trump! Hmmm, I wonder why?)

There have been many walls in history that we have traditionally abhorred (such as The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall, and especially the Berlin Wall). What I will never understand is what walls have to do with a healthy democracy.

As for the Trump Wall, how can that be in the best American tradition? “Go figure” with me, please!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IN WHAT AND WHY WE BELIEVE LIES THE ROOT OF WHO WE ARE!

By Edwin Cooney

In a recent musing, I drew a distinction between opinion and thought when it comes to all questions of outlook and action. Since then, a lady from the Granite State of New Hampshire (let’s call her “Granite Hills Judy”) sent me what I regard as a vitally important perspective on the importance of morality as we establish a system of beliefs.

Francisco Mejia Uribe, in addition to being a Goldman Sachs executive in Hong Kong, is also quite a powerful philosopher. Recently, Dr. Uribe quoted William Kingdon Clifford, a Victorian era philosopher, who asserted in an 1877 publication that “…We have an obligation to believe responsibly. …believing without evidence is always morally wrong,” he further asserted. Clifford offers three arguments in support of his assertion.

The first argument is that our beliefs influence our actions.

Second, Clifford insists that poor practices of belief formation turns us into careless, credulous believers who are inevitably influenced by whatever information we’ve taken in by poor belief formation practices.

Finally, as communicators of our beliefs, we have a moral responsibility not to pollute the well of collective knowledge that has been scientifically and logically gathered and investigated.

Although I’m neither a sociologist nor a theologian, in view of the above, I invite you to join me in considering the following questions.

What are the main sources of our primary beliefs? Are they spiritual or secular?

Finally, what forces compel any one of us to endorse or even alter a belief or even a set of beliefs?

Although I don’t write or talk about it much, I am first and foremost a Christian. I didn’t discover my religion; I was indoctrinated into it at birth by the men and women who cared and nurtured me. Although this indoctrination itself may be in violation of Clifford’s insistence that I diligently investigate this fundamental belief before endorsing it, my respect for and appreciation of those who indoctrinated me follows Clifford’s third argument “…not to pollute the well of collective knowledge.” Thus I guess my sense of spirituality is what has always been my most gentle guide through life.

As to what compels me to endorse or alter a belief or set of beliefs, I’m most affected by an ongoing set of behavioral circumstances. When I was young, I was most influenced by the morality of social conservatism. That gradually shifted when I came to see that conservatives, contrary to their insistence, had no monopoly on morality. Henceforth what a person or political party did for most people became more important to me than political doctrine.

Next comes the question of evidence. There are several types of compelling evidence. They are scientific evidence, empirical or evidence gained through experience, circumstantial evidence (normally regarded as the weakest type of evidence), logical evidence, cultural evidence and finally, spiritual evidence.

Scientific evidence is primarily materialistic evidence usually observable, calculable and above all, provable via demonstration.

Empirical evidence is gained through knowledge of one’s experience of human behavior given a set of conditions and circumstances. Its nature is largely psychological.

Logical evidence is that kind of evidence that is created in the wake of the occurrence of a series of activities.

Cultural evidence is largely, if not wholly, dependent upon the mores of society. I was recently reading a book that covered the history of the Soviet Union during Stalin’s time. Whatever advanced Soviet Communism was defined as automatically moral. Anything anti-Soviet was immoral. On the other hand, President Reagan, as head of the world’s most capitalistic society, labeled the Soviet Union “…an evil empire.”

Spiritual evidence is largely behavioral and only measurable within a spiritual context. The belief that we ought to love our neighbor as we love ourselves lies at the center of Christian as well as other religious beliefs. Nevertheless, one doesn’t have to be religious to endorse humankind’s most precious admonition.

Sadly, we live in a time that is dominated by political, cultural and even religious fear. Fear, the father of anger, subsequently is in a position not only to pollute the well of collective knowledge, even worse it threatens to poison our attempt to gather future knowledge. Over 200 years ago, General George Washington was scolded by the president of Princeton for distributing anti-smallpox vaccine to his troops. If God hadn’t wanted men to get smallpox, asserted the clergyman educator, he wouldn’t have created smallpox. Obviously, Princeton’s good reverend (I believe his name was Timothy White) failed to realize that God gave a gift to humankind much more significant than smallpox. God gave us the capacity and willingness to use our knowledge of science to conquer many diseases.

Changing one’s mind, or if you prefer, altering one’s beliefs can be, and usually is, a painful process. After all, we invariably invest ourselves in what we believe.

I’m convinced that amongst the bravest of us all are those who really and truly dare to re-examine and even confront our beliefs, especially if we’re willing to look beyond our own prejudices.

Oh, by the way, why don’t you go first and let me know what it’s like! Remember, we’re all being watched over by Judy of the Granite Hills!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OH OH, MR. PRESIDENT - HERE COME THOSE CHICKENS HOME TO ROOST!

By Edwin Cooney

Fourteen days from today, President Trump will enter the second half of his presidency. That’s 731 days out of a total of 1461 days in a presidential term. Before I proclaim my conclusions about the president’s past, present and future, I’m going to explain my motives and purposes in making the forthcoming assertions.

First, I have an obligation to my readers to express conclusions that go beyond the scope of mere opinion. Opinions are as cheap as the proverbial “dime a dozen.” An opinion merely expresses a hope or a belief. It seldom requires either integrity or documentation. Its ultimate effect is either reinforcement or defiance. “The president is wonderful” or “the president is terrible” possess the same power. Conclusions, on the other hand, require a healthy degree of objectivity.  While I both doubted and opposed Mr. Trump’s  election, from the very outset I’ve asserted that he deserves the benefit of all reasonable doubts. Furthermore, I’ve opposed the successful election efforts of men named Humphrey, (which I now regret!),  Ford, Reagan, and two Bush’s. All these men now have my respect if not my affection.  

Only three presidents in the last 86 years since 1932, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, have been in as much trouble with re-election looming, as President Donald J. Trump. (Note: President George H. W. Bush’s trouble wasn’t evident until the presidential primaries in the spring of 1992, while Presidents Hoover, Truman, and Carter, like the current incumbent, were in trouble at the halfway point of their presidential terms.)

Although President Trump retains support from approximately 88 percent of his fellow Republicans, there are a significant number of gaps in support of Mr. Trump’s nomination. President Trump may well be in the same situation as President Jimmy Carter in 1980 when the liberal element of the party under the leadership of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy was Jimmy Carter’s biggest political fisher. President Trump’s scorn for the last two GOP presidential nominees, the late Senator John McCain and the newly elected Utah Republican Mitt Romney, are clear signs of President Trump’s ultimate political flaw.

Writing recently in the Washington Post, Paul Waldman points out that President Trump faces the outset of 2019 minus a Chief of Staff, a Secretary of Defense, and with an Acting Attorney General, an Acting Environmental Protection Administrator, no Ambassador to the UN, and no Interior Secretary. Additionally, his former campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, his first Chief of Staff, and his personal lawyer have all pleaded guilty to crimes. His presidential campaign, his transition team, and his foundation are all under investigation. Finally, there is the federal government shutdown which, apparently, the president is willing to allow to continue into the foreseeable future as long as the president sees the shutdown working to his advantage.

President Trump, although he insists it’s due to the “deep state” as well as to the efforts of professional radical liberals, is potentially in criminal trouble. Thus, the man who bragged that he would “drain the swamp” of criminally stupid politicians could conceivably find himself indictable whether he leaves office in 2021 or in 2025.

President Trump’s ultimate flaw isn’t ideological. His achievements which include the tax reduction measure he signed into law last August, his deregulation of economic and environmental laws, and his decision to withdraw American forces from both Syria and Afghanistan, although controversial even among conservatives, don’t even begin to reflect his major flaw. The fact of the matter is that his major flaw obscures his most significant achievements.

Everyone including the President of the United States is entitled to their own agendas. What they’re not entitled to is the right to freely demean or dehumanize on a continuous basis the thoughts, agendas and beliefs of others. Donald Trump, day in and day out, time and time again, carries on a belittlement of just about everyone around him who isn’t in the process of glorifying him. Hence, every quarrel he has is personal rather than professional or political. Even worse, he seldom keeps his word. One instant he insists that he’ll heartily take the blame for a government shutdown and in the next instant he blames his political opponents. Next, he shifts his position claiming that he’s proud of what he is doing and that the government shutdown isn’t really a shutdown but is merely the right thing to do given the current “national emergency.” He’s even inconsistent as to whether he seeks a wall or merely a security system. Thus, I conclude that there is no need for the current government shutdown. Here is why,

Writing in the New York Times, Glenn Thrush and Thomas Gibbons-Neff reveal to readers the existence of the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which empowers the president to declare a national emergency and take unilateral action to meet such an emergency. All he has to do is inform Congress of the emergency and document whatever actions he has employed to meet it.  Such being the case, why shut down the government? Why didn’t he sign the proposal passed by Congress in December and declare the need for  constructing a wall to meet the illegal immigration emergency? The reason is simple. President Trump believes his chronic anger is his most effective political tool to master the American body politic. His continuous childlike narcissism is contemptuous of even conservative ideology. Thus, professionals such as General Mattis  and even ideologists, such as George Will, John Kasich, and David Brooks become grist for the Trumpian mill.  

Whether we like it or not, “we, the people,” under specific provisions of our constitution, elected him and thus we deserve him. Sadly, he behaves himself in a way that any parent wouldn’t tolerate from a beloved child no matter what age. It’s too early to know if we will re-elect him and thus, it would be presumptuous and even self-serving to predict either his re-election victory or his defeat.

Traditionally, historians have rated presidents categorizing them as great, near great, average, below average and, finally, as failed presidents. So, hang on, here it goes. I’ll modify what I’m about to write by acknowledging that this evaluation can be altered by behavior and time.

Up to this point, I’ve asserted that James Buchanan was the worst president ever to take office because he traded his sense of morality for political peace. He knew slavery was immoral because he’d actually purchased several slaves so he could free them. However, ultimately he accepted the 1857 Dred Scott decision which legitimized human slaves as property because a slaveholder’s property rights were more politically valid than a black man’s human rights. I think James Buchanan knew better, but he traded principle for legality and politics. Thus, if President Buchanan is the worst president, what is there to say about President Trump?

Because President Trump’s quarrels are invariably personal, one can hardly use the traditional adjectives of great, near great, average, below average, and failed to adequately describe his presidency.

Thus, until and unless President Trump alters his behavior, he deserves the following evaluation:  So far, Donald John Trump is the most despicable president in America’s 242 year history.

No wonder, if you listen, you can hear the flutter of each chicken’s wings as it flies home to roost! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY