THE PARADIGM OF AN INSTANT!

By Edwin Cooney

At 12:05 on Saturday, December 12th, 2020, as I was working on that week's column to you, our microwave suddenly caught fire after my wife Marsha moved it from its usual place on the left counter of our sink onto our stovetop while she cleaned the space under the microwave. At her call that something was amiss, I hurried into the kitchen and stood before the burning microwave. Marsha had already unplugged it so we couldn't imagine why it continued burning. After about a minute or two, Marsha called 911 and the fire company was on its way. As the trucks pulled in, the microwave began making a series of popping sounds and we evacuated the apartment as fire personnel came in. Immediately, the fire personnel began shouting for tenants to leave the building and we feared that the fire was progressing beyond our apartment. However, it soon became clear that such wasn't the case, although the cause, the costs, and the consequences were uncertain to us. What had happened still is a bit of a mystery to me, but it does make sense. When the microwave was moved onto the stove, the back part of it came in contact with the knob that controls the burner. Subsequently, we were literally cooking the microwave just as we would boil water or heat up other food on our stovetop. Had I known the stove was on, I'd have turned it off, but I didn't realize such was the case. Perhaps a sighted person would have realized what was happening, but we just didn't notice the cause. Believe me, we'll forever keep this instance in mind when we purchase, utilize and clean around a new microwave!

In my mind and, to some extent, Marsha’s, everything in our thoughts was pre and post 12:05 on Saturday, December 12th, 2020. It seemed clear to us in the wake of the incident that our lives might never be the same.

Of course, both of us can vividly recall other much more serious and lasting instances that have shifted our lives including the births of our children during our previous relationships, the passing of Marsha's father four years ago, our respective divorces, along with the joyful and tragic instances that have happened to others close to us.

History is loaded with instances beyond the anticipation of most of us. Surely our Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated all of the headaches the people would face in a newly independent nation such as The War of 1812 with Great Britain or even the Civil War, the cause of which was largely due to our own treatment of a significant group of people we had imported to enslave. (Jefferson called slavery our national "fire bell in the night!”)

All of us have experienced joyful and tragic instances in our lives. Our individual task is to strive to recognize both the causes and effects of these instances so that we have a better chance of managing them when they occur.

The most difficult and ultimately devastating tragic instances are those we could have avoided had we modified our behavior before they occurred.

Neither civil law, international law, religious belief or faith, individual or protective wisdom can protect you or me from the forces of nature that can break our hearts. Still, awareness of how our personal activities affect the lives of people we've never even met can potentially modify the severity that those same people will experience in their personal lives.

I believe that the “Serenity prayer” ultimately reflects the surest pathway toward avoiding the "slings and arrows” of outrageous fortune!

May our God-granted intelligence focus our attention towards those attitudes and behaviors that will make the most of all of the opportunities open to us!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

‘TIS THE SEASON!

From December 15th, 2006

BY EDWIN COONEY

Deck the halls with boughs of holly, Fa la la la la, la la la la,

Tis the season to be jolly, Fa la la la la, la la la la

It’s that time again—and I love it.  Perhaps a little of the magic dwindles over the years, but only the tiniest bit of it.

I don’t anticipate where Santa might be at any hour on Christmas eve anymore—but I know he’s surely somewhere.

Mary, Joseph and the Christ child, Christmas carols, Santa Claus, stockings, Christmas cookies with hot chocolate or fruit juice are as much a part of my boyhood as the turkey on Thanksgiving, Jack O’Lanterns, doughnuts and apple cider on Halloween, and the importance of the baseball World Series. So since I believe that the history of a nation is the sum of all of our life experiences, I thought it might be entertaining as well as instructive to visit, however sketchily, the history of Christmas in America.

Most of us like to think that Christmas is as American as Christopher Columbus, (who isn’t at all American), the Pilgrims, Ben Franklin and George Washington. However, such is not the case!

As you’ll recall, Massachusetts was settled first by the Pilgrims or Separatists -- who wanted to separate totally from the Anglican Church -- and then by the Puritans -- whose aim was to purify rather than leave the Anglican Church.

The Puritans, who became dominant in Massachusetts over the Separatists, eventually took over in England under Oliver Cromwell during the 1650s. They banned the celebration of Christmas partly because it was practiced by the former royalists and partly because they considered it a symbol of Popery, a leading characteristic of the much unreconstructed and therefore maligned Roman Catholic Church of that day.

By the 1660s, the Puritans had lost power in London and throughout the rest of England, but they were very much in power in Boston as well as throughout the rest of Massachusetts.  Thus, Christmas was officially banned in Boston between 1659 and 1681.  It should be noted however that while Christmas was banned in Massachusetts, it was celebrated in both the Virginia and the New York colonies.

After the British monarchy was restored, Christmas was once again celebrated in England although its restoration in Massachusetts took another twenty one years.  Once William and Mary took over as more or less equal partners as British monarchs in 1688 and Catholicism was on the decline there, Christmas began to be practiced in a more secular way in Britain.

One of the casualties of our Revolutionary War at the hands of our founding fathers, incidentally, was Christmas.  Christmas in the era of Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al, was considered an English holiday and was, publicly at least, unwelcome in the hallowed halls of liberty until the mid-nineteenth century.

Three writers, Washington Irving and Clement Clarke Moore -- both Americans -- and Charles Dickens -- an Englishman -- were primarily responsible for introducing Christmas as a family holiday to the American people.

Washington Irving, who traveled and wrote extensively from both Europe and Britain, published short Christmas stories in “The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon” as well as a story entitled “Old Christmas” during the late 1820s and early 1830s.

Most significant was the 1822 poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” attributed to Clement Clarke Moore and Charles Dickens’ 1842 story “A Christmas Carol”.

Americans, with their eternal love of the underdog and sympathy for the reformed, fell hard for Mr. Dickens’ Bob Crachit and the crippled Tiny Tim, and readily forgave old Ebenezer Scrooge once he’d seen the error of his ways and showered the Crachit family with gifts and plenty of Christmas cheer.

As for Clement Moore’s Santa Claus, everyone could identify with a little old white bearded man whose little round belly “shook when he laughed” and whose pipe smoke “encircled his head like a wreath” as he joyfully delivered toys to little children.

Santa was everyone’s idea of Grandpa!

By the 1850s, German and Irish immigration had changed the face of America’s largest cities and had, most notably, tapped the strongest American incentive: the profit motive.

Thus, Christmas was truly on its way in America—led, of course, by Santa Claus!

Information describing how American presidents historically have celebrated Christmas is a bit sketchy.  Apparently, Thomas Jefferson, despite his contempt for Britain and all its institutions and traditions—including Christmas—did privately celebrate Christmas at the White House in 1805.  Andrew Jackson was said to have held private family Christmas celebrations as well.

The first president to set up a Christmas tree in the White House was Franklin Pierce.  Franklin Pierce, the once handsome and energetic Democratic presidential candidate known as “Young Hickory of the Granite Hills”—after the great Democrat Andrew Jackson—was by then a listless, defensive, melancholy and defeated incumbent President.  The year was 1856.  Franklin and Jane Pierce were spending their last unhappy months in the White House.  Tragically childless by now--and heavily burdened by political and administrative misjudgments—President Pierce purchased the first White House Christmas tree for the children of his Sunday school class.

Christmas was declared a federal holiday in 1870.  It would be hard to imagine that President Ulysses S. Grant didn’t have something to say about that, but so far I haven’t found any reference to President Grant in the accounts of the establishment of Christmas as a federal holiday.

In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison installed a tree lit with candles on the second floor of the White House.  He also purchased turkeys and gloves for members of the White House staff.

In 1895, First Lady Frances Cleveland attached the first electric lights to the White House Christmas tree.

In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge began the tradition of a National Christmas tree on the White House lawn.  The following year, sadness prevailed at the White House despite President Coolidge’s re-election, due to the death from blood poisoning of President and Mrs. Coolidge’s sixteen year old son Calvin Jr. the previous July.  Nevertheless, the ceremony was held with the participation of Calvin and Grace Coolidge.

Jacqueline Kennedy began the Christmas theme for the National Christmas tree in 1961 by decorating it with figures from Tchaikovsky’s ballet “The Nutcracker”.

In 2001, Laura Bush’s theme was “Home For the Holidays” which used replicas of the homes of previous presidents.

What, do you suppose, this all means? What do the forces of religion, politics and commercialism say about what we do?  Which one of these forces have had the greatest beneficial effect on our celebration of Christmas?  Which one of these forces have had the most detrimental effect?

The answers to the above questions I’ll leave up to you.  However, I’ll close this week’s effort with my favorite presidential Christmas story.

It was December of 1921 and President Warren G. Harding faced a dilemma, a struggle between his conscience and his need to be politically effective.  A small town Republican, he was sensitive to and even shared the suspicions of his fellow townsmen of what might be called foreign ideologies.

As president, possessing the pardoning power as he did, Warren Harding had received pleas for the release of Socialist party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs from federal prison.  Debs had been convicted during the “Great War” of sedition for public opposition to the war once it had been declared by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

Now the war was over.  Since the League of Nations had been rejected by the Senate in 1919 and again in 1920, the U.S. government, under the direction of Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes had negotiated a separate peace treaty with Germany which President Harding had signed during a golf game the previous July.

Thus, Mr. Debs was no longer a threat to America’s national security.  However, many of the president’s closest friends and political advisors were dead set against any sympathy for Debs whom they strongly believed had deliberately undermined the patriotic efforts of those who had made the “supreme sacrifice” in France during the war.  To them, Debs as a labor leader, was little more than a life long trouble maker inspired lately by foreign ideologies and interests.  One of those who drove home that point most vigorously was the president’s personal hometown buddy Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty.  (Note:  Mr. Daugherty himself would need presidential tolerance within a few years once he was indicted  in the Teapot Dome scandal).

For President Harding, however, the question was whether or not justice would be further served by keeping a 66 year old pacifist in jail or whether the spirit of Christmas required him to be charitable.  Earlier in 1921, outgoing President Woodrow Wilson had bitterly rejected pleas for Debs’ pardon.

Christmas was on a Sunday in 1921 thereby giving the celebration of the birth of Christ a special intensity.  About the 20^th of December, President Harding had made up his mind.  Attorney General Daugherty was called in and told to prepare the necessary papers.  They  were prepared and sent to the federal prison in Atlanta.

By lunch time on Friday December 23^rd, Eugene Victor Debs was in President Harding’s office.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Debs was home.

When asked why he had pardoned Debs, the President is said to have replied in words similar to these:  “At Christmas time, a peaceful man ought to be home with his wife.”

While it is true that the pardon didn’t reinstate Mr. Debs’ citizenship to allow him to vote or seek public office as before, he could act as a political consultant, write, and lecture.  Most significant, thanks to the conscience and humanity of Warren Gamaliel Harding, Eugene Victor Debs was once again a free man.

If any president has given a gift more noble and worthy of the spirit of Christmas, I haven’t heard of it.

Christmas, wow! What a season!!!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE GOP — IS IT A PARTY OR A CULT?

By Edwin Cooney

When one studies the rise and dominance of our political parties, Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, and, finally, D. J. Trump all come to mind. Space for this commentary doesn't allow me to justify why I designate all of the above presidents as party movers and shakers, but I will now compare and contrast the following presidents as examples of what I'm driving at.

Early in the 1960’s, Republicans decided that because of their emphasis on states' rights and limited government, they would never be successful in attracting the "Negro vote." Thus, the party under its then national chairman William E. Miller (whom Barry Goldwater would select as his vice presidential running mate in 1964) adapted its "Southern strategy." By the time Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969, he began following the concepts of states' rights, limited government and a hawkish foreign policy which were a tradition of post World War II Republicanism appealing to  Senator Goldwater's 1964 constituency. Almost as significant was the fact that the GOP positions on both domestic and foreign policies were counter to those of Lyndon B. Johnson — the president who had failed in Vietnam and whose civil rights programs increasingly irritated millions of northern middle class mainstream voters. Hence, throughout his presidency and beyond, Richard Nixon (who as vice president under Ike was largely regarded as a moderate mainstream politician) often called himself a conservative. . 

Conservatism began to come into its own during the 1970’s. The 1976 candidacy and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan brought conservatism out of the fringes of political thinking into the mainstream of American thought and existence. The most articulate and personable president since JFK, Mr. Reagan was a highly successful practitioner of conservatism rather than an elitist Intellectual. Even more powerful was a principle he had been stating since 1966 when he was elected governor of California. It was what he called the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." One might openly oppose another Republican seeking the same office you were (such as Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H. W. Bush in 1980), but such disagreements were never to be about that Republican's honesty or his personal abilities.

President Reagan's appeal was wide and deep. It extended beyond ideology and attracted Independents and Democrats. That isn't to say that Mr. Reagan wasn't determined to prevail. (After all, Thomas M. DeFrank recorded in his book "Write it When I'm Gone” about Jerry Ford that the one thing that drew Ford and Jimmy Carter together was Ford's resentment of Reagan's attempt to deny him the presidential nomination in his own right in 1976.) However, from the beginning to the end of Mr. Reagan's political career, he was a good politician even through the rough spots in 1976 and 1980.

Until the nomination and election of Donald Trump, the Reagan legacy was at the soul of the Republican party. Now, something else has overshadowed it. Some call it a form of populism. Others insist that "Trumpism" is a prelude to autocracy. (Note that conservatives throughout the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s used to warn about a “steady, deadly drift to the left.” However, Trumpism, as I see it, represents a steady, deadly rush to the autocratic right!) 

What's baffling about the GOP since the election last month has more to do with the party than it has to do with the president himself. Historically, partisans in both parties have insisted that politics should "stop at the water's edge." Exactly where the land ends and the water begins in 2020 and on into 2021 (or perhaps as late as 2024) is the question. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush and their contemporaries accepted their political defeats, for the most part, with grace and dignity.

Contrary to both tradition and plain old-fashioned patriotism, today GOP leaders, along with President Trump, appear to believe that the election of a very moderate and traditional Democrat poses a serious and permanent threat to our national well-being.

What does this tell us about today's GOP? What has Mr. Lincoln's party become? Is it still a political party capable of accommodating men and women of a kindred philosophy such as conservatism or liberalism while allowing differences of understanding or approaches to national issues? Should President Trump expect to remain its leader four years from now? Is it likely that possible GOP candidates can afford or would be willing to put their ambitions on hold to accommodate someone of the character of President Trump? Has the Republican Party truly become exclusively Mr. Trump's party? If so, how does that status differ from a social or religious cult?

As 2021 approaches, there are signs both ways. Republican governors such as Brian Kemp in Georgia, and Doug Ducey in Arizona along with election officials and Republican judges and even attorney General William Barr have publicly stated that there is no evidence of significant fraud in the 2020 election results. On the other hand, some pretty prominent Republican leaders are clearly more interested in the president's right to protest the results of the recent election than they are interested in a tranquil and helpful transition from one administration to another for the benefit of a free but vulnerable public during a national pandemic.

In  order to belong to a cult, one must fully endorse and be accountable to a social or a religious philosophy or leader. It's difficult if not impossible to believe that the 21st Century Republican Party isn't rapidly becoming a cult. When political parties become cults they invariably become authoritarian rather than democratic. Anyone who defies the leader of a cult often risks his or her safety and sometimes even his or her life!

The most prominent nations to adopt such cults were led by men named Hitler and Stalin! While you may legitimately insist that President Trump is neither Hitler nor Stalin, he is pretty close to being a David Koresh or perhaps an L Ron Hubbard — neither of whom would be my idea of a president of the United States!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

YOU AND ME — ME AND YOU!

Two days ago, Saturday, November 28th, 2020, I turned 75 years old. Seventy-five isn't a great age these days. It might be comparable to turning 60 back in 1960! Still, by the time one turns 75, a lot of decisions, good and bad, have framed our lives and have invariably affected the lives of people around us.

To begin with, when one reaches 75, one invariably has experienced all types of birthdays: happy, sad, disappointing, as well as wonderfully gratifying birthdays. When I was ten years old, I received a doctor's kit so I could be the doctor when playing with my friends. Two years later, a school nurse I had a crush on gave me Elvis Presley's extended 45 RPM record of “Jailhouse Rock,” which my then foster brother Danny confiscated for his collection.  In 1971, when I turned 26, my family had a birthday party for me and Uncle Gene who turned 74 on November 29th — and, since 26 plus 74 equals 100, our birthday cake got pretty hot from the 100 candles that Cousin Ann put on it!

My best friend and editor Roe has celebrated my birthday in a big, big way ever since we were graduate students at SUNY Geneseo, New York, because she has a soft spot for birthdays! I majored in History and she was a Library Science major. That was the year that I turned 28.

Then there was the time twenty-five years ago that my California friends Jana and Tony took me out for dinner and teased me about becoming a "senior citizen," a status both of them have since come to share.

In 2012, I had just become engaged so my best birthday present that year was a sweet and wonderful fiancé by the name of Marsha.

To reach 75 means that much of my lifetime expectancy is behind me. Thus, I have three major choices: to obsessively worry about it, to ignore it, or to simply let it be a part of me. The day you receive this writing, November  30th, is Winston Churchill's birthday. He turned 75 on Wednesday, November 30th, 1949. While he had already achieved much by then, ahead of him lay a second term as British Prime Minister, the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, and his Knighthood as a Member of the Order of the Garter, England's most senior level of nobility (outranked only by the Cross of Victoria and St. George's Cross). 

When Casey Stengel turned 75, he had just ended his 55-year career as player and manager. Still ahead was his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Then there were those who gave much, created much, who never saw their 76th year: Abe Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, John Lennon, Elvis Presley, and Roy Orbison. (Note: Joe Biden at 78 is about to become President of the United States. He made his decision to run in 2017 before his 75th birthday occurred that November 20th.)

Of course, the “elephant" in all of our abodes is our individual mortality. When will it arrive? What will it be like? There are two vital parts to this speculation. What do we know versus what do we believe about it?

What we know is that it is coming. Insofar as I can tell, in my case it's coming within the time difference that has occurred between today and my fiftieth birthday back on Tuesday, November 28th, 1995. What I have no way of knowing is how it will come or how much discomfort I will experience before its ultimate arrival. In other words, the approach of physical death can be more intimidating than the occurrence of death itself. Another aspect is the disagreeable reality that due to their own mortality, too many of my friends are likely to have experienced their change before I do. Accordingly, I often think it would be better if I could complete my life experience before they do. After all, loneliness is one of the most painful life experiences no matter how young or old you may be!

What I believe (mostly without actual proof) is two fold. First, as a Christian, I believe there is both a God and a Heaven. I believe this because I've been assured by those who came before me and for whom I have the greatest respect that it's true. Many believe that once life is complete there exists only "nothingness" or “oblivion." Perhaps they’re right, but insofar as I'm aware, "oblivion" doesn't insist that you be its disciple. Nothingness is just itself. It requires nothing and will offer nothing because nothing is exactly what it is! As for its opposite which is religious faith (in my case Christian faith), its promise possesses the possibility of energy and life beyond the human dimension we've all experienced.

Second, I believe that since birth and life are natural, physical death is natural and, once within its domain, we have nothing to fear. I often think, as I study history, that on November 27th, 1945, the day before I was born, as “alive” as I was, I had no fear of life. I wasn't anxious to be born. In fact, I was probably quite content where I was. After all, I had no knowledge of life or of what it was like or what it meant. Hence, I'm convinced that the day after I've followed former President Ronald Reagan into the sunset, there'll be no sense of regret or longing. Due to a lack of knowledge before life, I had no expectations or fears of life, so how can I know enough to fear death in view of my religious faith?

Of course, I hope that I will live a gratifying existence the entire approximate quarter of a century that's left to me. I'm not anxious to leave my family, my friends, my country, the New York Yankees, or especially the benefit of that increasing capacity which persons with disabilities have gained through technology to function in this information-gathering era.

I want to live and I want you to happily live, too. Let every day be your personal day for doing and being, laughing, praying and, above all, loving!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A TRUMPIAN FAREWELL

By Edwin Cooney

My Fellow Americans,

I have reluctantly concluded that corruption on the part of former Vice President Biden, Senator Kamala Harris and members of the Democratic Party establishment is so pervasive that as of January 20th, 2021, I will be illegally forced to vacate the office of President of the United States for the next four year presidential term.

In view of this conclusion, I will regard myself as a deposed president not a defeated presidential candidate. Seventy-three million Americans have given testimony to the legitimacy of my candidacy for re-election. As I prophesied three years ago, the only way I could be denied re-election would be if the election were rigged. Unfortunately, to the detriment of the American people, my prophecy has come true!

In both honor of, and respect for, the will of the people, I declare that beginning on Wednesday, January 20th, 2021, I will be the president of a government in exile. Accordingly, I therefore regard every member of my cabinet as having been deposed by this corrupt criminal and treasonous element in American society. Furthermore, having been deposed rather than legally defeated, I remain the legitimate head of the Republican Party and I expect to remain so designated in 2024.

In the meantime, I shall establish a media network dedicated to the achievement of the goals I set forth in my inaugural address on Friday, January 20th, 2017. As President in exile, I shall have the same legal status as that of an incumbent president.

In witness of that status, I hereby pardon myself for any transgressions I have made or may have made between January 20th, 2017 and January 20th, 2021. As for impending charges which may be issued against me in the State of New York, I shall appeal those charges up to the Supreme Court of the United States.

During the coming four years in which I'll be serving as a deposed president who heads a legal and positive social and political party and force in Congress, I will be designing, describing, and advocating laws and strategies which, after January 20th, 2025, will free us from the shackles of corruption of this ongoing conspiracy that daily commits internationally supported terror and treason against the American people. Once I return as President in 2025, all agreements, programs, and laws advocated, negotiated or passed by Congress during the criminal Biden administration, will be rescinded!

This extraordinary journey on my part is crucial to the ongoing welfare of the United States. Once my mission is complete, America will be strong and free enough to return to our traditional way of transferring presidential power between administrations.

As of noon on Monday,  January 20th, 2025, I expect to be restored to the office that was criminally denied me in 2021. Upon my retirement in 2029, America will truly be strong, prosperous, secure, and great once again!

Thank you my fellow citizens and, as always, may God bless America! 

And now my comments:  Is the above message presumptuous? Of course, it is! However, given Mr. Trump's unwillingness to accept the status of electoral defeat as other presidents have, there's no other status, or quasi-status he can logically assume. Second, is this anything more than an outrageous fantasy on my part? The answer is I certainly so! Third, if he's illegally been denied re-election, the only redress of that denial would be through the courts and, up to this writing, no court, including the Supreme Court of the United States, has received sufficient evidence to seriously adjudicate any suit the president's legal team has put forth.

As for his insistence that he remains the head of the Republican Party as a president in exile, that status is likely to be challenged as time goes on. There are simply too many ambitious men and moneyed interests in the Republican party.

The above purely fictitious message is not a prediction of the future, It’s merely a logical presumption of what may occur in the absence of President Trump's willingness to concede the election to Mr. Biden.

Sixty years ago when questions were raised about the legitimacy of the outcome of the 1960 election between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, Joseph Kennedy, Sr. put in a call to former President Herbert Hoover. Hoover advised Dick Nixon not to press the question of the legitimacy of the votes cast in Mayor Richard J. Daley's Chicago political fiefdom. Neither in his book "Six Crises" nor in his presidential memoirs did Mr. Nixon (or anyone else) give the inside story of what was behind Kennedy and Hoover's telephone calls. Nixon merely said that our international vulnerability in the cold war against the Soviets (in other words our "national security”) was his reason not to protest the outcome of the 1960 election. Ironically, it was outgoing Vice President Richard Nixon who, in the presence of the House of Representatives,  had to certify John F. Kennedy's election as the 35th President of the United States of America.

Yes, indeed, the letter above would definitely be beyond the pale. Unfortunately, as I have hereby asserted, it is far from being beyond possibility!

Oh! One more matter of considerable wonderment and interest. If President Trump heads a "government in exile," should President Biden deport him, acknowledge his status, or simply ignore him?

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHO ARE WE - DO WE KNOW?

By Edwin Cooney

Much to the chagrin of  President Donald J. Trump, nine days ago, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden was declared by the national print and broadcast media to be our nation's 46th President due to the majority of votes he gained in the electoral college through the cumulative popular vote he'd received in 21 states at that time. From almost the very outset of his political career, President Trump has insisted that the only way he could lose an election would be if it were "stolen" from him. Such an assertion is obviously both self-serving and arrogant since it clearly asserts that Mr. Trump possesses godlike perfection! Hence, although the possibility is remote, the fate of our nation could depend on the willfulness of our incumbent president to cling to power despite overwhelming evidence that a free people have chosen his political opponent. What does this uncomfortable circumstance say about who we are?    

It's my guess that most of you have read the story written about Benjamin Franklin standing outside the door of the Pennsylvania State House in September 1787 at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention. A reporter asked him "What have you given us, Dr. Franklin?:" To that inquiry Ben Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it!" (Note: Doctor Franklin doesn't reply "a democracy." Why do you suppose he chose to say "a republic” rather than a democracy? What are some of the differences between a republic and a democracy?)

Of course, one of the major differences is that a democracy provides that the majority must prevail in all cases in the establishment and operation of a free society. The fact of the matter is that many of the Founding Fathers differed on the question of whether America should be a republic or a democracy or whether it could exist as a combination of the two. The very establishment of an electoral college more than demonstrates the ambiguity of the Founding Fathers on the question of popular elections versus the wisdom of elections conducted by our elected representatives. I believe that this particular ambiguity exists today even after 233 years.

Back in the 1920s, New York State Governor Alfred E. Smith, the first Roman Catholic to be nominated by the Democratic Party for the presidency, used to assert, "The only cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy!" The national issue back then was prohibition which became constitutional on Thursday,  January 16th 1919. That amendment would be administered via the Volstead Act. To Governor Smith, the 18th Amendment, though clearly constitutional, was anti-democratic. 

Throughout our history, great political leaders have debated issues such as the sovereignty of the states. The question of state sovereignty over national sovereignty is one of the major issues that lies at the center of today's "culture war" between Conservatives and Liberals just as it was during and after the Civil War.

The real issue for President Trump may well be more about his personal fate rather than the fate of "sleepy Joe." After all, once Joe Biden takes the oath of office as President, former President Trump becomes as vulnerable to civil or even criminal suit as everyone else! Has he paid his share of taxes or has he avoided them? Might he be vulnerable to at least one sexual assault charge?

Even more to the point is his old assertion going back at least four years that if America doesn't elect a Republican President now, an aging voter population may be overwhelmed by a much younger and more progressive voting population.

As I see it, the above factors have a much greater long term effect than the fate of the immediate Senate majority which will be decided by the January 5th U.S. Senate elections in Georgia.

Insofar as this student of history is aware, we the people remain unclear about the following questions:

Are we a republic or a democracy?

Are the states sovereign or must they adhere to the sovereignty of the federal government?

Are we a Christian nation or do all religions enjoy equal status? Even more, what are the rights and responsibilities of the practice of religion?

In view of our technical knowledge and advancements, do we have an obligation to effectively regulate our physical environment whether the question is climate control or response to a pandemic?

Is it democratic to equate property and capitol rights with human rights? Must all constitutional rights be democratic? Are we a free people or are we merely political pawns to be manipulated by two powerful and willful political parties?

On Wednesday, January 20th, 2021, Joe Biden will become our 46th President, not because he's all-wise or practical beyond most of us, not because he's a “stable genius" or our savior, but rather because he has adequately demonstrated to us that in the wake of an overwhelming pandemic, our welfare is his primary concern!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER NOVEMBER 3rd

By Edwin Cooney

When I wrote to you last I was convinced that a vast “blue wave” would sweep President Trump and his brand of Republicanism out of power. It didn't make sense to me that 69 million Americans would vote for a president who seemed more interested in the economy than he clearly seemed to be in their general welfare. I was wrong about that and as we proceeded through the counting and assessment of the votes, it appeared likely that the popular vote, for the second time in a row, would be irrelevant! It was just inconceivable to me that the president was about to be rewarded for deliberately putting our national general welfare second to anything except an invasion by a foreign foe!

Throughout Tuesday evening and into Wednesday, especially in the wake of President Trump's self-proclaiming and justifying speech from the White House early that morning, I felt humbled by the apparent reality that I didn't really and truly understand either human nature or the priorities and expectations of the American people. President Trump's apparent success coupled with the lack of success Democrats expected to have in taking over the U.S. Senate was exceedingly discouraging. You might remember that many Democrats saw the takeover of the Senate by the Democratic Party to be more certain than a Biden victory. Along with others, I believed that such a takeover coupled with increases in the House might even stultify an arrogant twice-elected President Donald J. Trump.

As things stand, Joe Biden is the President-elect and, of course, Kamala Harris is Vice President-elect. There's even the possibility that the election of two Georgia Democrats on January 5th may well knot the balance of power in the Senate giving Vice President Harris the deciding vote when there's a tie. (Note: The balance of power in the 2021 Senate might be akin to that during 2001 and 2002 when GOP Vermont Senator James Jeffords  suddenly switched parties re-registering as an Independent and caucusing as a Democrat. That change shifted the balance of power in the Senate from Republican to Democrat. Senator Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota served as Senate Majority Leader until his defeat for re-election in 2002.)

As for the immediate versus the far afterward, there remain a number of mind-scrambling uncertainties. President Trump remains at the top of the greasy pole of politics until at least Wednesday, January 20th, 2021 with all of the authority and power of his office. His finger remains on the proverbial nuclear trigger. He still remains exceedingly influential in the Republican Party. The pardoning power remains in his hands and the convictions of everyone from Michael Flynn to Roger Stone to Paul Manafort will surely receive a "Christmas pardon" from President Trump.

As for you and me, regardless of our political and social statuses, I would suggest the following:

(1.) Insofar as we possibly can, let's stop criminalizing the outlooks and actions of our political opponents.

(2.) We can begin doing this by realizing that President-elect Biden faces a legitimate and essential task of settling years and years of social, political, and cultural warfare.

(3.) It's important to remember President Harry Truman's assertion that "no easy question ever crosses a president's desk."

(4.) Remember that neither government, private enterprise, nor even the desirable method of political, social, or legal "compromise" is free of error.

(5.) Not even the Constitution, however it may be legitimately interpreted by any Supreme Court, is continuously adequate at addressing everyone's liberty.

The new question has to be whether or not our new president's priorities has been morally enhanced by the clear approval in 2020 of some 75 million Americans!

As I've done more than once while writing these weekly musings, I close with just one of my favorite assertions by President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he said:

"I like to think of our country as one home where the interests of each of us are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know by now that the welfare of your family and mine, in the long run, is ultimately dependent upon the welfare of our neighbor's family. Whatever our priorities, agendas, or ideals, the best way to achieve them is to begin comprehending and even legitimizing to the maximum degree possible the hopes and dreams of others!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY