WHO OUGHT WE TO BE IN OUR CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS?

By Edwin Cooney

In his September 19th, 1796 farewell message to young America, President Washington wrote that we ought to be friendly to all nations and ally ourselves with none. Twenty-seven years and three months later during his annual State of the Union message, President Monroe, a fellow Virginian, less than a friend of President Washington due to the former president's signing of the Jay Treaty and his coolness toward France, issued his famous Monroe Doctrine. That newly-proposed doctrine guaranteed the sovereignty of all the Americas from the power and influence of European nations. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, who had been in the diplomatic corps since the Washington administration, was the author of the Monroe Doctrine. He proposed that doctrine to President Monroe following twenty-five years of experience dealing with Britain, France, Russia, and remaining European powers when it came to matters of peace and war. It's not likely that George Washington would have approved the Monroe Doctrine, not only due to his less-than-flattering view of the dimpled-chin and good-tempered Monroe, but because the world had changed significantly since Saturday, March 4th, 1797, the day Washington laid down his presidential duties.

Not until 1917 did a president ever suggest that foreign affairs could be a threat to American democracy. So ingrained was our determination that America ought to avoid foreign "entanglements" that isolationism strongly prevailed, even in California the night before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Even then, many isolationists preferred to believe that Pearl Harbor occurred due to the deviltry of Franklin Roosevelt rather than to aggressive intentions of Germany, Italy and Japan.

Even during President Washington's era (three years following his death), President Jefferson took advantage of Napoleon's desire to conquer Europe by purchasing Louisiana from the French to fund France's war, which fitted in nicely with President Jefferson's desire to occupy as much of the North American continent as possible. What made President Jefferson's forward-looking proposal so surprising was the fact that the president's proposal to purchase territory could be found nowhere in the Constitution to which TJ was publicly so dedicated to follow. Jefferson's venture established early the reality that practicality not principle was clearly our "lodestar" when it came to foreign affairs.

We were able to win both the war and the peace with Japan, Italy and Germany after WWII because culturally we were similar to the cultures of Italy and Germany, and even Japan possessed a significantly strong historical tie to military leadership to enable them to respond positively to a new constitution dictated to them by General Douglas MacArthur.

Two other concepts too often get in our way of our ability to affect a successful foreign policy. The great lesson our presidents since WWII have drummed into us is the idea that we must act to avoid appeasement to those whose governments differ from our ideas and mores. Appeasement of Adolf Hitler was a factor in our lack of readiness to clash with Germany, but appeasement wasn't the cause of WWII. The cause of the Second World War was the Versailles peace treaty with its unjust and unforeseen conditions and circumstances. Yet, it was our determination that appeasement be avoided in our response to the threat of advancing Communism that blinded us to the fact that North Vietnam fought not so much for the advancement of Communism as for the end of foreign domination of its own culture and land. One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how a united Vietnam has advanced Communism — especially by those who claim we won the "cold war" against Communism!

The second concept is that we have peace in areas of the world because we've established bases in areas such as South Korea, and could have peace in Afghanistan, if we would establish military bases such as those we've established in some of the former countries that once were part of the "Warsaw Pact" between Eastern Europe and Moscow. There is no "peace" in Korea, only a truce signed Monday, July 27th, 1953. Nor was their "peace" between us and North Vietnam, signed in Paris, France by Secretary of State William P. Rogers Saturday, January 27th, 1973. That "truce" fell apart in April of 1975 under President Gerald R. Ford. Peace is not the mere absence of war, peace is a state of mind — someone certainly smarter than this observer once said!

I propose the adoption of the following principles that could avoid the current "crisis" in Afghanistan.

First: we must establish military agreements only with nations with whom we have similar cultural, legal and religious traditions and understandings.

Second: once we join in a military conflict our goal should be absolute military victory with the understanding that we have a strong voice in the formation of the post-conflict government.

Third: Conflict Resolutions: we should form a conflict resolutions process made up of nations with sufficient resources to limit supplies that might be available to nations with a habit of supplying the materials to create revolutions against small governments with insufficient militaries.

Fourth: nation-building or nation-smashing should be illegal and punishable by international sanctions or collective trade boycotting. (Certainly Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon would have been nervous about international boycotting sanctions during the Vietnam era.)

Fifth: every nation's sovereignty should be protected from outside military attack, but subjected to trade and other economic sanction activity for violation of human rights expectations.

Sixth: every nation from within the body of the United Nations should be obligated to ban practices that endanger the world's environment.

Seventh: every nation limiting or banning immigration must demonstrate that its sanction against immigrants is not based on racial or religious prejudices but rather on potential economic or environmental factors.

Eighth: military alliances and balances of power, including NATO, SETO, and the Arab League should be abandoned as simply warlike in their purposes.

Ninth: organizations such as the Peace Corps, the International Red Cross, even religious charities must be encouraged so long as they aren't tied to political or military goals and services.

Tenth: everyone should keep in mind that peace is not merely an absence of war, but a state of mind!

As for the above proposals, they merely reflect the world as I see it. The only purpose of the above is to stimulate thought and even debate. As I see things, the most vital and encouraging factor is that most of us seem to be aware that the way things are working at present are far from satisfactory. I certainly realize that that's a rather weak start, but it's equally true (as the Chinese once said) that "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step!”

As tired and even bored as we all may be with clichés, keep in mind that there may be enough truth in all of them to push us to the starting line of a better future.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHO DO WE THINK WE ARE OR OUGHT TO BE?

By Edwin Cooney

You and I individually have a lot in common with America the beautiful —  rich, powerful, and invariably sensitive! Among many, many other things, we want to be rich, healthy, powerful and especially appreciated for who we are. To the exact extent we aren't any one of these things, we resent it.(I guess in that way, we're all a little like President #45 — and in that sense we can be as dangerous as a Colt 45!)

Back in the 1960s, Paul Harvey used to wonder aloud and most eloquently why the world didn't always appreciate us, especially with its need to be protected from the evil deeds of the Kremlin. At that time, we were awash in Vietnam with few allies and few friends it seemed. Then came the day when Mr. Harvey had the answer. I'm guessing that being a Midwesterner, it's likely that Mr. Harvey may have been an isolationist like Charles A. Lindbergh prior to World War II. 

It's also my guess that after World War II his avid opposition to Communism was what primarily fed his support for military actions in foreign policy. However, on this occasion, Paul Harvey asserted that we had become the leader of the world's greatest movement, because we'd managed ourselves so well from our very founding that the entire world was out to imitate us. Nevertheless, Paul Harvey decided that we ought to never become involved in another nation's struggle militarily unless we were willing to achieve military victory.

Our withdrawal from Afghanistan raises that question once again. After all, both the last two presidents have seen the need to end a twenty year war that has cost us trillions of dollars and too many lives. Still, their separate advocates will assign blame to each as they pat themselves on the back for a perspective for which they're proud and not accountable because their perspective is strictly a summing up of a set of circumstances, possibilities, and likelihoods. Last Tuesday, Kentucky GOP Senator Mitch McConnell suggested that, like President Trump, he thought we'd been there long  enough, but he found grave fault with the manner in which President Biden had conducted the withdrawal of our forces. Last Wednesday night, President Biden appeared to assure you and me  that our forces would continue to be in Afghanistan beyond August 31st until all Americans were safely out of that country.

Partisans on both sides of the political aisle will invariably make the best argument for their case while accusing the other side of everything from appeasement to reckless gunboat diplomacy. Meanwhile, you and I will legitimately wonder who we are and who we ought to be with regard to Afghanistan!

Many people will assert that America ought to stop trying to be the policeman of the world. That was what presidential candidate George W. Bush asserted during the 2000 campaign against Al Gore. However, only a year later in the wake of 9/11, we decided that even though we shouldn't be involving ourselves in "nation building," perhaps it was time we focus on some "nation destruction” with regard to Iraq, Pakistan and maybe, just maybe, even Iran. Perhaps we might even throw in North Korea while doing some nation-smashing!

The first obligation of every government in the world is to protect itself and its people. Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address insisted that no government worthy of its existence possesses within its laws a process for its legitimate destruction. (He asserted that as an answer to those who insisted that the states had the right to secede and thus to destroy the Union.) Our task today is to handle the world in such a way as to enable the American people to exist safely, prosperously, and, lately, healthfully!

Happily or sadly, we live in a world from which we can never be safely isolated or recklessly aggressive. We live in a world we didn't entirely create. However, since at least 1917 when we tried to "make the world safe for democracy," our fingerprints have been all over its creation.

We certainly didn't entirely create this world. However, until significant changes occur for which we have no, or little, part in creating, we're bound to pay whatever price it costs to keep the world as safe, clean, healthy, prosperous and peaceful as we can — however we taxpayers feel about it all!

As the sitting president, Joe Biden knows that he'll have to take the blame for whatever mistakes his state and defense departments make, because he sought election to the presidency so that he might assume great accountability and responsibility. In the meantime, like his predecessors, he will be forced to counter the situation — whatever it is in Afghanistan — so that the best interests of the American people prevail.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

GROW UP, YOU INDIVIDUALISTS — FREEDOM ISN'T YOURS, IT'S EVERYONE’S!

By Edwin Cooney

As Covid19 continues to spread throughout America, it is doing so through unmasked and unvaccinated Americans aided by their determination to be free rather than well.

The uncomfortable truth is that not too many years ago the likelihood that people would refrain from using an effective vaccine, especially because its use was being urged by the national government, would have been most unlikely. Of course, that was a time when federal authority saved us from economic depression, won a world war, educated millions on the GI Bill, and served as the strongest weapon against advancing Communism. Just as significant, government strongly and effectively advanced and supported the Salk polio vaccine. (Note that religious and civil liberty objections to main-stream practices have always been and should be honored to the maximum degree possible!)

Sadly, something has changed thus bringing about a tyranny of a nature that has never been, insofar as I'm aware, identified in a history book or even in a political science tome. I will try to define what it substantially is: this new phenomenon is a political and social anarchy grounded in self-centered individualism!  

 

The root of this anarchistic aggrandizement lies in the tendency to define liberty as individualistic rather than collective. What too many conservatives appear to believe is that you and I are the masters and mistresses of our individual liberty despite the fact that the only individual liberty that exists is an absolute state of nature. (Note: A hermit whose habits are ruled by the environment might be said to live in a state of nature.)

The most graphic example of the borders of your freedom and mine has been that my freedom ends where your nose begins. The best way of describing the borders of liberty or freedom in 2021 terms is that my liberty ends when the exercise of my personal liberty or freedom makes you sick.

To the extent that it can affect your well being, my right to avoid wearing a mask or getting vaccinated is an act of tyranny. One of our most enduring principles has always been that we are eternal enemies of all tyrannies! Tyrannies are political and behavioral acts that generally require political rather than criminal correction.

A state of liberty or freedom exists when everyone's well being is guaranteed. Even more, absolute freedom does not ultimately depend on the existence or absence of government. Those who define liberty or freedom as a purchasable commodity are usually those who have sufficient funds and influence to purchase and protect their idea of their individual liberty!  

Much of what I've written above is also true about those who are in denial of climate change, the only difference being that there will never be a need to advocate punishment for those who are in denial about climate change. As the climate evolves, its effect will ultimately punish all of us. How many wild fires, intensive heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados must it take for the most nonscientific person to reach the conclusion that humankind is doing something very, very wrong with the climate?

The debate we are accustomed to listen to in 2021 is whether the national government or state governments constitute the surest path to freedom, safety and prosperity. I think it's vitally important to remember that less than a decade after independence from Great Britain, our founding fathers sadly but realistically reached the conclusion in 1786 that the authority of the states needed regulating by a sufficiently empowered federal system of government. Less than 20 years later, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall (a cousin and political rival of President Thomas Jefferson) empowered the high court with the right of judicial review to judge the constitutionality of all laws. Hence our Founding Fathers clearly recognized the need for adjustment in the newly established government!

Today, at least two state governors, Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas, are making every effort to thwart the authority and power of the federal government to protect your physical well being in the name of your individual freedom. Years ago, the late conservative commentator Paul Harvey asserted that freedom is more than about individual rights. He stated that in addition to being free to exercise individual rights, "there was also the right or freedom and obligation to do what we ought!” 

For openers, let's understand what freedom and liberty are and what they can't be.

First, freedom is a license to function freely and fully in society. 

Second, freedom or liberty is not a license for antisocial behavior, specifically that which is destructive of other’s personhood and property.

Third, freedom must belong to everyone living and functioning within society or else everyone's freedom is potentially endangered.

Fourth, true freedom and liberty can't be manipulated to serve the rich and thereby justify the existence of the poor!

Fifth, perhaps the attainment of freedom and liberty began with the founding of this great nation, but freedom and liberty as entities won't depend on this nation or even its existence if America chooses to exchange them for enlightened oligarchy.

Thomas Jefferson often spoke and wrote about "the disease of human  liberty" which he hoped would spread throughout the whole world. Unhappily, the disease that's been spreading lately, Covid19, is the antithesis of our individual freedom and liberty. Thus, we're justifiably at war with Covid19 and nothing else. The disease must be our only target for destruction.

What worries me most of all is that it's increasingly difficult to be positive about the future of just about everything. My shining light is gratitude that I've lived seventy-five plus years in freedom and comfort. Another way to say it is that only the past is guaranteed, the future is up to us. 

The truest form of freedom and liberty is the inclusiveness that we must insist on to guarantee to one another if we are to "keep on keeping on!”

Thus my opinion: masking mandates and Covid19 vaccinations are precisely the original obligation of the states. If the states insist on blocking or refuse to issue these mandates, then the federal government must so do!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IT WAS INDEED A GRAND OLD PARTY!

By Edwin Cooney

The Republican Party died at its off-and-on-again residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. on Thursday, August 27th, 2020.

There's some dispute as to whether the Republican Party was born in Jackson, Michigan or Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 but there's little doubt as to its purpose. It stood for reform and it stood for union. Its first presidential candidate, John Charles Fremont, was the illegitimate son of an immigrant mother. Although a brilliant surveyor and field commander, he had a tendency to overstep his military and executive authority. Its second nominee was a humble backwoods rail splitter born in Kentucky and raised in Indiana who came to both legal and political prominence and some good fortune in Illinois. 

The party’s origins were primarily midwestern and northeastern. Its opponents were primarily southern states-righters. In the traditions of the Adams, Clays, and Websters, the GOP stood for what its founders regarded as "the American System," a combination of good government and a prevailing standard of good citizenship and private enterprise. (Some historians even insist that the Republican Party's heritage goes back through the Whig party of the 1830s and 40s and back still further to the Federalists of George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton.)  Its pedigree was far from perfect, but it was born to mean well. Within its first two decades it could and did brag of its gifts to the public: victory in the Civil War and passage of three constitutional amendments that expanded liberty as long as the Congress and the Supreme Court would allow such progress to prevail. Additionally, there was the completion of a national railroad and the establishment of the land-grant college system followed by the party's efforts at civil service reform.

Recognizing government as the legitimate tool of John and Susie Q Citizen, Teddy Roosevelt led the party to tackle such needs as preserving the environment, establishing a food and drug administration, and the protection of consumer products. Finally, in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt asserted in a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that human rights ought generally to prevail over property rights.

Like its Democratic cousin, it was vulnerable to idealistic factionalism and changes in various circumstances, foreign and domestic. The GOP's greatest leaders, Eisenhower and Reagan, left behind achievements that broad sections in both major parties could applaud despite some grades of differences of appreciation between them. Occasionally political candidates in both parties have presented themselves and their platforms as significantly different from conventional candidates. "A choice not an echo" was the cry of the Goldwaterites in 1964. That cry constituted a shift in the regional background of the GOP from an eastern-oriented party to a southern and western brand of conservatism which began the Republican party's trek to today.

Since its beginning, the political party system has been suspect by millions of Americans — beginning with the “father of our country” General George Washington. Two members of his original cabinet for whom he had considerable affection, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, formed the first two political parties, Democratic-Republicans and Federalists. In his farewell letter published in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser in Philadelphia on Monday, September 19th, 1796, President Washington asserted that although it's natural for people to be drawn to political parties in a republic, it's vital that such parties should not form along geographical or religious lines. It is also vital that political parties, relying on organization and favor, should be strictly controlled to minimize the jealousies and revenges endemic to a political command structure. 

What Washington called the “political spirit" always serves to distract the public councils and weaken the public administration of established government. He noted that the political spirit inevitably agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms. The political spirit kindles animosities between one party against another which foments riot and insurrection or a revolt against the established government. (Note: These assertions are restated according to the author's understanding and interpretation of President Washington's farewell letter rather than being a direct quote from it.) However one interprets what occurred last January 6th, at the very least it was an intended riot against federal order and authority and was thus seditious.

In proclaiming the death of the GOP I mean no favor toward the Democratic Party! Like its GOP cousins, the Democratic Party is almost always subject to impending potentially fatal division. What saves it, despite its historic divisions, is that no element of the Democratic Party has been in a position to vanquish all other elements of the party. In addition, since Franklin Roosevelt, only John F Kennedy, its martyred president, has been sufficiently strong within the party to affect it's future course. However, even though Lyndon B. Johnson took temporary command to move the party beyond “Camelot” or “The New Frontier,”  Vietnam abruptly ended Johnson’s influence over the party.

On the other hand, Republicans generally endorse their elected chief executive with a zeal that only Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt was to enjoy. Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and even the defeated George H. W. Bush retained the love and respect of their GOP constituency well after their public service was concluded even though Bush suffered considerable damage from the right at the convention that renominated him in 1992. Hence, it's not hard to understand why that party's most recent president, Donald Trump, retains such traditional GOP loyalty. What weakens the Republican Party's appeal is its lack of idealistic principles to which every conventional or moderate future leader might advocate.

When President Trump accepted renomination at the White House last August 27th (which marked former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson's 112th birthday), the Trump campaign put forth no set of party principles in the form of a political platform. For many, that was all to the good, except that left the party open to the interpretation of being a party of a single man rather than a party of healthy consensus. Hence, with little to offer, Mr. Trump's party is clearly all about Donald John Trump and nothing else! Your financial status, your health, your struggle with a ravaging pandemic and climate change are not the government's business or concern.

Sadly, Mr. Lincoln's party of union, unity and reform has gone by the boards. We're no longer created equal as Mr. Lincoln once insisted. Divided, the new Trumpian party seeks to reign.

That sad reality isn't good for anyone, even the ambitious Democrats. All parties and all elements within parties need challenge and competition. Even more, mere opposition to "liberal Democrats" isn't enough! A newly constituted Republican Party must have answers to climate change, needed health care reforms, and other issues. At present, with perhaps the exception of the antichoice movement, there's nothing meaningful or even  personal about what it offers. 

Ah! This just occurred to me! In order to successfully challenge the Democrats, perhaps the former Republican Party should copy the example just announced by the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Indians.

Why not call a new Republican Party “The Guardians”?! Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY