THE IDEAL PRESIDENT

By Edwin Cooney

Throughout American history, leaders of business and commerce, military leaders, and political party leaders have sought every four years to create a consensus as to who might be the best President of the United States of America! Thus, the immediate and easiest answer to the above question, that it depends on the mood of the strongest and most resourceful decision makers, is null and void as a response to this commentary.

There have been three types of presidential leadership, as I see it. They are consensus builders, ideologues, and commander types.

Consensus builders include Washington (who was elected because he was a successful military commander, but ultimately governed through consensus building), Lincoln, Taft, Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and, I'm predicting, President Biden. They generally seek to please a broad section of voters large enough to sustain their leadership. (Remember that Abraham Lincoln was neither an abolitionist nor was he aggressive toward the South. Thus the Emancipation Proclamation was practical rather than ideological.)  Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Reagan were both a combination of ideologues and consensus builders. (Note: Jefferson campaigned as a strict constitutional constructionist, but he departed from the Constitution when he purchased Louisiana because there is no prevision in the Constitution for the president to purchase territory from a foreign nation except through treaty — which the Louisiana Purchase was not.)

Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump and, to some extent, Harry Truman were commander-types. That means they had a plan or idea (or thought they had) from the very outset of their administrations and tried to direct America to their ideal via coercion if necessary, especially in the cases of Jackson, Cleveland, Nixon, and President Trump. As I see it, President Donald J. Trump is the most virulent of the “commander type” of president.

President Trump didn't lose to Joe Biden because he was a conservative or because he sought to protect us from abortionists, illegal immigrants, secular humanists, or even socialists or communists. He lost because from the very outset of his administration, President Trump was clearly more about himself than he was about any particular interest group unless a group's agenda clearly enhanced his personal reputation. Consensus to President Trump was a sign of political and individual weakness! Additionally, long before November 3rd, 2020, it was clear that the president was tone deaf to people’s reaction to what he both said and did, be they Democrats or men and women he'd appointed to his own cabinet and sub-cabinet.

Even more telling was his lack of a sense of what worked and what didn't work for him. From early March 2020, he hovered over the Covid-19 briefings by Dr. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, continuously modifying their assessments of the severity of the pandemic to suit his own political reputation versus the public welfare. Even his tweets which had considerable effect in 2017, 2018, and well into 2019, lost steam due to their overuse and predictable flavor.

For me, the ideal president is a consensus builder. A consensus builder doesn't go into office without an idea of what he (or someday she) wants to achieve. For all his deliberately established reputation as a conservative, Ronald Reagan was ultimately a consensus builder which is actually part consensus building and partly idealistic leadership. Someone once wrote that President Reagan, like FDR and JFK, mastered "the art of the presidency” more than either their predecessors or their successors. Even those who master the art of the presidency don't escape ridicule. FDR was charged with believing himself to be indispensable in the presidency. It was claimed by some that FDR had "grilled millionaire” everyday for breakfast when, as he asserted during a fireside chat, “I’m a devotee of scrambled eggs!”  (According to her sons James and Elliot, scrambled eggs was the only dish Eleanor Roosevelt knew how to make. It was standard Sunday night cuisine at the White House.) Then there were two delightful criticisms about President Reagan's mastery of the presidency. Remember Colorado Congress Lady Patricia Schroeder's label of President Reagan as the “Teflon President” or the observation by one observer that "if President Reagan drove through a car wash with the top rolled down, Jimmy Carter, even in his absence, would get wet!"

The Smithsonian Institute, the close of "reconstruction" after the Civil War, the Peace Corps, the first nuclear test ban treaty, and the homeland security administration were all created by presidents whose election was questionable. That includes Presidents John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, John Kennedy, and George W Bush.

Yes, indeed! Give me a good-natured consensus builder, preferably with a plan more rational than his or her essential ego, and that's the president for me!

Let every future president's ideas, agenda and authority be subject to the ultimate scrutiny of a well-informed people and hopefully the last four years will have been a necessary but merely temporary nightmare!

Since the days of Lyndon Baines Johnson, I've carried in my pocket a small medallion of the sitting president of the United States whether or not I voted for him. Two of these presidents I've loved. The third one I originally loved, but later felt obligated to abandon in the wake of scandal. Two others I've admired, but with whom I felt politically incompatible. Still another, I voted for twice, but in the end I felt indifferent toward. Although I carried President Trump's medallion throughout his term, I was glad to put it aside last Wednesday noon.

The President of the United States has been for me the symbol of all that's beneficially possible because he or she is in a unique place to ensure the best outcome in national matters foreign or domestic. Observing how they do what they do, for better or worse, is both instructive and even entertaining. No president ought to be worshipped, but to deplore a president must never be a worthy goal intellectually, politically, or spiritually!

In the final analysis, we have an imperfect president occupying an imperfect office leading a free but imperfect people who, for the past 231 years, have only been able to  strive to be "...a more perfect union!"     

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

BIDEN'S MOST DAUNTING BUT ESSENTIAL CHALLENGE!

By Edwin Cooney

As Joe Biden takes the presidential oath on Wednesday, January 20th, 2021, he becomes the fourth president to face the monumental challenge of establishing and revitalizing national unity!

Under George Washington's administration, the whole country craved national unity even though the people's hearts, for the most part, remained with their home states. Seventy-two years later, as Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, the southern part of the nation feared a possible downturn in its economy. Due to the possibility that slavery was vulnerable to abolishment, the South reverted to its original “Doctrine of State Sovereignty" and broke away via military rebellion.

By 1933, people faced and feared social and economic deprivation due largely to the degree of greed on the part of what Franklin Roosevelt called "economic royalists."

In his inaugural address, FDR did three things. First, he pronounced the nation's mood with his proclamation that “the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” He went on to thank God that our crisis was merely a material one. Second, he described in outline form the various measures he'd employ to put people to work and increase the purchasing power of the people's money. Finally, he took personal responsibility for the results of his efforts.

FDR entered the presidency blessed with several advantages. First, he was a pillar in his local religious community which in 1933 was vital for any successful politician. Second, his family was politically well-connected through his fifth cousin Theodore Roosevelt (his wife Anna Eleanor's Uncle Ted.) Third, he was Harvard and Columbia Law School educated with executive experience in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet and as Governor of New York State. Above all, he had an excellent array of personal talents from speech-making, and  salesmanship gifts in addition to his administrative abilities. He possessed an overwhelmingly charming personality and temperament.

Much of what Joe Biden possesses is obscured by the fact that his professional experience has been in the legislative rather than in the administrative branch of government. (Even as an executive when he held the office of Vice President, Joe Biden’s reputation was largely linked to that of his former chief, Barack Obama.) As he begins the most vital part of his life, he comes across, not only to the voter but to the educated commentator and even to some of his peers, as little more than competent. His power of persuasion is more personal than either intellectual or particularly logical. Yet, it's encouraging to realize that he's twice been chosen over the years to chair two vitally important and powerful Senate committees, Judiciary and Foreign Relations. (A lot of senators from both parties would give their eyeteeth to have chaired either committee, let alone both of them!) Like two of his vice presidential predecessors, Harry Truman and Gerry Ford, he’s plain-spoken and his word has always been good even when his judgment may have been questionable.

One more thing must be taken into account as we evaluate him just before he becomes president. For the last two years, President Trump has ridiculed all of his potential opponents, be it “Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren or "sleepy Joe" for Biden himself. However, the Trumps have paid special attention to Joe Biden. Obviously, "sleepy Joe" was the potential opponent Mr. Trump feared most! Why do you suppose that was? After all, Joe Biden wasn't nearly as socialistic as Ms. Warren or Senator Bernie Sanders. Yet, President Trump not only ridiculed him, but investigated him and his son Hunter.

Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt eighty-eight years ago, our new president must take and proclaim the nation's mood truthfully and powerfully. As was true in 1933, more than anything else, we're dangerously afraid of each other. (Note: that's "fear itself!") What he needs to convince us is that while the fundamentals of our economic structure are intact, they can only be rebuilt and strengthened as we attack Covid-19. Next, President Biden has to explain why his economic plan, as expensive as it must be, is designed to benefit the most populous part of the nation. He must explain why putting money in people's pockets will enrich the marketing element of the nation. Finally, while what he has to say about the past four years or about the crisis brought on by the January 6th attack on the Capitol may be something he is compelled to address, he must minimize his judgment of the causes and likely outcomes of that disastrous and "dastardly" attack.

If John and Susie Q Citizen are to get any inspiration from our newly minted President Joseph Robinette Biden, they must believe at the close of his historic address that the speech has been for and about them as well as above and beyond mere payback politics.

After all, payback politics is the child of “fear itself!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MAY WE BE ENTERING A CALMER ERA?

By Edwin Cooney

No matter where you live or what social, religious, or political organization you may belong to, its unlikely that you can escape the feeling that we're doomed to endure a degree of emotional, intellectual and spiritual chaos that could result in the destruction of our civil society. However, I’m guessing that it's possible that a calmer society may be just around the corner.

Last Friday, January 8th, 2021, President-elect Joe Biden held a news conference to announce his nominees for Secretary of Labor, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and for Secretary of Commerce, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo.

However, what has been particularly encouraging and refreshing about the style and nature of President-elect Biden's communication with the American people is his overall civility. His instructions to incoming Attorney General Merrick Garland that he will not be the president's personal lawyer but the people's lawyer constitutes the highest degree of civil government.

Just as encouraging last Friday was his insistence that his priority wasn't the political destruction of President Trump and his supporters, but the construction of his administration and its plans for combating Covid-19 as well as the restoration of efforts to combat climate change along with the improvement of the economy for the benefit of victims of the pandemic.

When asked his reaction to President Trump's declaration that he would not be attending the upcoming Biden inauguration, the President-elect remarked that Mr. Trump's decision was one thing on which he and the president agreed. As for Vice President Mike Pence, Mr. Biden said that the vice president would be welcome. Just as gratifying to this observer was Joe Biden's assertion that the nation needs a Republican opposition that's both principled and strong.

As vital as politics is in a free society, in order to be effective, political competition must be regulated by a free and responsible constituency. Such regulation can never be the government's business as much as it must be the people's business. Throughout the 1930s, FDR used to insist that: "The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.”

Over the years, I've heard and read what a number of commentators believe to be at the root of our present cultural divisions. Some insist that it all began with our national conflict over the war in Vietnam. Others say the civil rights struggle sufficiently divided America into hard conservative and liberal camps. Still others say it was the Watergate scandal. Still others point at LBJ, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. I suggest a more fundamental cause for the severity of our unhappy political, emotional, racial and religious divide is the loss of a vital break on political recklessness.

In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission instituted "the fairness doctrine" that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues in an honest, equitable and balanced fashion. This regulation was abolished in 1987 during the Reagan administration. Since then, public broadcasting has become a powerful tool for those who possess ample funds to use the public airwaves to promote their political agendas. Not only are many of the owners of large broadcasting entities wealthy, they have an agenda designed to maintain the prerogatives of the wealthy against the demands of middle and lower classes of society. I believe that the withdrawal of the fairness doctrine has gone a long way toward poisoning the political process here in the United States.

As I listened to Mr. Biden's announcements and responses to questions asked him by the media in attendance, what was refreshingly apparent was the calm noncontroversial way in which he responded. If Joe Biden lacks dynamism in his responses, there's still something analytically reflective and thoughtful about his approach to issues. Chalk it up to my degree of emotional weariness or naïveté if you must, but I've sensed way before the outset of the late presidential campaign, that a significant majority of our people are fed up with purely confrontational politics.

Poison politics eventually leads to despotism! It's as simple as that.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHO WON AND WHO LOST LAST NOVEMBER 3RD — A MAN, A PARTY OR BOTH?

By Edwin Cooney

Throughout the years of my political interest and attention, I've generally resisted the wisdom of those who insist that they vote for "the man" rather than "for a political party."  In the wake of the 2020 election, it's increasingly evident to me that the majority of American voters voted against a man more than they voted for a political party. Perhaps we will know more after tomorrow's vote in Georgia, but that doesn't guarantee that the above question will really be settled.

You may well ask, how important is it that we know the answer to that question? The answer is very simple. In politics, it's dangerous to continue a pattern of conduct that doesn't work. Of course, what works and what doesn't work changes from time to time. For example, the late 19th and early 20th Century practice of "front porch" presidential campaigns is a thing of the past, and it's likely that candidate and incumbent tweets constitute an era that has just begun! While I was growing up, candidates and political pundits often scolded candidates for getting too close to "the water's edge” when they became too strident.

Several days ago, an acquaintance of mine who is a Trump supporter wondered why the country would elect someone as old, sleepy, out of touch and, worst of all, as socialistic as Joe Biden who has been in politics far too long. As I see it, the reason Joe Biden was elected was because he was the only alternative to re-electing President Trump. I agreed with this particular gentleman that it didn't have to happen. Unlike this particular Trump supporter, I insist that the 2020 campaign ultimately was solely about Donald Trump just as the 1936 presidential election was about the person of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the difference being that FDR was personally about the well-being of the people. President Trump is more about settling scores whether they're with domestic political opponents or with foreign governments.

President Trump's candidacy or agenda in office was never about the nation's fears, hopes or priorities. Clearly a chronically angry man, Mr. Trump's resentments govern almost everything he has done from his continuous tweeting to his efforts to build a wall he never realistically could get Mexico to pay for.

Someone in the not too distant future will document and publish the reasons for the defeat of Mr. Trump last November. It's my guess that the results will show that most of his predecessors, whether or not they were defeated or re-elected, accepted the results with dignity if not always with grace. President Trump's major political flaw is his tendency to emphasize his resentments over the people's priorities.

History demonstrates that a new administration, in order to be successful, has to allow for some degree of continuity with its predecessors. For instance, President Eisenhower resisted Old Guard GOP efforts led by Senator John Bricker, Thomas E. Dewey's 1944 running mate, to limit the power of the president to negotiate treaties as FDR had done at Yalta and Harry Truman had done at Potsdam. Furthermore, Ike, in the face of conservative objections, challenged McCarthyism, and advanced a national highway reconstruction plan that was as New Deal-like as anything else you can imagine. The GOP under Ike went so far as to establish the cabinet department of Housing and Urban Development putting a woman at the head of it. The 1950’s Republicans hated FDR's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal, but they respected its appeal, if not its method or purpose. President Trump demonstrated no sense of continuity, but sought to destroy everything President Obama did regardless of Mr. Obama's continuing popularity with a sizable portion of the voting public.

Bill Clinton's welfare reform act was moderate enough to get the endorsement of conservative Republicans whose primary loyalty was to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush  and centrist Democrats. Many liberal Democrats opposed President Clinton's brand of welfare reform.

I can think of no instance when President Trump sought to bring progressives into an effort to modify and improve Obamacare. Mr. Trump's alternative to Obamacare never saw the light of day because healthcare was never on the president's agenda or that of his party despite their insistence to the contrary.

As I see it, one of the realities of 21st Century America is that "we, the people,” whether we call ourselves Conservatives, Populists, Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, or Republicans, expect the United States government to protect us from what we regard as the dangerous consequences of outrageous fortune. Furthermore, regardless of how contradictory the elements of our complaints and fears may be, we expect the person of the President of the United States of America to be our champion. President Trump certainly championed a number of popular causes both legitimate and controversial, but few presidents in our history have ever sought to destroy the causes of the opposition like President Trump.

It's my guess that millions of Americans who voted for Mr. Biden remain uncertain as to the likelihood of his success. However, he comes to his office both approachable and optimistic. Unlike President Trump, he generally doesn't see his political opponents as corrupt or criminal. The criminalization of political opponents on the part of ideologically oriented candidates and supporters has gone on so long that it has poisoned the well of freely elected government which was one of President George Washington's fears about the establishment of political parties.

History will record that President Donald John Trump ultimately was his only real constituent. His self-indulgence became too evident for a truly united people to endorse!

In 1653, Oliver Cromwell (who would serve as Lord Protectorate of the British Commonwealth) used the following words to describe the uselessness of the parliament then in session. I suggest that these are the precise words which should be used as President Trump leaves office:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart and let us have done with you! In the name of God, I say -- go!”

Only time will tell who won and who lost the 2020 election. Republicans made gains in the House which may be countered if the Democrats can take Georgia tomorrow.

It's just possible that our fears rather than our hopes prevailed last November!

I'll have more to say about fear very soon!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY