JOHN TYLER — THE MAN, THE TIME, AND THE OFFICE!

By Edwin Cooney

Most 21st Century Americans, if asked to evaluate John Tyler, Jr. as both a man and a president, would probably turn thumbs down. After all, gentleman John was an unapologetic slave owner and a defender of states rights. True as that is, there's more than those two realities to consider when one thinks about the personhood of Virginia Gentleman John Tyler!

John was born the sixth child of John Tyler, Sr. and Mary Armistead Tyler at the family home called Greenway in Charles City County, Virginia. His father was a judge and Governor of Virginia between 1808 and 1811. James Madison appointed the elder Tyler to the federal circuit court from Virginia in 1811 and he died in 1813.

Physically, President Tyler was just over 6 feet, with wavy brown hair and blue eyes. He had a prominent forehead, a large but thin Roman nose, prominent cheekbones and a slightly week chin. He was soft spoken. He was friendly and even open around people of his aristocratic class, but often appeared aloof to working class people.

John Tyler married twice. On his 23rd birthday he married Letitia Christian following a 5 year courtship. It is said that not until a month or so before his wedding to Letitia  did he kiss her -- and that was on her hand. She bore him 8 children before her death in the White House in 1842 following her second stroke in 3 years.

President Tyler, 54, married Julia Gardener of Long Island, New York on Friday, June 28th, 1844. Between the close of his presidency the following March and Tyler's death while attending the Confederate legislature on Saturday, January 18th, 1862, the couple had 5 sons and 2 daughters. Altogether, John Tyler fathered 15 children -- more than any other president. Before telling you a rather dramatic story, let's move briefly to his public life.

When the Whig party gathered on Wednesday, December 4th, 1839 to nominate William Henry Harrison for the presidency and ultimately John Tyler for vice president, obviously most of the delegates hardly knew either man. Harrison, like the retired President Andrew Jackson, was a military hero. He gained inevitable fame as the hero of the 1811 Battle of Tippecanoe  during which Indiana territory forces defeated and killed the Shawnee chief Tecumseh. Harrison was then governor of Indiana territory.  The battle took place on Thursday,  November 7th, 1811. Like Harrison and Whig Party leader Senator Henry Clay, John Tyler had become anti-Jackson by the late 1830s. He supported Clay's bill to censure President Jackson for prematurely withdrawing federal funds from the Bank of the United States three years before its charter ended. Even more, when he received orders from the Virginia Legislature in early 1836 to vote to expunge that censure from the record, Tyler resigned from the Senate rather than follow the Legislature's orders. (Note: From the beginning of the nation until 1913, United States Senators were elected in most states by state legislatures. Hence, a sitting Senator usually took orders from headquarters!)

While remaining a states' rights and slave-owning public servant, Tyler joined the Whig party and was elected to the House of Delegates in 1838. He was chosen Speaker of that body in January of 1839. That December, Tyler attended the Whig Convention as a Henry Clay delegate. Thus, after choosing Harrison as its standard bearer, delegates looked for a Clay supporter to balance the Whig ticket. Since the Whig party was more a coalition than a political party with a doctrine, party leaders were more interested in victory than in practical planning or in policymaking. Earlier, I asserted when it came right down to it, Whigs really knew neither Harrison nor Tyler well. Thus, it was “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too” throughout the 1840 campaign. Besides, as far as most political prognosticators were concerned, Democratic President Martin Van Buren was a political dead duck that year. In fact, the Democratic Party was so embarrassed over their incumbent Vice President Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky, they didn't even nominate a vice presidential candidate in 1840.

President Van Buren was unpopular due to the depression started by former President Jackson. The public knew what had been done to them (or not done for them), but what Harrison ultimately had going for him was what the Democrats had going for them back in 1828 and again in 1832 — the reputation of a victorious general. Many presidents throughout the 19th Century were successful generals and people felt more secure voting for generals than they did voting for politicians! Thus Presidents Washington, Jackson, Taylor, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, and, later, “Rough Rider” Theodore Roosevelt and General Eisenhower were considered as being “above” politics and thus safer for the country's overall welfare.  

Harrison and Tyler only won the popular vote by 146,315 popular votes, but they crushed "Little Van" in the Electoral College, 234 to 60. Here's another factor that would haunt John Tyler when he became president: Tyler had been a Jackson critic and expressed admiration for Henry Clay. Mr. Clay believed that he was the “real” leader of the Whig party both before and after President Harrison's death and that President Tyler would follow his leadership from Congress. After all, as a senator, Tyler had challenged executive authoritarianism just as he had. Even more, Henry Clay never got over not being selected by the party for president in 1840 which he supposedly led and he was determined not to be outflanked by President John Tyler. Finally, there was the manner in which Whigs governed. William Henry Harrison, for the most part throughout his 31 plus days as president, made many executive decisions via majority vote within the cabinet, all of whom were Whigs.

Therefore, on the morning of Monday, April 5th, 1841, when Fletcher Webster, Chief Clerk of the Department of State and son of Secretary of State Daniel Webster, rode up to the Virginia home of Vice President John Tyler, his news of President Harrison's passing the previous day was  absolutely stunning. As he rode to Washington, Tyler had to ask himself the following questions: Am I president or merely acting president? How can I be an acting president as the Constitution suggests if I don't actually hold the presidential office?

Upon his arrival in Washington early on the morning of April 6th, he called a noon meeting of the cabinet and, with the cabinet's concurrence, announced that he would take the presidential oath. Thus Circuit Court Judge William Cranch administered the oath of office a short time later. Although the controversy over his presidential legitimacy continued, President Tyler successfully soldiered on.

Although elected by the Whigs, President Tyler wasn’t really a Whig. Henry Clay, still bitter about his not having been the party's presidential nominee the previous year, insisted that all Whigs, especially President Tyler, should endorse his determination to restore the Bank of the United States that Jackson had successfully crushed. When the Senate and House passed such a bill in July of 1841, Tyler vetoed it. That enraged Clay and his fellow Whigs. Believing as he did that the president shouldn't initiate legislation, Tyler only reluctantly tried negotiating with Congress through the Whigs in his cabinet. That too was disastrous and, in September of 1841, Tyler again vetoed another bill. This time all of the Whigs except Secretary of State Daniel Webster resigned their seats. The cabinet joined in a mass resignation and the Whig party expelled President Tyler from the party. However, President Tyler seems to have expected such a circumstance and appointed a mostly conservative Democratic cabinet filled with what historians have judged well-qualified men.

Over the next three years, President Tyler did have some successes. In 1842, Secretary of State Webster negotiated the Webster Ashburton treaty with Great Britain, settling nagging border disputes between the United States and Canada to the advantage of both nations. President Tyler also oversaw a dispute in the state of Rhode Island that only narrowly avoided a violent outcome. President Tyler also signed a bill granting the right to squatters to settle on public lands providing that the squatters made sufficient improvements to those lands. To assist this effort, the squatters could, over time, purchase those lands from the government at the low price of $1.25 per acre. Finally, President Tyler had the satisfaction of successfully working toward the annexation of Texas by signing that act just two days before his presidential term ended.

Early in 1843, President Tyler began seeing Julia Gardner, the beautiful daughter of David Gardner, a wealthy New York City businessman. A beautiful brunette, Julia shocked many in polite society when, at 18, she posed for a department store advertisement and was billed as “The Rose of Long Island.” Tyler proposed to her at the George Washington birthday ball in 1843 and she turned him down, but their relationship grew and they began discussing marriage. Then came the day Wednesday, February 28th, 1844 when the President, Julia, and her father along with members of the cabinet took a cruise on the new battleship, the Princeton. The main feature of the ship was a gigantic gun called “The Peacemaker” which twice during the cruise thrilled the crowd on board with its loud report. Late in the afternoon, its third firing exploded the gun at its breech, killing Julia's father along with Secretary of State Abel P. Upshur and Navy Secretary Thomas W. Gilmer, among others. Fortunately, President Tyler and Julia were below deck and escaped injury. Their June wedding was thus restrained but the new First Lady managed to enjoy her new duties during the final months of the Tyler administration. It is said that Julia Tyler urged the Marine band to compose “Hail to the Chief” in her husband's honor.

Thus, the Tyler Administration has been regarded with respect.Unfortunately, however, John Tyler is the answer to the question: Who is the only president to die not a citizen of the United States? At the time of his passing, Tyler was a member of the Confederate Legislature and no official mention of his death came out of Washington D.C. Nevertheless, Julia Tyler was awarded a pension when it was adopted for First Ladies in 1869.

Although mostly gentle, John Tyler could be stubborn when necessary. Almost alone, he strengthened the ability of the United States to carry on even in the light of national tragedy.

How could he have done otherwise? After all, he was President Harry Truman's great uncle!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

JUSTIFYING “JOE, THE JUST!"

By Edwin Cooney

Last week, after composing and sending “GO, JOE, GO," I received a response from my favorite type of Republican.

This gentleman is now in his late sixties which means that he probably cast his first vote around 1972 — and it's a good bet that his vote wasn't for Democratic Senator George McGovern and Vice Presidential candidate  R. (that's Robert) Sargent Shriver! This gentleman is no ogre. He's a well meaning and very prosperous citizen (and, as a Lion, he seeks to serve the public's interests). However, this gentleman is wedded to GOP doctrine. Hence he had the following response to last week's column:

"The nearly two trillion dollar plan I do not understand, where is this money coming from with the unemployment being so high? Meaning so federal taxes received are much lower!"

(Note: This gentleman who I'll call “Mr. Lion Heart” spends his winters lately in Panama and this year in Columbia, the largest country in northeast South America.) He goes on:

"Then, $15 an hour. Here in Columbia people make between 1 and 2 dollars an hour. They are quite content with what they have!"

Mr. Lion Heart's political orientation is, simply and directly, rock-ribbed upstate New York Republicanism. In other words, never spend more than you take in, otherwise you're headed for financial ruin.

People generally fail to draw the distinctions between business budgeting  and government budgeting. As JFK asserted in his 1962 speech at Yale, the business budget which is about immediate profit doesn't distinguish between a deficit and an investment. Exactly who the federal budget owes when it spends more than it takes in is not precise. Republicans and other conservatives always insist that by overspending, we put future generations in debt. What they don't address is how an already indebted people can recover sufficiently to avoid the exact same situation for coming generations.

As far back as I can remember, Republican and Conservative leaders who are usually better off financially than most of the people you and I relate to on a daily basis have demonstrated little regard for working men and women except when it comes to the expectation of labor union leaders. Thus, labor leaders are suspected of both selfishness and a lack of appreciation for capitalism when they compel workers to conform and resist the demands of corporate owners and bosses.

Thus, Mr. Lion Heart is sure that everyone in Columbia who is making one or two dollars an hour is content. Knowing him and appreciating much of his outlook and commitment to Lionism as I do, I think that it is unlikely that he has familiarized himself with those who represent the people of Columbia, nor is it likely that he's interested in or even familiar with the political structure in Columbia. After all, he's a Lion, not a politician. His genuine interest in people has to do with their immediate conditions and needs, especially those of children.

Nevertheless, Mr. Lion Heart does represent a Republicanism that has thrived here in America since its opposition to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

What too many Conservatives don't appear to me to grasp are the following historic facts and circumstances:

First, there have been numerous major panics and depressions in our history. The first occurred in the 1780s just following our independence from Great Britain. That depression resulted in the establishment of the Federal Government under the newly established Constitution of the United States. There were financial crises in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1907 with the worst depression coming in 1929. Not one of these depressions had to do with government spending. Not even the Recession of 1958 or the terrible Recession of 2008 was due to deficit government spending. As to those who insist that the 1929 Depression wasn't really cured until World War II, the point is obvious. The federal government paid for practically everything during World War II. Business merely provided the opportunities for employment which were largely paid for via government contracts. All of our economic depressions  were ultimately attributed to business and banking mis-speculations and their subsequent panics. What's even more significant about the 1837 Depression is the fact that it occurred only two years after the Andrew Jackson administration paid off the government's debt to European nations that Alexander Hamilton had begun paying back in the 1790s. Thus, indebtedness has usually been the result of financial depression, not the cause of them.

Even more to the point, if businesses are to expand and even sprout new enterprises, they must have workers and customers who possess the money to purchase the goods and services that must be enhanced.

As for $15 an hour, that's a salary of $31,800 a year. The question therefore is, if that's enough for John and Susie Q Citizen, it must be enough for all the Lion-Hearted people who live, work and play in the land of the free! If it's not enough for everyone, someone might be  making too much money!

Hence, I again say “Go, Joe The Just, Go!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

GO, JOE, GO!!!

By Edwin Cooney

How long has it been since the American people were encouraged to expect anything useful and even beneficial from the federal government? Forty years ago last January 20th, a jubilant and newly inaugurated president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, asserted during his Inaugural Address: “In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem!” President Reagan also insisted that it wasn't his intention to abolish government. He wished to manage the federal government to the advantage of the producers of essential goods and services thus benefiting the American people.

Throughout our history, Hamiltonian Federalists, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, Jacksonian Democrats, Webster and Clay, Whigs, Lincoln Republicans, conservatives, liberals of all sorts, modern Democrats, plus independents, progressives and populists have argued about the sovereignty of the states versus the national government. We even fought a civil war over those differences. However, the bottom line has always been and remains a question of application rather than ideology. The late Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. demonstrated in his book “The Cycles of American History” that every 20 to 40 years, political, social, and economic conditions bring about alterations in national policy that balance off the policies and practices that have dominated political thought and activity over previous years.

President Biden, who represents the center left of the Democratic Party, signed into law last Friday, March 12th a measure regarded by many as equivalent to some of the programs Franklin D. Roosevelt signed in the first hundred days of the first New Deal. (Note: Many assert that the 100 days of the New Deal actually began on Sunday night, March 12th, 1933, when FDR sat before a set of microphones in the East Room of the White House and delivered his first "Fireside Chat" explaining to his anxious constituency his solution to the national banking crisis.) Like FDR back in 1933, President Biden decided to directly finance John and Susie Q. Citizen by advocating and signing "The American Rescue Plan.”

This nearly two trillion dollar plan not only provides relief to individuals making less than $80,000 a year and families making less than $160,000, it finances transportation, small businesses, pays for the manufacture and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines, and even expands benefits under the Affordable Care Act, to name just some of its provisions.

The big news is both simple and dramatic. Government that works directly on behalf of the people may well be back, having been out of favor since the days of Lyndon B. Johnson. However, its return is very vulnerable. After all, Democrats have only slim majorities in both houses of Congress. FDR had large majorities in both houses back in 1933. Congress, in the wake of three years of depression, was really out of ideas concerning what to do about it all. In 2021, President Biden must deal with a Congress with slim majorities in both houses. Those minorities have very strong ideas that are quite contrary to those of President Biden. Even more, those minorities are ready to insist that things could be much better off if the president was only willing to consult with them.

Yes indeed, forty years have passed since the American people surrendered to the eloquent siren song of "the great communicator." Joe Biden is as plain as Harry Truman or Jerry Ford and must rely on whatever tricks of the trade he's garnered from 46 years in the United States Senate. Additionally, I'm convinced that he'll benefit for a considerable period of time from the change in both style and temperament from that of his predecessor. Republicans are obviously in no mood to grant "Sleepy Joe" the slightest benefit of any possible doubt.

On the other hand, Mr. Biden will be under pressure from progressive or, if you prefer, liberal Democrats to help them fulfill some of their dreams concerning significant climate change, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, and stabilizing the security of first generation immigrants.     .  

Whatever is at the root of President Biden's early success is surprising a lot of people. Writing in the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie suggests that Joe Biden knew he was on to something long before we did. Bouie suggests that what Joe Biden knew better than most political pundits was that a solid majority of Americans were far more interested in getting assistance with their own physical well-being, their financial woes, and our national security than with any president's political theory, ideology, or sense of personal importance.

Finally, it occurs to me that President Donald J. Trump clearly understood how formidable Joe Biden would be were he to receive the Democratic nomination. True, he picked on Elizabeth Warren by calling her “Pocahontas” and took a few jabs at Bernie Sanders, but he really sicced his legal and political pit bulls on Joe Biden!

So, first Sleepy Joe worried him and then Sleepy Joe took him out back of the schoolhouse and beat him!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

MY PERSONAL POTPOURRI — A MEDLEY OF THOUGHTS AND HALF THOUGHTS!

I don't know about you, I'm sorry that Andrew Cuomo is in a mess of trouble, but he's done it to himself! Covering up and cheating is bad politics! You'd think a man of his heritage and intellectual savvy would know better than to be an ass at age 63! Last year at this time, one of my favorite people was almost sure he'd be a splendid candidate for president in 2024. As for me, I loved his father Mario Cuomo, but I've mostly felt indifferent about Andrew. He was acceptable to me as a possible presidential candidate, however, I could take him or leave him. As for now, I'd just as soon leave him. Now as for his brother Chris the CNN commentator, I hope Andrew's nonsense doesn't spill over on to him!

Here's a circumstance somewhat kindred to the trouble Governor Cuomo is in. Roseanna Sommers is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan. In a recent editorial in the Times she presents the following scenario: Frank and Ellen meet at college and develop a friendship through a series of after class dates. Ellen tells Frank at one point that if a man is married, that's a deal breaker for her. Frank lies to Ellen and eventually they go to bed. Later Ellen finds out that Frank really is married. Is Frank subsequently guilty of rape? Ms. Sommers discovers that many say that he isn't guilty of rape, not because they don't think Frank was dishonest, but due to their understanding of what constitutes consent. Ellen's "consent" was, they insist, an expression of her autonomous (self-governing and independent) will. In other words, as I understand it, Frank's deception does not fully invalidate her consent. Sommers seems to believe that Frank's denial of his marriage constitutes "fraud, and fraud or theft traditionally nullifies the legitimacy of a transaction or interaction." What say you?

I was sufficiently pleased enough with last week's column to consider sending it to the New York Times for publication until I got a response from one of you. I think of her as "the mighty Minnesotan." Like me, she's to the left of center in most of her beliefs except when it comes to abortion. I spanked "pro-life" advocates for being manipulative and, to a degree at least, disingenuous in their opposition to abortion while advocating "The New Civility." She asserted, and rightly so, that no Conservative would recognize my "New Civility" as presented in last week's column! Your point is well taken Miss Minnesota! This column will not go to the Times!

I'm about halfway through former President Obama's A Promised Land which is narrated by the author himself. As I listen to the book which is read so smoothly and expressed so sincerely by the former president, I feel so proud of my instinct to vote for him twice. He's frank about his opponents without belittling them, he's highly complementary about his friends, his staff, and he is absolutely wild about Michelle and their children! My only slight disappointment with the book is that he doesn't adequately share with the reader his feelings about the adoration that was shown toward him by so many people. He does fully share his empathy with his supporters, but he doesn't write what it felt like when he stepped out onto the steps of the east side of the Capitol to give his first inaugural address. Exactly why he chooses to end the first volume of his memoir at the time of his seizure of Osama bin Laden rather than at the conclusion of his first term seems a bit strange, but I certainly am already anxious to read volume II, even before I'm done with Volume I. I hope he narrates that one, too!

I don't know about you, but I can be quite critical from time to time with those I love best, hence I'm a bit amazed how both pleased and even surprised I am about President Joe Biden's time in office. He's compromised when that's necessary, thus dropping his insistence that $15 an hour as a minimum wage must be included and can wait for the right time to be passed, and he was right to modify the number of Americans eligible for relief checks this time around., I think most of us are going to benefit from his 46 years in Congress. I say that because he seems to have an instinct when and when not to be pushy with Congress. Having written that, I did think he was a bit off this last week when he described the actions of the Mississippi and Texas governors as being Neanderthals. After all, Neanderthals were very inventive during their time. They had to be in order to survive the elements. Perhaps Mississippi's Tate Reeves and Texas's Greg Abbott are primarily political, but neither in my estimation is exactly Neanderthalic! In fact, I think they're pretty smart politicians. After all, if the people, or most of the people, of those two states are smart and ignore the expressed positions of those two governors and end up protecting themselves, resulting in no increase in pandemic infections, both governors will have pleased their business-oriented constituents while simultaneously benefiting from the people's collective wisdom. Come to think of it, there must have been more than a few rather intelligent Neanderthals so many thousands of years ago!

I was sorry to learn of the passing of former Secretary of State George Pratt Shultz who turned 100 last December 13th. I once knew a gentleman who, as he neared his ninetieth birthday, said "The reason I'm happy to be getting old is that I've heard that the first 100 years are the hardest!" I was never a George P. Shultz fan, but he wears a lot better than the man he replaced as Secretary of State in June of 1982, Alexander Haig, the man who was only temporarily in charge the day President Reagan was shot. Technically, Haig was incorrect according to the line of succession which puts the Speaker of the House of Representatives next after the Vice President, but George H. W. Bush was on his way back to Washington that Monday, March 31st, 1981. I'm also sorry to learn that 97 year-old former Senator Bob Dole is ill with stage 4 lung cancer. Senator Dole was born on Sunday, July 22nd, 1923. Finally, I'm hoping Jimmy Carter makes it to his 100th birthday on October 1st, 2024! That'll be on a Tuesday! 

Okay, enough babble! My mind is now empty! Now I "...lay me down to sleep!" Hence until next time...

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE "NEW CIVILITY" -- WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN’T

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, I'll start this out with a disclaimer. There's nothing new about “civility” even in Washington, D.C. However, its absence over the last four years makes what civility there once was in Washington seem new as fresh new sprouts of political civility appear from under the weeds of political incivility in the rich D.C. political garden soil. Civility ultimately takes many forms but the aspect of the New Civility I’ll address here is political civility.

Political civility is not so much about ideological policy as it is about plain good manners and a willingness to be tolerant of what everyone brings to the table. Political civility is letting everyone come to the table to strive to find ways to allow everyone to believe that they have brought something valuable to the discussion and the resolution of a public issue. In short, political civility is meaningful political inclusion.

What the New Civility is not is the surrendering of all or even a major part of one's political principles. Conservatives ought to continue to rely on constitutional strict construction just as liberals continue to stress constitutional elasticity or broad construction and, hence, a living Constitution versus a mere authoritarian and quotable reference book. The trick is the task of defining the difference between principle and responsible practicality. The abortion issue is a perfect example of the possible being obstructed by the political. Most people believe that, at best, abortions ought to be avoided. Second, most realize that most of the anti-abortion sentiment in this country depends on manipulating emotions regarding the deaths of unborn babies which pro-choice advocates refer to as merely fetuses. Third, to ban abortions in any state doesn't prevent those who can afford it to go out of state to have an abortion. Therein lies the practical solution. Jerry Ford was right in 1976 when he asserted that abortions ought to be a state issue, not a national one. The solution to this controversy has nothing to do with either morals or logic. The problem is the vitriol with which the debate is conducted. Catch phrases like "baby vs. fetus,” “murder vs. medical procedure,” “pro-choice vs. pro-life” are all designed to inflame rather than to resolve this important public issue. 

Furthermore, political civility, in order to work, must not deny the obvious and essential input of either science or technology. People can't live in the ideal. As FDR's late great practitioner Harry Hopkins once told a United States Senator who suggested that the nation's food supply problem could be fixed over time: “People don’t eat in the long run, Senator, they eat every day.”

As both a student of history and a citizen with a good memory, I can remember when a president welcomed a Senate Minority leader to the White House for countless after work cocktails despite deep political differences. I'm referring to the relationship between President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Illinois Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen. During the first two years of the Johnson administration, the “Wizard of Ooze” both supported and opposed LBJ. In 1964, he played  a crucial role in the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights bill. The following year he vigorously opposed LBJ's Medicare proposal calling it "a fraud and a political hoax."

Political civility has three deadly enemies which are both lawful and constitutional. One enemy is the powerful right wing media supported by the ending of the old Fairness Doctrine. Second is the uninhibited influence of money which too often speaks louder than personal friendship and influence when it comes to solvable national issues such as abortion, civil rights and and the task of controlling the damage brought about by climate change. The third enemy is the stultifying of insistent partisanship. Remember, the antiabortion movement began in the Democratic Party with the 1976 presidential candidacy of Ellen McCormick. It was taken up by the GOP despite the fact that GOP members of the Supreme Court had helped make Roe vs. Wade constitutional in 1973. No political party or ideology possesses a permanent hold on either right or morality!  

Back in the days of Camelot (which many insist never really existed), Jack Kennedy occasionally met with Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon and was personally friendly with Barry Goldwater. While meeting in person with Democrats who felt pressured to vote against the Kennedy Administration's Medicare and tax cut proposals, he often would assure them that he understood and was sympathetic with their political dilemmas.

It may ultimately be too much to expect President Biden, who is only faintly a “Jack Kennedy,” to be strong enough to usher in a new political era of civility, but there are signs that it could actually happen. My personal optimism throughout 2020 was strengthened by my belief that most Americans were emotionally and politically exhausted by the continuous angry negativity of President Trump and the GOP. Political anger and negativity which is dependent on a high level of outrage (something ultimately impossible to sustain) inevitably exhausts most of us. Its opposite, ill-considered optimism, often wears out a political constituency. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn't include Korea when he outlined the Asian nations that were under our defense security blanket in the Western Pacific. That omission played havoc with the Truman administration's authority during the Korean conflict after South Korea was invaded by Communist North Korea on Sunday, June 25,1950. On the other hand, the Trumpian claim in late 2019 that we were about to be invaded from Central America by a treasonous hoard of immigrants did little to resolve the issue of immigration, especially during an upcoming election year.      

The New Civility by no means advocates pushing volatile public issues under the proverbial rug. Perhaps the greatest enemy of civility in political discussion is the profitability of rebel-rousing writing, speech, and, especially, broadcasting.

Some, of course, will suggest that this idea is "Big Brotherish” as it certainly cannot be legally legislated from Washington. However, it may well be that we will ultimately smother democracy, freedom, or liberty in the blanket of our own cloud of worry, anxiety and despair!

At present, the New Civility is just an idea. I hope you will make it a cause!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY