MY ANNUAL SEASON OF AMBIVALENCE

By Edwin Cooney

Three times in the next six months you and I will attempt to do the impossible. Specifically, we will strive to adequately thank those who've sacrificed their health and their lives in the service of our country. It's not that we shouldn't be grateful to our veterans. The question is, in what meaningful way can we express our gratitude for the service of the common soldier without glorifying that same soldier's mission? Even more, is gratitude even relevant compensation for their service?

As I see it, the way we've been celebrating and demonstrating our appreciation and our love for our veterans is ultimately destructive to our national security and ought to be altered. Rather than offering dramatic testimonies to their bravery on battlefields past, we ought to be adequately compensating them for being forced, in most cases, to put their well-being along with the well-being of their families at risk during wartime. As essential as victory in war is and as General Douglas MacArthur reminded Congress nearly 70 years ago, the prevention of war is ultimately more precious than victory in war. The truth is that the need to participate in war constitutes the biggest failure in which government ever indulges.

Beginning today, Monday, May 27th, through Thursday, July 4th, and on through Monday, November 11th, millions of Americans will consider it their patriotic duty to gratefully acknowledge the heart-wrenching and terribly painful experiences that befell the wounded and deceased soldiers throughout past wars. Most if not all surviving combat soldiers have little or no interest in talking about what it was like to be in battle day in and day out, whether in the jungles of Vietnam or in the deserts of Iraq.

Too often national leaders, especially on patriotic holidays, proudly display weapons of war as symbols of their determination to always be victorious in war. (I vividly recall President Kennedy’s words during his October 22nd, 1962 address to the nation in which he announced his quarantine of Castro's Cuba, making the observation that "even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth…”  Since the end of World War II, too many leaders in Moscow and in Washington have sought to demonstrate their patriotism by showcasing weapons of mass destruction on patriotic national holidays. In 2017, President Trump sought to put on such a showcase until it was shown that such a demonstration would be too costly. He blamed the local government of Washington, D.C. for that high cost. His final shot was that he would wait until local costs came down, but meanwhile he would spend the savings on some more modern jet engines. 

It's obvious to me that the ultimate lesson of international warfare is that even the righteous who use war as an instrument to solve international conflict will ultimately suffer more than they previously imagined! As for the veterans we continuously seek to appreciate and honor, it's essential that we keep in mind the following:

(1.) As Ike used to say, "A soldier is only an agent of his government."

(2.) It is as pointless to blame a soldier for war as it is to blame a policeman for the existence of crime.

(3.) Too few of us see war as a failure of government — but that is exactly what it is!

As for veterans, because we ask of them the total blameless use of their bodies during a time of war, we owe them as much educational, medical, job training and social support as we can possibly afford.  As for gratitude, those feelings are personal feelings that have little to do with our national obligations. You and I are the sole masters of our beliefs and our sentiments.

My ambiguity regarding the usefulness and need for military service stems from the bitter and divisive Vietnam experience of the 1960s and 1970s. That ambiguity, which I suspect I share with others, can only be overcome by drawing distinctions between the cause and effect of life-altering events. 

I wouldn't refuse one dollar for the medical, educational or general welfare of anyone who has ever served in the military. Whether or not the soldier is well served by his or her government is quite another question!

For the better part of the last thousand years, humanity could afford to grow up on stories of military glory. If you were King Richard the Lionheart, you could dream of conquest in the Holy Land. If you were Horatio Nelson you could prepare yourself for victory over Napoleon at Trafalgar. If you were born Douglas MacArthur, a high intellect and your "boyish dreams" could carry you through West Point and on to signing the peace treaty with Japan on Sunday, September 2nd, 1945. Today, however, fulfilled dreams of military conquest may well result in the military surrender of all humanity. The bottom line is this:

We may honor our war veterans, but we must never allow compelling memories of past battlefield glories, or our assessment of military readiness, to be our government's license to go to war!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES — HERE COMES THE STORM!

By Edwin Cooney

Whether we like it or not, Roe v. Wade will soon be history.

Since the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States, two separate and vital occurrences have taken place. First, several states have passed laws designed to defy Roe v. Wade. These new state laws are headed toward our nation's loftiest judiciary body for concurrence or rejection. They not only seek to limit the the authority of Roe v. Wade with respect to when a woman and her doctor may agree to abort a fetus. Some of these laws even criminalize any defiance of their proposed writ.

The second vital occurrence came about last Monday from within the court itself when a majority of the justices defied the doctrine of "stare decisis” which directs the judges to "stand by things decided." The subject before the court was Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. That case had been decided in 1979 in favor of Gilbert P. Hyatt who, in the courts of Nevada, had successfully sued the Franchise Tax Board of California for trying to collect income taxes from him even though he was now a resident of Nevada. The five conservative judges (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) defied what we lay persons call "settled law" primarily because they disagreed with the majority of the judges who decided that law. Of course, the Hyatt case had nothing to do with Roe, but it was disquieting to some justices and observers as they watched both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh abandon "stare decisis" after having assured uncertain senators so recently that they have a high regard for "settled law." We liberals, or progressives, criticize the abandonment of “stare decisis” at our own peril because “stare decisis” was certainly ignored on May 17th, 1954 when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education by rolling back Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that separation can mean equal.

Before moving on to describe the coming storm, I need to define two concepts with regard to interpreting the Constitution. If you are a strict constructionist (as most conservatives describe themselves), you interpret laws passed by the states or the federal government as they relate or don't relate to the wording of the Constitution. If you're a “loose constructionist” (as many liberals insist they are), you interpret the relevance of the Constitution to our living culture. Conservatives call this legislating rather than adjudicating. Liberals insist that the Constitution is a "living document,” a guideline that, while it must always be true to our republican form of government, reflects and preserves America's ever changing needs and priorities.

Contrary to common perception, the Burger Court did not consist of a bunch of wild-eyed liberals. In fact, six of those justices had been appointed by Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon. Lewis P. Powell, a Virginia Democrat appointed by Nixon, concurred with Roe v. Wade. Byron White and William H. Rehnquist were the only dissenters on that historic January 22nd, 1973 day when Roe was decided.

Now it appears that "the jig is up” and both Christian fundamentalists and secular conservatives may well have their happy day. The question remains, however, what price may they pay for their victory?

Surely such a victory will have its turbulence just as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798,  the Prohibition Act of 1919, and the McCarthy Era (which lasted from 1950 through 1954) left their scars on our national self-image.

Should the conservative majority simply strike down Roe v. Wade thus allowing abortion to be legal in some states, perhaps the reaction may be minimal. Should conservatives and fundamentalists seek national legislation banning and criminalizing abortions, the backlash may well be considerable.

Here are some possible outcomes of the gathering storm:

1) The pro-choice movement will passively but prudently adjust its mission in its efforts to maintain abortion rights in states where such rights may still be legal.

2) Triumphant conservatives may start a movement to further outlaw and criminalize both mothers and doctors who would continue the practice.

3) President Trump may join in such an effort.

4) Should Trump do so, he might inflame liberals and moderates to such a degree that he may well lose re-election in 2020.

5) Should President Trump be content to see his two appointees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, merely defang Roe v Wade, he may sufficiently anger his conservative and fundamentalist constituency enough to drive them away from the polls, thus sending him back to Mar-a-Lago.

6) As the public realizes that the rich can still get abortions while the poor continue to procreate leaving the public to pay for unwanted pregnancies, the moral fiber of this conservative fundamentalist movement may rapidly evaporate.

The ultimate question that Americans may well ask themselves in the wake of the impending destruction of Roe v. Wade will be Winston Churchill's favorite: where do we go from here?

I assert that the answer to that inquiry is pretty clear: wherever it is, it'll be neither pretty nor pleasant!

Batten down the hatches! The tide and the storm is moving in and some pretty big and unsuspecting fish may well be devoured!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AN UNCOMFORTABLE HARD PLACE!

By Edwin Cooney

There's one thing that you, Donald Trump, and I have in common. Occasionally, despite ourselves, we get it right! Yes, indeed, we really and truly do!

If, however, we're wrong for the most part, it's unlikely we'll get the credit we deserve when we finally get something right. History is loaded with instances when the right road to take was obscured by political motives.

The historic struggle that Woodrow Wilson had with GOP Massachusetts Senior Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. was ultimately as much a struggle between egos as it was over patriotism or principle. Lodge held a doctorate from Harvard versus Woodrow Wilson, whose doctorate was from Johns Hopkins University. They were both academicians as much as they were politicians. That, added to their party differences, was the death knell of the League of Nations. Should America have joined the League of Nations? Might it have prevented World War II as Wilson insisted it would?  

Few Americans thought President Harry Truman was right when he fired General Douglas MacArthur in April 1951 right in the middle of the Korean conflict. MacArthur had performed brilliantly the previous September at Incheon where he outflanked the North Koreans forcing them back across the Yalu River almost to the Chinese border. MacArthur's insubordination was well hidden behind his military record and his personal polish, dignity and patriotism. Truman's act seemed cold, petty, and above all, accommodating to the advantage of the Communists. However, a Commander-In-Chief can never suborn insubordination, can he?

Richard Nixon's 1971 Family Assistance Plan which included a healthcare provision startled liberal Democrats, as he intended it to do. So, they rejected it. Why — you ask. Well, because it came from Richard Nixon. Nine years later when Jimmy Carter however reluctantly showed a willingness to join Teddy Kennedy in a modified healthcare proposal, Teddy rejected it for two reasons. Actually, it was two reasons rolled into one. Both Carter and Kennedy wanted the 1980 Democratic party's presidential nomination.

Finally, GOP Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's refusal to consider President Barack Obama's 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland was the opposite of principled. It was purely petty, political, and, I believe, racist.

I cite the above to remind both you and me of how often mere political pettiness overwhelms us thereby causing us to overlook the real significance of events.

In last week's column, even as I poked fun at a telephone conversation between Presidents Trump and Putin, I mused that Republicans must be confused in their support of President Trump's closeness to President Putin. After all, when was the GOP ever supportive, especially when liberal presidential candidates and incumbents alike sought to make accommodation with Russia, whether Soviet or non-Soviet? The fact of the matter is that Democrats who historically seek accommodation with most potential enemies, be they Communist or Radical Islam, are strangely rigid against the possibility that it might be a good idea to break from past fears and prejudices.

Like most anti-Trump Democrats, I'm loathe to think well of almost anything President Trump does, but I'm compelled to observe that his willingness to snuggle up to Putin is more like Nixon and Kissinger than it is like John Foster Dulles or Alexander Hague!

Remember, not only is a broken clock right twice a day, but even a rigidly, mean and spiteful president like Donald John Trump is capable (however occasionally) of demonstrating a pearl of wisdom, a behavior that is both out of the box and worthy of acknowledgment.

We possess both the right and obligation to criticize and ultimately oppose this totally self-absorbed president. However, we have an obligation to ourselves and to our capacity to put into proper perspective what any president may be about if it turns out to be to the betterment of our national well-being!

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HERE'S A BIG GUESS!

By Edwin Cooney

Your guess is as good as mine, but I wonder if the conversation between Presidents Trump and Putin last Friday went as tweeted by Trump. Even more, I wonder how many of his GOP senators and representatives really and truly share the president's enthusiasm for or his closeness to a man who once served as a member of Soviet intelligence.

The fact of the matter is that throughout our history Republicans and in fact millions of Americans have been suspicious about foreigners in general and about Russians in particular. 

Even more, since the end of World War II and the beginning of the “cold war," the party that put Donald John Trump in the White House and sustains him has enjoyed the glory of cold war encounters with Soviet Russia far more than it has the prospect of detente or even the news of glasnost and perestroika which were proclaimed by Mikhail Gorbachev during the nineteen eighties and early nineties.

For a hundred years now, the Democratic Party has been the butt of Republican contempt due to its willingness to establish and join the League Of Nations in 1919, to recognize the Soviet Union in 1933, to give aid to Great Britain through FDR's Lend Lease program during the 1940-1941 Hitlarian blitz, to establish and open the United Nations in 1945, to institute the Marshall Plan for the relief of Europe in 1947, and to negotiate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

Thus, Republicans, conservative Republicans especially, surely must have some disquiet regarding the president's palsy-walsyness with Mr. P! If they don't, they've abandoned tons of prejudicial assumptions and conclusions about what comes out of the Kremlin! Of course, the Russians are no longer “Soviets,” but they’re both culturally and politically quite a mysterious people to most Americans. I'm convinced that they are as capitalistic as American corporations and oligarchist supporters of today's Republican Party.

Still, there's got to be something a little disconcerting about a president who allows himself to be congratulated by a foreign leader who clearly played a vital part in his successful presidential campaign. I'm guessing that part of the conversation went like this:

Mr. Putin: As I assured you back in Helsinki, Donald, those damn Democratic fools know there was no collusion between us! Collusion takes two participants, not one. They know how much I hated that bitch Hillary Clinton and they also know that anyone I hate lives with limited prospects. So, I did it with the sheer knowledge of two things — that what you needed done had to be without your participation and that you were too smart to even think of exposing me (although you came damn close to it last July in Helsinki when you lavished so much praise on me. Be more careful next time, Donald!)

Trump: I'm really grateful that you were so understanding and loyal to me. I value loyalty above all else, be it love or even patriotism!

Putin: Wait a minute, Donald. Loyalty is necessarily a sentiment which is extended from below. I must be the recipient of loyalty since I hold a much tighter grip on responsibility and power than you do. You are an exceedingly valuable partner but remember, Donald, that your place in history will be due to my lofty international political coattails! By the way, Donald, I see you've got that SOB Biden pretty well lined up. Remember, stay away from those smart Democratic leftists! They're too smart for both you and themselves. Otherwise I'll have to “not collude” with you for a second time!

Trump: I still hope to campaign against Pocahontas!

Putin: You leave it to me to do the picking, Donald!

If that wasn't the exact conversation, it's my guess that that was the flavor of it. If we haven't crossed the threshold that separates democracy and oligarchy, as I see it, we're straddling it.

While I was growing up, conservatives used to worry about what they called "our steady, deadly drift to the left." Since the Reagan revolution in 1980, I've been convinced that, if anything, we're leaning toward world corporatism, or, if you prefer, world oligarchy. A world run by communism, once the proletariat has dominated, expects to fade into an educated and self-directed society. A world run by autocrats simply expects to be worshiped!

Thus we have Mr. Trump's expectation of absolute loyalty - even, eventually, by Mr. Putin!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY