JOE, YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT ARE YOU SUFFICIENTLY HIP?

By Edwin Cooney

"Old" Joe Biden really ruffled a lot of progressive feathers recently when he asserted that even some Southern segregationists were really human beings deserving of both political and even social respect.

Merely mentioning the names of late Southern segregationist senators appears to have sent his opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination to the proverbial political barricades! Southern personages such as Washington, Jefferson, and even Robert E. Lee may still pluck heartstrings above and beyond "dear Old Dixie," but names Biden got along with including James O. Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Jesse Helms and, most of all, that of Strom (his first name was James!) Thurmond are practically fighting words even to Northern moderates.

What "Joe the Good" appears to be overlooking, perhaps at his own political peril, is that we live in a new political era. Unfortunately, successful office seekers aren't elected to compromise, they are elected to rule the opposition. They are elected to discredit historical achievements that make their current constituents the least uncomfortable. Nor in the 21st Century is legislating and lawgiving about essential improvement. It is about tearing down and starting over. For instance, President Trump didn't campaign on improving President Obama's healthcare achievement, something practically everyone (including Obama himself) agreed needed some improvement, Mr. Trump insisted that "Obamacare" needed and deserved not merely destruction, but both social and political obliteration. Had President Trump merely sought improvements to Obamacare, rather than its destruction, he just might have gotten his way in the Senate. However, John McCain knew the difference between legislating and bullying and decided to challenge the presidential bully. 

What many of Mr. Biden's competitors get but he apparently is too old-fashioned to grasp is what it is that appears to work in 2019 and 2020 politics. American politics has always been akin to downright incivility. Today, however, political incivility has become more vital to the national body politic in comparison to the old congressional rule that "in order to get along, one must go along." Historically, a lack of civility in politics has ruined longstanding friendships such as those between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, Franklin Roosevelt and Al Smith, Franklin Roosevelt and James A. Farley (who was his former campaign manager and Postmaster General), Richard Nixon and young Jack Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern, to name only a few. Yet, up until recently, many healthy relationships have flourished despite the reality of political opposition.

President John Kennedy and wife Jacqueline’s first presidential social call was to the home of Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper and his multi-lingual and cultured wife Lorraine on Saturday, January 28th, 1961. (Kennedy and Cooper had been members of the House Labor Committee along with Richard Nixon in 1947 and ’48.) Lyndon B. Johnson and GOP Senate Leader Everett Dirksen jawed at one another during the day but enjoyed cocktails together during many late afternoon White House convivialities. President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker of the House Thomas (Tip) O'Neill frequently shared their Irish heritage after political hours between January 1981 and January 1987.

I endorse Joe Biden's candidacy because  of his wide experience in national government and, despite one or two “screw-ups," because he's demonstrated a high capacity for political equity.

It's almost impossible to dare to show equity in President Donald Trump's America because policy positions generally require either knowledge of or tolerance for the political opposition. President Trump's assertion that he was treated unfairly without the respect he deserved from the outset of his presidency is more than countered by the fact that he never ceased to both attack and degrade the "loyal opposition” even during the traditional honeymoon period which most presidents seek to enjoy between election, inauguration and for a period of time thereafter. A president's behavior, or the president's mood or outlook, has an historical tendency to become the socio/political modus operandi throughout each presidency. Thus, the Kennedys were charming, so the nation was charmed. LBJ was about progressivism as was the public during his term. Nixon was serious and determined, so we were, too. The Reagans were both personable and dogmatic. Hence, our national dogmatism was tinged with a dash of Hollywood. The Bush’s were internationalists, so we too loved Gorbachev and hated Hussein just as George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara did.. The Clintons, being policy wonks, unintentionally goaded us into Newt Gingrich's conservative wonkishness. George W. Bush awkwardly led us into Iraqi nation-building against our will, so we elected our first black president who thus appointed our second female Secretary of State -- guess who? Except for "Obamacare" and his pursuit of Osama bin Laden, President Obama was both cautious and calculating. Hence the public, in its appraisal of his administration, calculated that it needed Donald Trump, the non-politician outsider. Accordingly, President Trump has set the tone for his present and his future. His pathway to success has been to appeal to the “lesser angels of our nature." So, I believe he'll be judged as far less than any known angel!

For the present, fellow Democratic presidential nomination-seekers are likely to stress policy over national style or purpose, thereby publicly suggesting that Joe Biden is all "old style" and ultimately purposeless.

Whatever they call him, “old Joe," or even "Slow Joe," Biden may well turn out to be  "cool," or even "Hip Joe" and, if he's sufficiently hip or cool, he may well become "President Joe!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

I WONDER, WHAT MAKES YOU WONDER!

By Edwin Cooney

This weekend begins my fifteenth season writing these weekly musings. When I introduced myself back on Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, my first topic was founded upon the following observation: You may not be what you think you are, but what you think, you are. In other words, your thought process reflects what or who you are more than any self-explanation of what or who you think you are!

Those of you who go back to that day as a reader of these musings may also recall my three basic goals for writing these columns. They are to inform, to stimulate thought, and to entertain the reader. I asserted back then that if any column failed to accomplish one of those three goals, that column would constitute a failure.

Fifteen Junes ago, I didn't challenge anyone to reveal who they thought they were or what they thought about which I then suggested would reveal to themselves who they really were.

This year, I'm inviting you to explore that which energizes you to wonder. What raises you enough out of your intellectual or emotional lethargy to grab your notice and potentially evoke a reaction from you? The answer to that inquiry is up to you to share or not to share.

For as far back as I can remember, I've heard references to the "seven wonders of the world,” natural and manmade structures revealing the priorities and creativity of past cultures. These natural and manmade "wonders" have fascinated and inspired the imaginations and creativity of men and women across time, cultures, political beliefs, and the increasing sophistication of technology.

Most significant and interesting of all to me is what makes you and me wonder? The answer to this question is as individual as any answer can be. If you're a wonderer, what causes you to wonder? If you seldom or never wonder—wow!!!

When you wonder, do you focus more on if or more on why? If you wonder why, how often do you really and truly want an answer? If you wonder if, what information do you expect to get from that inquiry, or are you only looking for reinforcement of conclusions which you've already reached? If you're inclined to wonder quite often, do you mostly wonder because you're worried, or because you're curious, or even more, is it likely because you're genuinely purposeful? If you mostly wonder out of purposeful curiosity, given the magnitude of the social, economic, and environmental uncertainties we face today, at least as I see it, you're an “A Number 1” wonderer!

I invite you to think about your own life. Given the physical, emotional, intellectual and cultural challenges you face, what have you achieved or overcome?

What role have you played or failed to play within your own personal environment? What are some of the options you might consider playing in the time left to you to play anything at all?

From the very outset of this going-on-fifteen year writing project, it is about you the reader, rather than me the writer, that these writings have been all about! That's the way it should be. Together, the more we're aware of what encourages or motivates us, the more meaningful will be whatever we make out of our collective futures!

Ultimately, what, why, how, or if you wonder is strictly your business. All I can hope to do is stimulate your personal capacity to wonder.

After all, our capacity to wonder invariably energizes the whole wide world!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY     

FAKE NEWS, BUT FAIRLY FAKE!

By Edwin Cooney

Ah, you old fox, Mr. President! You've told us what, but you've lied about when! What else could we expect from the king of all news fakers? Yes, indeed, you've done what you promised to do, but you've done it in a way to make yourself look like a political hero.

Here's the challenge you faced. First, you needed to pressure Mexico into controlling immigrants from her Central American neighbors to alleviate the mounting flow of immigrants into America. Second, you needed to maximize the effect of that move. You knew your fellow Republicans would resist further tariffs so you were determined that you wouldn't need them. Besides, you were going to solve a public relations problem for your fellow Republicans.

Hence came pure politics. For months, people have been accusing Congressional Republicans of constantly caving in to everything you said or tweeted. Meanwhile, Messrs McConnell, Graham, et al issued public statements threatening to resist those tariffs which they certainly knew you really weren't going to employ. Thus, you were able to fly home from Europe after celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of D Day and triumphantly transmit a beautiful piece of fake news. After all, the news was old, so it really was no news at all. As old and un-newsworthy as it was, it was a pretty good outcome considering what might have happened had you really decided to issue those tariffs.

Even more interesting to this student of history is that, insofar as I'm aware, tariffs have traditionally been issued by Congress. There was the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1908. There was the Underwood Tariff of 1913 and the deadly Smoot-Halley Tariff of 1930. All were issued by Congress. It's my guess that a tariff issued by you, Mr.  President, would have been exceedingly vulnerable in federal court. Hence, we have still another aspect of fakery instituted by fake news' greatest enemy.

Aside from the fakery of this more than obvious political scheme, it's a pretty piece of old-fashioned politics worthy of great politicians named James Michael Curley of Boston, Frank Hague, notorious mayor of Jersey City, Richard Joseph Daley of Chicago, and even President William Jefferson (Slick Willie) Clinton!

Mr. President, you promised to drain the swamp - not wallow in it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

   

A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS OR POLITICS - WHICH ARE WE?

By Edwin Cooney

As Jerry Ford moved into the White House forty-five Augusts ago while informing us that "...our  national nightmare is over," millions of Americans were reassured. Triumphantly we declared that after all, "America is a government of laws and not of men." Thirty-nine days later when President Ford (some insist justifiably so) pardoned Richard Nixon, we weren't  sure. Millions began wondering all over again: are we really and truly a government of laws?

Last Wednesday, while listening to Robert Mueller proclaim that we couldn't prosecute President Trump while he was still in office, I thought he was describing a government of laws. Then, without losing stride, without using the exact word, he asserted that the only way we could hold President Trump accountable would be through impeachment or political defeat. In other words, it's all up to you and me; the law can't help us.

I've lived a lifetime drawing a distinction between government and politics. That's why while I was in college, I decided to major in history rather than in political science or sociology. I thought history would give me the broadest perspective of our society. Now, however, a lifetime of citizenship has forced me to draw much broader sociological and political conclusions.

Join me in this ever so brief trek through our past.

Without the instrument of a political system, we elected our most trustworthy man, George Washington, as our first president. Trustworthy George Washington who abhorred politics, warned us of political party evil. Despite his warning and our respect and admiration for him, free men and women, enticed by their own ambitions for property, money and power, listened to the cries of at least three other good but lesser men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, to fulfill their ambitions using the most potent instruments of political power.

Here's still another traditional American truth. Americans historically care less for law than they do for their personal interpretations of liberty. We defied well established British law to fight for and gain our independence between 1775 and 1781. During the 1920s, we defied the 18th Amendment of the American Constitution itself, because it prohibited our insistence on drinking intoxicating beverages.

The reality is that Americans will defy and ultimately destroy law, and even order, if either offends their personal rather than their national sense of purpose.

Thus the question: what kind of a government are we? Are we a government of laws or of politics?

Here is the answer as I see it:

We're only a government of laws when laws benefit the powerful. Since the powerful largely rule politics, therein exists the 21st Century’s most startling American reality.

We're primarily a government of politics!  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY