DEAR GOD!

By Edwin Cooney

As you know, I'm among the most common of all mortals with limited talents and only a slightly above average capacity for perspective — thus this letter, addressed to our God.

For the last two weeks almost the entire world, especially the American people, has been locked down in fear for their lives.

I was born to and raised by students of the Apostles’ Creed. I recited that creed, along with the Lord's Prayer, almost every night of my childhood. Like many Christians, I prayed daily that You would continuously watch out for my personal safety and well-being, as well as for that of my family, friends, and of course for my country. Generally, my prayers have been answered, thereby countering whatever foolish mistakes in which I’ve indulged. Seventy-four years of experience have taught me both the magnitude of Your creativity as well as Your capacity for love and forgiveness, but it has also taught me something of Your self-imposed limited involvement in our affairs. I believe that You don't, however often we ask You to, intervene in our lives to save or punish us. Of course, whatever I believe or don't believe is strictly between You and me, as it is strictly between You and everyone else. Therein, I'm convinced, lives that special relationship between You, Jesus, the Holy Ghost and we mortals.

The most magnificent gift You gave us is our capacity to reason and to create which no other beings possess except for humanity. Other beings can procreate, hunt, build homes, raise, teach and protect their young, but we humans have been given by You the capacity to learn and master physical, medical, mental, technical, and metaphysical phenomena which affect the rudiments of our very existence.

We Americans constitute what has become a multicultural society since our ancestors come from all parts of the world and, although grudgingly at times, invariably are accepted as part of the decision-making process, not only by law but by expectation.

Since about the 16th of March, ironically Founding Father James Madison's 249th birthday, American life has been less than free. Hopefully this will last for only a short period of time. That restriction which has been brought upon, not by “big government,” but by a tiny but mighty protein molecule, according to Dr. Irene Ken (whose daughter is an assistant professor in infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore). One can only see this molecule through a powerful microscope. That molecule isn't a living virus but is rather a protein molecule RNA covered by a lipid (fat), which when absorbed by the cells of the ocular nasal or buccal mucosa changes the molecule's genetic code which changes them into a virus that can't be killed, but decays on its own. This molecule currently has more power than a 500 foot slugger from either side of home plate; more than many persuasive and influential preachers and politicians whether their surnames be Reed, Falwell, Graham, Pence or Trump.

(Note: The above information about this molecule comes from an article sent to me by my local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, the headquarters of which is in Baltimore, Maryland.)

Therefore, for almost the first time in all of history, since at least Pearl Harbor, Americans are profoundly frightened.

Thus, we're faced with those inevitable questions: Where can we go from here and how do we get there?

Although the specific answers to those questions are way, way beyond this observer and wonderer, there nevertheless exists a key!

That key lies in those gifts we all know that by our very existence we possess through You. They include:

The wisdom of patience; the curiosity for knowledge; the existence of genius in some very special people; and finally, the knowledge documented in history. You help us remember and give us the strength to utilize the above gifts so that we might renew our appreciation of the finest gifts You have given us! I'm not much of a praying person, but I do believe that using the tools I've identified here is a form of prayer.

I write this letter to You, God, out of both despair and hope. I've tried to avoid preaching through the medium of this message.

Still, I believe that Your confidence in acknowledgment and love for us remains one of the reasons we've reached as high an expectation of ourselves as we currently possess.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt spent the evening before his April 12th, 1945 death composing these words for a speech he would have given on April 25th, 1945, at the San Francisco conference creating the United Nations. I believe they're especially prophetic for this time of national crisis. Wrote FDR: “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today!”

In that spirit, I pray for Your continuing blessings and love for the future and sake of us all!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE NEW BIG DIVIDE

By Edwin Cooney

Tom Friedman, one of the most distinguished columnists of the New York Times, wrote a column last week called “Our New Historical Divide: B.C. and A.C. — the World Before Corona and the World After” which would be akin to the biblical designation of the eras Before Christ and Anno Domini. As a student of history, I can identify several historic events that amount to a change in the way we conduct ourselves both privately and publicly. Most of these events are manmade and one can argue that today's Coronavirus "pandemic" is at least partially manmade. Let's look, very briefly, at a few of these events.

In 1790, when little Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the constitution, everyone knew and understood the differences in size, economic base, and culture of all the states and sections of the country. Hence they knew that the slaveholding South depended on the benefits of slave-owning and that the non-slaveholding North depended to a lesser extend on the capture, shipping, and distribution of slaves at least up until 1808 when the importation of slaves was abandoned under the constitution. Everyone also knew that elements in both North and South fiercely advocated both for the perpetuation and even advancement of slavery as well as for the abolishment of slavery. The advancement of slavery was primarily an economic need for the powerful. The abolishment of slavery was a moral issue. Then, in 1820, thirty years after the original 13 states agreed to unite, came the famous, or if you prefer, infamous Missouri Compromise of 1820. This compromise (Thomas Jefferson’s “fire bell in the night”) sought to balance the potential economic factors in the inevitable advancement westward of the population by limiting slavery geographically north and south of 30 degrees 30 minutes north latitude and by agreeing to admit a slave state to the union for every free state. This was during what became known as "the era of good feeling.” James Monroe, a southern aristocrat, won re-election in 1820 with only one electoral vote short of George Washington's two unanimous elections in 1789 and 1792. However, that compromise turned out to be the opening bell for the suspicion and hatred that would inevitably bring about the Civil War. Due to that compromise, slaves became more valuable as property but less reliable as sustainers of the culture that held them in bondage. Slaves thus were increasingly valued property while becoming increasingly dangerous as people. Therefore, when the Supreme Court inevitably ruled in the Dred Scott case that slaves were as much property as horses, the fat for the Civil War was in the fire!

The twentieth century brought about more cultural and political dividing lines. The "Great Depression"  wasn't deliberately caused by the Republican ascendency in 1921 or by any one of the three presidents (Harding, Coolidge or Hoover), but rather by their collective failure to regulate the activities of business and commerce when business and commerce refused to regulate themselves. FDR's "New Deal" represented a shift in attitude regarding the legitimacy of government's responsibilities for the welfare of people everywhere. President Hoover was more interested in the people’s endorsement of the Protestant work ethic than he was concerned with the individual's access and right to financial security. FDR's inauguration brought about an entirely new relationship between the government and the people. FDR believed that what the consumer, the individual farmer, the laborer, and others needed was a legitimate obligation on the part of good government at least as much as they listened to the legitimate demands and needs of traditional constituents. By 1969, the Progressive Era was coming to an end, marked by the inauguration of the Nixon Administration.

Since Ronald Reagan, GOP partisans have laughed over the following assertion: I'm from the government and I'm here to help! (It's my guess that those jokers aren't laughing nearly as hard as they have regarding their need for government assistance!)

The 21st Century potentially will bring even more serious eras of division. Obviously, 9/11 constitutes a divide in our foreign policy outlook. It has revitalized our traditional nativism. It has politicized and weaponized many evangelistic Christians. Even more, the effects of 9/11 aren't complete even at a distance of nineteen years.

Now, as an election year enfolds us, we are engaged in a war with an act of nature which has spread due to the inadequacies of everyone from the head of the Chinese government to that of the President of the United States. However, one compelling event has occurred already that was inconceivable merely a fortnight ago. I am referring to the stunning agreement on the part of both political parties to compensate large numbers of Americans with money to buy food, pay the rent and other obligations. Insofar as I'm aware, history does not record another instance of such governmental magnitude or generosity! It's amazing and even encouraging that the conservative establishment has come to realize that people are not only worthy of relief, but that their acceptance and use of their own relief may well put vitally needed money into some badly needed productive pockets, thereby invigorating the economy.

Traditionally, there are only three legitimate ways for individuals to receive money: earn the money, inherit money, or be granted money by a benefactor. Unearned money, as exemplified by President Reagan's "welfare queen,” is dirty money, unworthy of decent people. Suddenly, Conservative Republicans, realizing that business can only prosper if people have money to spend, have finally reached a realistic conclusion. For that change in direction, everyone from President Trump on down is to be applauded. (I first heard of such a possibility last Sunday night while listening to the Biden/Sanders debate. I naturally expected such a proposal from the Democrats, but the Republicans’ endorsement of such an idea as government paying for a war against disease was wonderfully stunning!)

As we reluctantly approach the Coronavirus pandemic, we feel our feet sinking into COVID-19 desert sand and we hope that we'll soon reach a broad and deep oasis of post disease plenty and pleasure. I happen to believe that plenty and pleasure is ahead of us, having crossed this divide, as long as we heed that Rooseveltian reminder that "the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know by now that the welfare of your family or mine…depends in the long run upon the well-being of our neighbors."

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE BIG SHUT DOWN!

By Edwin Cooney

I think I know some of the fundamental causes as to why "the greatest nation in the world" is shutting down! Sadly, we of the land of the free and the home of the brave are just plain scared — due to a lack of national leadership. Even more, the well off among us are just as frightened as we “peasants!”

Even as our president, as late as last Wednesday, was minimizing our national plight, those among his most ardent followers, owners of sports franchises, of airlines, of hotels, were suspending almost every enterprise designed to bring them maximum profits. They were closing down "March Madness," suspending the remainder of the professional basketball and hockey seasons, and suspending baseball spring training as well as the scheduled March 26th baseball season opening. Airlines are now cancelling flights, foreign or domestic — which is as it should be. Schools and colleges are closing and sending students home.

This national tragedy extends beyond mere partisan politics. It reflects in some significant ways how we have become who we are today. The factors I've just cited are symptoms of a national crisis, not the cause of it!

There are oodles of good things about us that we forget at our peril including our creativity and our charitable organizations and institutions as well as our civil, spiritual, and political liberties.

Our fundamental flaw lies in our expectation that we ought to be able to control our individual lives and fates. Given our advancements in science and technology, this explanation is fairly understandable. This understandability only intensifies the panic, fear and anger when something like the Coronavirus confronts us.

Additionally, we Americans expect to be taken care of, not only by the government, but also by the private market. We expect private manufacturers and other businesses to guarantee safe working conditions. We expect merchants to protect us from secondhand smoke. We insist that the quality of a product be guaranteed to extend over a reasonable period of time after purchase. These constitute only a few social expectations we have of private enterprise. In fact, many public safety requirements were viciously resisted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by well-healed entrepreneurs.

The two most frightening aspects of this national crisis are that the symptoms at the outset are usually quite mild and up to now testing tools have been in short supply. (From what I've learned, a number of countries that have socialized medicine such as Australia have no shortage of testing materials.)

Secondly, uncertainty as to how to minimize the likelihood of coming down with the virus is what most affects the smooth operation of our society and the culture that drives what we dare to do.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this crisis is now it could even affect the outcome of the 2020 national election. Socio/political observers continuously point out that the three men in line to be president in January of 2021 are "old white males." The fact is that since "old white males" are the most vulnerable group to contract the disease, the Coronavirus could conceivably decide who might not be elected President of the United States of America next November.

Insofar as I'm aware, I have little or no fear of the virus for myself, although I am apprehensive about the health and well-being of people I highly regard and love. In fact, perhaps the real bottom line for most of us is fear for the health and well-being of those we love. Fear, as I often assert, is the father of anger — both personal and national. Additionally, we can identify a number of occasions throughout human history when pandemic diseases have had a direct effect on the state and even on the course of nations.

The Bubonic Plague (or the “Black Death” as it was better known) had a direct effect on the history of fourteenth and fifteenth century England to the extent that it dictated the royal succession and brought about the infamous Wars of the Roses between the Lancaster and the York families. (Had the Lancasters not ultimately prevailed, there would have been no Henry the Eighth and, perhaps more significantly, no break with the Catholic Church and thus none of the disasters and deaths that resulted from that historic event.)

The Spanish Flu of 1918 is said to have affected the health and mental stability of President Woodrow Wilson during the 1919 Paris Peace conference. A number of witnesses to that conference insist that following a bout with the flu, President Wilson's mood or temperament affected his willingness to compromise both during and after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. (While these two instances aren't conclusive causes of events, they demonstrate very significant speculative historic causes and effects of history.)

The cancellation of significant social, economic, and cultural events are more than likely to alter socio/political and cultural outcomes in the near future. One of the most likely outcomes is the degree to which we have a change in what we expect of our national political leadership. No reasonable person can blame President Trump for the outbreak of the Coronavirus, but he appears to have dismantled an important department, thereby cutting down the capacity of the government to protect us from the ravages of disease. For many, the president has been more interested in government efficiency than in addressing our safety and welfare. His characterization of the virus as a "foreign virus” is, of course nonsense, but it appeals to the fears and prejudices of his constituency. Viruses speak neither Chinese nor “American," but so long as they originate from abroad, they can be labeled as foreign as royalty or communism. President Trump's message of last Wednesday night was both political and self-congratulatory which is nothing new! Nor was it designed to calm an anxious America. Some wonder why President Trump was willing to declare a national emergency over the non-construction of his border wall, but until last Friday resisted declaring a national emergency for the Coronavirus.

You may not have imagined that you would be a witness, let alone a possible part of a dramatic historic event, but what we are about to experience may be more significant than even 9/11.

Writing in the New York Times on Saturday, March 14th, Dr. David A. Kessler welcomed President Trump's appointment of Brett Giroir as Assistant Secretary of Health to coordinate the speeding up and implementation of the use of badly needed test kits. According to Dr. Kessler, this process could be done in seven days. (Dr. Kessler, MD is a professor of epidemiology, biostatistics and pediatrics at the University of San Fransisco.) His article outlines the structure as well as the activities of organizations within that structure which he insists can install our badly needed Coronavirus testing capacity in a week's time. How long it will take for the testing system to take effect, Dr. Kessler does not address.

I think it's important to remember that "promoting the general welfare" of the nation was as important as the other four reasons to our Founding Fathers when they created the Constitution in 1787! Failure to lead when the path is uncertain is a failure of leadership! Assuming that you, I, and those closest to us survive the physical effects of the Coronavirus, our more sensitive outlooks, attitudes and expectations for each other's well-being may be its only positive, but most powerful, significant legacy.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHICH BEST SERVES — PRINCIPLE OR PRACTICALITY?

By Edwin Cooney

The answer to that question is simple. Both principle and practicality are essential to every successful political campaign. Just two weeks ago, I observed the following regarding the present political climate: I don't like to write this, let alone think it, but I'm almost sure that Michael Bloomberg will be the Democratic candidate. He and President Trump will ultimately square off for the big prize. That was a statement of practicality more than it was a prediction of how this election should or will come out.

Although political junkies of all stripes and levels of sophistication insist that every presidential election is both reflective of our past as well as crucial to our future, not every presidential election is a matter of practicality versus principle. Occasionally, the question of principle versus practicality is different for each party during the same election.

Like the educator Christopher Hedges, some people would insist that the spontaneous and nearly simultaneous withdrawal from the Democratic "lists" indicates oligarchical type planning, since the departure of candidates Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are thought by many as indicative of oligarchical behavior. (An oligarchy exists when the rich are fully in control of a country's body politic.) I'm not convinced that we're there as yet because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the decisions by Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg were simultaneous rather than being the result of coercive political pressure. Elizabeth Warren's refusal to endorse Joe Biden is a further indication that there remains considerable viability in our free system of government.

As for Messrs Biden and Sanders, they will now be measured by their conduct and the choices they make.

I have considerable respect for the principles and even the person of Bernie Sanders. However, it is vital that his supporters keep two things in mind. Bernie Sanders is seeking the nomination of a party he has refused to join. Second, even if he were a lifelong Democrat, he would not be automatically entitled to the nomination any more than Joe Biden. There's nothing new about a party's rejection of a "Johnny come lately."

Back in the fall of 1973 when President Nixon was looking to replace the recently resigned Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, the president was warned by both Republicans and Democrats on Capital Hill not to send them the name of John B. Connally whom it was well known he favored for the vice presidency. Connally had only been a Republican since the January 22, 1973 death of former President Lyndon B. Johnson. You’ll perhaps recall that Connally was an old Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic crony who was sitting in front of President John F. Kennedy at that fateful moment on Friday, November 22nd, 1963. Connally was wounded, but survived to serve as Texas's governor through 1968. By 1970, he was Secretary of the Treasury in Richard Nixon's administration.  To 1973 Republicans, Connally was regarded as an opportunist: conservative in comparison to LBJ, but hardly a genuine Republican conservative. As for the Democrats, Mr. Connally was a "turncoat." Nor was former Republican New York City Mayor John V. Lindsay welcome a year earlier when he tried to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in the spring of 1972.

It's my understanding that in 2016, Senator Sanders insisted that a candidate with merely a plurality of the delegates was not entitled to party preferment. I'm told that in 2020, Senator Sanders has had a change of heart on that issue! However, that's just plain situational politics. Up to this point, Bernie hasn't demonstrated that he's much of a politician. That's not good news when one seeks a political office of the magnitude of the presidency.

Here's a very brief review of instances of principle verses practicality during an election year.

In 1964, the GOP was more principle than practical as the party sought to be more of a conservative western-oriented party by substituting the eastern establishment with Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater. Their slogan was "a choice, not an echo.” Just four years later, 1968 Republicans leaned more toward the center after their 1964 drubbing by LBJ. By 1988, the Republicans again sought to move ever so slightly to the center from the Reagan right via George H. W. Bush's thousand points of enlightened conservative light. In 2008, Barack Obama's "yes we can" slogan was an appeal for principled change. As for 2016, a new era of GOP populism which was more practical than principle carried Donald Trump to an eyelash victory over the non issue-oriented Hillary Clinton candidacy. In 2016, identity politics had replaced principled public service-oriented Democratic leadership.

Due primarily to his advanced age, Joe Biden needs to clearly demonstrate that he's capable of handling the presidency. Perhaps too many voters aren't sure he can. That is a question of practicality rather than principle.

Finally, I'm convinced that the most powerful and principled Democratic tickets would be as follows: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders and Amy Klovuchar. These tickets would nicely balance political principles and the age factor as well as geographic balance and appeal.

Back in 1936, FDR rightly asserted that he was the major issue in that campaign. In 2020, President Donald John Trump is definitely the issue. The difference, as I see it, is that FDR's persona was more about national direction and purpose, where as President Trump's persona has more to do with his personal willfulness than it does with our national well-being!

Candidates Buttigieg, Klovuchar, Warren, and Bloomberg chose public service over ego this week. By so doing, they demonstrated principle, practicality, and, even more, just good old American citizenship! 

As for the question of practicality and principle, if a candidate is impractical enough not to define his or her principles, that candidate’s opponents along with the voters are likely to define them. Once that happens, there’s little light at the end of a long political tunnel for such a candidate!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

1940: FORTRESS AMERICA CONNECTS WITH THE WORLD!

By Edwin Cooney

Nineteen-forty was an absolutely amazing and historic year. Not only did we vote FDR (many reluctantly) to an unprecedented third term, but an American President dared to sign a national conscription bill nearing the close of the presidential campaign.

The first of January was a Monday in 1940. On Friday, the 5th, the Federal Communications Commission, for the first time, heard the clear static-free transmission of the FM broadcast signal. Two days later, on Sunday, January 7th, the world was shocked to learn that the Finnish army, despite inferior numbers, had defeated the Soviet army on the Raate-Suomussalmi Road. Winston Churchill would proclaim "Finland shows what free men can do!” However, the gallant Finnish army, which originally out-skied (more than out-gunned) the Soviets, wasn't strong enough to permanently hold off Stalin's forces.

Wednesday, January 24th saw the release of film director John Ford's "The Grapes of Wrath" starring Henry Fonda, based on author John Steinbeck's book by that name.

On Friday, February 2nd, Frank Sinatra made his singing debut in Indianapolis accompanied by Tommy Dorsey's orchestra. Walt Disney's "Pinocchio" was released on Friday, February 23rd. On Sunday, February 25th, W2XBS in New York televised an NHL hockey game for the first time which was won by the Rangers over the Montreal Canadians 6 to 2. Four days later, Thursday, February 29th, Hattie McDaniel became the first black woman granted an Oscar for her role as Mammy in "Gone With the Wind." Just the day before, Wednesday, February 28th, the Census Bureau announced the population to be 131,669,275. The black population was 12,865,518, constituting 9.8% of the total number.

On Thursday, March 12th, the Finns signed The Treaty of Moscow giving up 11 per cent of its territory to Stalin — thus saddening and disappointing the free world.  

By Thursday, April 16th, the day Cleveland Indians' pitcher Bob Feller opened the American League  season with a 1 to nothing no hitter over the Chicago White Sox, many Americans were beginning to wonder about the coming political season.

Before many Americans could begin analyzing our domestic political possibilities, there came Friday, May 10th in Great Britain.  On that day, as Germany began its blitzkrieg of four nations, Parliament lost patience with its leadership. It wrenched power from Neville Chamberlain. King George VI finally decided to offer power to Winston Churchill, a member of The House of Commons, rather than to Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of Halifax. The urgency and precariousness of Britain's lott, Churchill's naval background and the fact that he was half American were likely factors in the King's choice of Churchill over Halifax.

Meanwhile, FDR, whose stellar political reputation had been somewhat damaged in 1937 by his attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court, would still be a formidable candidate due to his personal charisma and experience if he sought a third term — an honor Ulysses S. Grant and FDR's fifth cousin Theodore Roosevelt had unsuccessfully tried to achieve. Indiana Governor Paul McNutt was said to be interested, but Postmaster General Jim Farley, who had successfully captained FDR's 1932 and 1936 campaign troops, clearly had decided that 1940 was his turn. Otherwise, the Democrats might try Vice President "Cactus Jack" Garner, also a former Speaker of the House and a rich pecan nut farmer from Uvalde, Texas. Garner, whose agreement to serve as Vice President under then Governor Franklin Roosevelt had cinched FDR's fourth ballot nomination back in 1932, also coveted the 1940 nomination. There was also Secretary of State Cordell Hull, an old Tennessee populist, whose value to the administration was that he kept old-line Southern Democrats wedded to the New Deal. However, he was old, rather tired and ill. Over on the GOP side, the newly elected Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft (son of former president William Howard Taft) was popular with traditionally conservative Republicans. Thomas E. Dewey, born in Michigan but now a popular prosecutor from New York, had a reputation for controlling crime, second only to that of J. Edgar Hoover. Dewey also wanted to become president. Finally, there was an interested corporation lawyer, a native of Elwood, Indiana. He was a Democrat whose only quarrel with FDR was the New Deal's over-regulation of public utilities and this drove him to the Republican Party.  His name was Wendell Lewis Willkie.

Republicans met in Philadelphia between Monday, June 24th and Friday, June 28th for their 22nd quadrennial convention. Wendell Willkie (one of three candidates from New York State) was nominated on the sixth ballot. Charles Linza McNary of Oregon was nominated for Vice President. The Willkie/McNary nominations constituted a move to the center of the political spectrum in an effort to capture the increasing number of progressive votes across the country. It was hoped that this would make them competitive with the New Deal dominated Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party which would meet in Chicago for its 28th quadrennial convention nominated FDR for that unprecedented third term on the first ballot. Although perhaps genuinely reluctant to run earlier in the year, by the time the convention opened on Monday, July 15th, FDR was clearly and cleverly planning his own "spontaneous" nomination. Former Commerce Secretary Harry L. Hopkins, who occupied three different headquarters during the convention, arranged through Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly for a voice to come from the cellar of the convention hall chanting "we want Roosevelt!” just after Kentucky Senator Alben W. Barkley had finished reading from the podium a letter from the President insisting that the delegates were perfectly free to nominate another candidate. Then there was the kerfuffle over FDR's insistence that Agriculture Secretary Henry Agard Wallace of Iowa become his vice presidential running mate. Eleanor Roosevelt went to the convention to speak for Wallace and FDR threatened to withdrawal his candidacy if Wallace was rejected. Many delegates resisted the Wallace nomination. However, by Friday night, July 19th, 1940, FDR was fully in command of the Democratic party and was seeking to master the British resistance to Adolf Hitler.

Although less apparent to contemporaries, FDR and Willkie had one outlook in common: they both rejected isolationism's "fortress America” as a necessary strategy for keeping America safe and free. Republicans charged that Roosevelt's brand of internationalism would be like his agricultural policy, that instead of plowing up one third of America's wheat, it would bury one third of all America's boys. It was one of the few Republican charges that deeply angered Roosevelt. By the close of the 1940 campaign, the drafting of American boys was the law and FDR participated in the ceremony where Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson drew the first draft number.

Births in 1940 included Eric Hilliard (Ricky) Nelson on Wednesday, May 8th, baseball Hall of Famers Willie Stargell on Wednesday March 6th, and Joe Torre on Thursday, July 18th. Perhaps most notably, the Beatles' John Lennon was born on Wednesday, October 9th during a German air raid over London.

As for the election on Tuesday, November 5th, Roosevelt received 27,213,945 votes to Willkie's 22,347,744. FDR earned 449 electoral votes, Willkie 82, with Roosevelt carrying 38 of the then 48 states.

A sad irony: Had Wendell Willkie and Charles McNary been elected over Roosevelt and Wallace in 1940, both men would have died in office. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, whoever was Secretary of State, perhaps a younger John Foster Dulles, would have succeeded President Willkie! Charles McNary died on Thursday, February 25th, 1944 at the age of 69 and Mr. Willkie died on Sunday, October 8th, 1944 at age 52 following an unsuccessful attempt to regain the GOP presidential nomination. Even more ironic, this was exactly six months and four days before President Roosevelt's passing!

I think most historians would agree with this mere student of history that in 1940, America opened its eyes, conscience and awareness of the welfare of the world community to its own safety and even survival. By the end of the year (I believe it was Thursday, December 26th, 1940), FDR declared America a "good neighbor" to the world and asserted that America ought to be the world's “arsenal of Democracy.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY