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