By Edwin Cooney
Despite what you're about to read, I still like both politics and politicians. However, everything in life must have its limits including political rhetoric!
Unfortunately, we've gotten ourselves into a national mindset that's anything but constructive or patriotic. When we view every political philosophy that's different from our own or any candidate we oppose as a criminal, we're setting ourselves up for a national nervous breakdown! If there is such a thing as a “National Nervous Breakdown” due to our national leadership's unwillingness to accept the result of the election this November, the ultimate fault will be our very own.
While I'm not sure that we have a "right" to be protected from political annoyance, the fact of the matter is that we're suffering these days from political, emotional, and intellectual abuse. Even more, it's pretty easy to document that the public mind is being more than annoyed, it's being deliberately and systematically poisoned just as the climate in which we live is being polluted by carbons. Even worse, it too often seems that the word "united" (a vital word) is being slowly but surely obliterated from who we historically say we are.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that we're well on the way to destroying our own liberty. After all, if no two people of opposing points of view have sufficient legitimacy to be trusted in public office, how can we have any confidence in any political candidate’s capacity to govern once elected? What the United States of America needs most desperately today has less to do with "civil liberties" and more about "civilized liberty,” but how do we accomplish that while preserving freedom of speech?
Of course, the nature of politics is confrontational! Our British and European ancestors were invariably led by exceedingly rich and ambitious men and women who contested one another for the right to rule on battlefields. Even our right to self government was established by George Washington on battlefields between Massachusetts and South Carolina between 1775 and 1781. Not until the adoption of our own Constitution did party politics become the instrument for achieving executive, legislative and judicial power in the United States — and, as we all learned in school, George Washington warned in his "farewell message” in September 1796 of the potential evils of party politics. Note that since the retiring president suggested no substitution for political parties, all we’re left with are those parties.
Since the establishment of our federal system of elective government, we've taken pride in our capacity to peacefully transfer power from party to party as well as from president to president.
Of course, presidents have been exceedingly critical of one another from time to time. Both John Adams, our second president, and John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, refused to attend the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson in 1800 and 1828 respectively. Thomas Jefferson considered Andrew Jackson a dangerous man having observed Jackson from his vice presidential chair when Jackson was briefly in the Senate representing Tennessee in 1798. Andrew Jackson came to hate almost everything Quincy Adams stood for, especially after 1824 in the wake of that "corrupt bargain" between Adams and House Speaker Henry Clay that made Quincy Adams president and Clay secretary of state after the 1824 election.
Herbert Hoover heartily disliked FDR following the 1932 election. Harry Truman considered Richard Nixon a "damned liar” who often "...lied just to keep his hand in." The 1952 presidential campaign made both Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who were once friendly, into bitter political opponents from then on. Truman observed that “[Ike] doesn't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday!" Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy (once friends of a sort) came to dislike each other. Nixon was jealous of Kennedy's wealth and glamour and Kennedy often insisted that Nixon had "no class!" Finally, according to Thomas M. DeFrank's book "Write It When I'm gone,” Jerry Ford, who became reconciled with Jimmy Carter, did so out of their mutual contempt for Ronald Reagan. (Although he vigorously campaigned for Reagan in 1980, Ford never forgave Reagan for challenging him for the GOP nomination in 1976.)
The above instances of political and even personal animosities pale in significance to the cultural divide that is all too apparent between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Today our opponents aren't merely dishonest or incompetent, they are criminals, traitors, and terrorists. I assert this not from above the battle, for I, too, have little if any regard whatsoever for one of the candidates and, as justifiable as I regard my attitude as being, I hold it with considerable discomfort.
A few days ago, I read that Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook intends to block political ads on his site one week before the November 3rd election. I think that’s an excellent idea, as this need for rhetorical responsibility and accountability is an absolute must — considering where we’re all headed!
At the outset of this musing I observed that the "Sons of Liberty" who offered us their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honor" did something vitally important. Before they fought for freedom, they thought about freedom.
Now, that's our task!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment