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
No comments:
Post a Comment