MY POLITICAL STORY — IT WAS BORN IN MY HEART AND LEVELED BY MY HEAD!

By Edwin Cooney

I was born an upstate New York Republican which is why, in November of 1956 at age 10 going on 11, I got into trouble for running my political mouth. It was during the second Stevenson/Eisenhower campaign when I said to a schoolmate who turned out to come from a Democratic political heritage: Two four six do tell, who do you think should go to hell? Stevenson boo! Stevenson boo! Stevenson boo! 

My friend Robby told his dad and his dad reported me to a school authority who proceeded to sternly scold me! (By the way, these days I admire Adlai Stevenson and for much of what he stood for.)

The late 1950s constituted a tense time. Khrushchev beat us into space while we were all attending the Yankees/Braves 1957 World Series. (It was clever of him to beat us while we were all at the games!) We worried that Russia might drop a bomb on us from the open skies. Then President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, and Secretary of State Dulles began pushing back against Premier Khrushchev's threat to create a separate peace with East Germany thus ending our right to remain in and protect West Berlin. That could mean war. Thus Ike, Nixon, Dulles as well as J. Edgar Hoover became my personal heroes and protectors.

After JFK defeated Richard Nixon (my GOP hero) for president in 1960, I reconciled myself with JFK because, after all, he was my president.  I delighted in his youth and in his Boston accent. Following his assassination, however, I couldn't get used to LBJ who seemed so coarse and so starkly political!

At that time in early 1964, I began reading commentaries on the rise and fall of great historic empires such as Rome, Greece and even Great Britain. The long and short of those stories was that those empires were born in fierce patriotism determined to resist government coercion, but they grew to become huge incompetent bureaucracies that ultimately died of softness due to too much government and too many giveaways.

The Democrats, I was assured, were primarily guilty of a "steady, deadly, drift to the left” due to FDR's New Deal. It all fit in and made sense to me. Thus I was captured by the general endorsement of that version of history by Ike, Nixon, and Barry Goldwater.. Then, too, it seemed that the Democrats were unconstitutionally finding ways for the federal government to assist Blacks and, although I revered the GOP's Abraham Lincoln interest in helping Blacks, I saw the distinction between federal and private assistance for Blacks. Hence I supported the GOP sponsored "free enterprise zones" over federal restrictions on freedom of choice. The struggle between Whites and Blacks was a people's issue not a government issue. How well or how badly people got on together was up to them, not up to "big government." 

In 1968, I was delighted that Richard Nixon, my lifelong hero, was finally elected to end (and I believed to win) the Vietnam War. As I saw it, Richard Nixon was a moderate rather than a conservative Republican. Conservatism by then had lost much of its luster for me, primarily because of what I saw as its tendency to brutally ridicule its opposition in both parties primarily at the behest of the John Birch Society. Between 1969 and 1973, Nixon seemed to dither on the Vietnam War. His Vietnamization increasingly became more more politically strategic than it was patriotic. Then along came Watergate. At the same time, I was a student in college and my knowledge of history greatly altered my once neat idea of the rise and fall of empires and nations. Next came the "Saturday Night Massacre" which saw President Nixon fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and which rocked my political soul.

The ultimate resignation of President Nixon (which was almost as sad as it was necessary) and President Gerald Ford's pardon of his "old colleague" smacked too much of partisan politics for me. Hence, I began re-evaluating my loyalty to the Republican Party.

By 1976, although I knew Democrats were as sinful as Republicans, I became increasingly aware of three basic realities. First, freedom, without responsible adjustment and regulation by society, was a license for social and economic warfare. Second, by their traditional dependence on government to protect their interests, business and banking leaders had already demonstrated that government regulation was and would remain a legitimate tool for the social stabilization of the nation. Finally, just as government is a legitimate tool for the rich, government is a legitimate tool for everyone. After all, no one is only a taxpayer; we're all tax beneficiaries as well. All of us pay taxes even if it’s just the taxes added onto prices that compensate merchants and other wealthy industrialists for the taxes they must pay to remain in business. Thus, since 1976, the Democratic Party under the leadership of Jimmy Carter (who in my opinion was the most humane and creative president of the final 25 years of the 20th Century) has been my hero, not because he was faultless but because he possessed a sense of balance and benign justice which are vital elements of good government of a healthy society.  

However unlikely or unrealistic it may be, I hope that before my time is over, both major political parties will realize that unless they learn to work together, even as they contest one another, the fire of their angry and mutual contempt will invariably destroy the freedom for which they insist  they stand. In order to bring this about, let local, state, and national elected executives and representatives become politicians once again, rather than the mean vessels of anger too many have become over the past sixty years!

Our national leadership's realization of the above would bring my political story to a happy ending.

Call it a fairy tale if you must, but let it be, at long last, real!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

DOES WHAT WE THINK DEPEND ON HOW WE THINK?

By Edwin Cooney

Last week, I sought to tackle the cause and effect on our national mood by asking when our personal sins were each other’s business. I went on to assert that the culture war which has been going on particularly since the 1960s has moved from political differences into moral differences. From there, rather than offer anything in the way of a solution to our current dilemma, I offered a list of healthy ways to look and even resolve a set of twelve outlooks or attitudes.

My friend, whom I'll call “Pennsylvania Ben,” took strenuous objection to some of my suggestions and even more to the legitimacy of  my way of thinking.

Pennsylvania Ben insists that my set of suggestions amount to "intellectual gook." He goes on to assert that his “linear" way of thinking is realistic. Then he proceeds to generously comment on some of my points. I'll only mention a few to clarify my meaning.

I made the point that what tomorrow may or may not be is not for me to judge. He responds "Congratulations, that was profound! It's like pointing out that how standing in the rain can result in someone getting wet." I've been told that the reason behind the effort to limit minority voting rights has a lot to do with conservatives who worry that today's minorities will inevitably become the majority, thus endangering the traditional dominance of white Anglo-Saxon Americans, causing them to become minority citizens. Additionally, don't most aging adults worry that their offspring will be less conscientious and less moral than their own generation?

Another point: some people firmly believe that free enterprise ought never to be subject to regulation. They also believe that the acquisition of guns ought never be regulated no matter the type of gun, to say nothing about the use of the gun.

Pennsylvania Ben also expressed his intolerance of the value of religion. He believes the religious community is wrong. Religion, he insists, is illogical and dangerous.

Pennsylvania Ben prides himself on his linear or logical thinking. He appears to believe that we creative and artistic types automatically are too dogmatic rather than logical. Yet, I know of several linear thinkers who are both dogmatic and artistic. Dogmatism requires a set of rules that governs logic. Fundamentalist religious types base their dogmatism on their religious teachings. I have a friend I call “Kentucky Brian” who believes as Pennsylvania Ben does that one ought to ask for forgiveness rather than for permission. Kentucky Brian's logic depends on his religious faith. Both Pennsylvania Ben and I believe that capital punishment is fundamentally wrong. My friend Kentucky Brian believes that capital punishment is right and moral out of his faith. Kentucky Brian and I share the Christian faith even as we disagree as to the morality of capital punishment. As I see things, both the logical and the right brain intellectual types have something in common. Neither type fully grasps what it takes to create and govern a more perfect humanity! 

As to Pennsylvania Ben's request that I "please get my head out of both my behind and out of the clouds,” I think I'll leave my head right where it is as I've never met someone who possesses the physical dexterity to assume that wondrous position!

As to the original question, does what we think depend on how we think, I suggest that both how and what we think largely depends on our personal experiences!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHEN ARE MY SINS YOUR BUSINESS AND WHEN ARE YOUR SINS MY BUSINESS?

By Edwin Cooney

About a week ago, I asked my friend “Albany Steve” the above question. Steve's response was straight and simple. He said: our sins are society’s business when they affect society.

I insist that our personal sins are society's business only when a case or cause has been demonstrated to be detrimental to the structure and function of society. Hence Indian genocide, slavery of Blacks, religious bigotry, and gender prejudice have all been proven to be everybody's sin.

The relevance of this question can easily be found in the depth of this terrible "culture war" that has been going on between conservatives and liberals since the days of President Lyndon Johnson and Chief Justice Earl Warren during the middle and late 1960s. The intensity of this culture clash was increasingly strengthened by the moral outrages created by the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal of the early and mid 1970s. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in January 1973 intensified much of the public's unhappiness with the judicial branch's striking down of state laws in 1962 requiring prayer in public schools. 

Since the 1960s and 70s, what were once political differences have become largely moral differences exemplified by the presidential philandering of Presidents Clinton and Trump and by the misleading policies of President George W. Bush as well as by President Gerald Ford's pardoning of President Richard Nixon.

The moralization of politics has succeeded the mere politicalization between Republicans and Democrats. When most Americans merely had political differences, the American "body politic" functioned quite amicably. Today, even our personal gender identification is an ongoing public issue. A public issue is generally regarded as a matter threatening to the public's welfare.

You'll be glad to know that I have no solution to this quarrelsome state of affairs even as I outline the existence of this disturbing phenomenon. Still, I think we'd be better off if we took the following positions on public issues.

(1.) Your religiosity or lack there of is exactly none of my business and matters only to the extent you choose to share their significance with me;

(2.) What tomorrow may or may not be, socially and politically, is not for me to judge;

(3.) Understand that God isn't going to bless America any more than He blesses the other nations of the world-after all, nowhere in scripture does it say that nations are worthy of Heavenly salvation;

(4.) Everyone, no matter his or her profession, is subject to legitimate limitations and  regulations;

(5.) What you do with your body is strictly your business, but remember life is precious;

(6.) Absolutely no one is superior due to their race, religion, or political philosophy;

(7.) You may be a taxpayer but you are also a worker, customer, client, patient, student, neighbor, family member and citizen who is subject to the advantages and outrages thereof;

(8.) Although we're told that the poor will always be with us, a poor customer's money is as valuable as a rich person's money even as it comes through government succor;

(9.) Climate change, be it cyclical or due to human greed, is a reality that must be faced;

(10.) You and I love someone or some cause when their welfare is equal to, or greater than, our own welfare;

(11.) The opposite of love is indifference not hatred;

(12.) The parents of anger and hatred are usually ignorance and fear.

That's how I see a few things. Now it's your turn!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS EVERYBODY'S DADDY!

By Edwin Cooney

Every day, in countless ways, millions of Americans express their contempt for the government of the United States — especially the federal government — George Washington's greatest gift to us! The fact of the matter is that our national government is our most valuable tool. Both its structure and prescribed functional procedures have flaws, but they do ultimately serve us pretty well! As much as millions of us insist we don't like it, we not only depend on it, we really count on its benevolent protection. Should we ever divorce it, we'll simultaneously divorce our own liberty.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

The above preamble proscribes no procedures or functions of government. It merely establishes the purposes of government. Nor does this preamble draw distinctions between the federal government and the state governments; those are outlined in general throughout the body of the document.

What's at issue in 20th Century America isn't so much the purposes of liberty but whose primarily responsibility it is to apply “the blessings of liberty” to this free and independent people. Even more painful is whether or not all people are to continue to have equal participation in the election of both state and national leaders. Those of us who have had the freest and longest right to elect our own government have among us those who fear that we will soon become a minority rather than remaining a traditional majority in the operation and function of popular government. Sadly, that fear stems from our knowledge of how, historically, we treated Blacks even after the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution had set them free and asserted their equality.

Conservatives have argued that a government strong enough to give you what you want and even need is a government strong enough to take your liberties away. Liberals since FDR have argued that the essence of liberty is a government strong enough to maintain the legitimate interests of the people guided by those knowledgable enough and well informed enough to maintain its sovereign control over its government.

As I see it, both liberals and conservatives, no matter how comforting or discomforting it is, possess government as a legitimate tool to meet their political and social ends.

As we contemplate the welfare of our national government, we're inevitably beset by contradictory concepts broadcast and published by today's media. Conservatives chant “USA USA” even as they express distaste for our national governmental structure. Liberals express regret for our past sins and long for our adoption of the serene social governments of modern Europe.  If, as asserted at the outset of this commentary, our national government is our "daddy," all natural daddies invariably learn that with all the advanced knowledge they hope to pass on to their children, those children possess the capacity for knowledge and opportunity that's even greater than their own!

Government may be our “daddy,” but we're the root of our daddy's conscience! Every daddy knows, even as he passes cigars to his friends at the birth of his child, that his child will grow away from his authority free and knowledgable enough to create his or her own future which will be greater than his could ever be.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AMERICA'S NATIONAL NIGHTMARE!

By Edwin Cooney

Since the election of Senator Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008, millions of Americans have begun to worry about their socio/political future. White Anglo-Saxon Americans worry that soon they will be a minority group rather than a secure and controlling majority voting force at the polls — and they are determined to adjust voting laws and procedures to alter the situation. Blacks deeply resent and fear ongoing inequality and they are determined to use affirmative action (or reverse discrimination) to get even. Many believe that they ought to receive government reparations as redress for their traditional secondhand social status since 1619. Women long to be hired and compensated just as men are. LGBT citizens resent and fear efforts to continuously harass them thereby dehumanizing them.

The left and right fear one another. Women fear the loss of control over their bodies. Men fear that their wives, daughters, and sisters may have to share a bathroom at school with people they regard as "sexual perverts." Even more, we fear the possibilities of becoming politically and socially socialistic or oligarchic. Christians, Jews, and other religious leaders fear agnosticism, atheism, and secular humanism. However, another entity is even more dangerous and potentially destructive. This entity is not a political ideology but a catastrophic behavior that knows no political philosophy. Let me describe it before I identify it!

(1.) In the fall of 2020, a group of Michiganders attempted to kidnap Michigan's Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer due to her strict anti-covid regulations within the Wolverine State. Nearly as disheartening, there wasn't the traditional bipartisan condemnation of the incident by outraged politically active citizens and office holders.

(2.) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul was brutally attacked in the early hours of the morning on October 28th, 2022 in his San Francisco home. Aside from the traditional outrage to such an act, some right wing commentators have even suggested that Mr. Pelosi's attack was stage-managed by Democrats and perhaps by the Pelosi’s themselves. The tradition of such behavior stems at least as far back as the Third Reich.

This behavior has no political heritage. This behavior has been used by extreme ideologies of all sorts. Its proper name is “gangsterism.” It celebrates the late Al Capone.  Paul Pelosi's  attacker, 42-year-old David DePape, explained that it was his intention to break Speaker Pelosi's knees so that she could be seen being wheeled in and out of the House of Representatives as a punished liar in denial of the 2020 presidential "steal." Up until this time, this form of gangsterism wasn't generally accepted behavior by potential candidates for public office, but now it's too close to the edge of acceptability for this American citizen's comfort. The acceptability of gangsterism at present is closer to practice in the Republican Party than it is in the Democratic Party. However, the fear is that not even the Democratic Party is safely above employing gangsterism if it really turns out to be a workable way to successful policy and decision-making in 21st Century American electoral politics!

The most hopeful factor coming out of last Tuesday's off-year elections was that both thievery and violence were lacking.

I believe this is the most fearful time in our history since before the Civil War, but it doesn't have to be ultimately catastrophic! Perhaps the political process itself will soon rectify the apparent hold Donald Trump and his supporters have over the GOP via the possible candidacies of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The ambitions of three men may flush Donald Trump away and, at the same time, minimize what can be called “GOP gangsterism.”  

Back in 2005 when I began writing these columns, I quoted the 1952 Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson when he asserted: "Neither political party has a monopoly of virtue or rascality!"

I've spent most of my life believing that assertion. Right now I'm desperately clinging to it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

REMEMBER, WE'RE STILL A POLITICAL EXPERIMENT

By Edwin Cooney

When America goes to the polls tomorrow, it appears that such fundamental issues as climate change, equal representation in government, and the rights of women to make personal medical choices will not likely be resolved. The only struggle likely to be addressed is which of the two major political parties will control our national government. The results of tomorrow's election will most likely reflect, more than anything else, the effectiveness of the messages put out by one party's media minions.

Only 246 years have passed since our 13 colonies declared themselves free of Great Britain and merely 233 years have flown by since we established our federal system of checks and balances. We then proceeded to fill a vast continent with largely white Anglo-Saxon peoples. Hence, in comparison with the rest of humanity, be they born in Mesopotamia, China, Italy, France, Portugal, Spain or Britain, we're vastly new at governing ourselves. Of course, for much of the past 200 plus years we've governed ourselves better than most, but the world “turns" and expands and new opportunities for both unity and conflict persist in coming up for our consideration and selection. Never have we possessed so much while at the same time appearing to be on the edge of losing almost everything except a meager disconnected existence. In other words, we may well be on the cusp of a new "dark age" perhaps as bleak as Medieval Europe!

The attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home and husband by 42-year-old David DePape has elements beyond left and right, even beyond wrong and right. What's even more frightening insofar as I'm concerned are questions such as:

(1.) What type of behavior do we expect of ourselves versus what we are willing to tolerate from political leadership?

(2.) How united or divided is America in 2022?

(3.) Does “right” hate “left” and “left” hate “right” so much that human tolerance must be replaced by some form of authoritarianism as long as that authoritarianism is economically profitable?

What's most disturbing is hearing candidates for sheriff, mayor, governor, and the House and Senate promise to take on crime "head on" (whatever that means!) and then minimize the seriousness of the attack on Paul Pelosi!

Government at all levels has to be accountable. Too many leading politicians in 2022 insist on the predominance of freedom over government. The fact of the matter is that freedom without government is anarchy. National freedom demands, as do personal freedom and family obligation, mutually supportive rules and  expectations.

The most dangerous legacy of Trumpism is the expectation that a single leader can be above all law and accountability. It's my hope that some time within the coming months someone is going to force Mr. Trump publicly to demonstrate his obligation of accountability should he be elected to a second term. Since June of 2015, Donald John Trump has appeared to possess a degree of infallibility worthy of the most authoritarian medieval monarch or pope.

The Tuesday off-year election of 1814 solidified the authority of President James Madison in the wake of the War of 1812. On November 8th, 1842, the legitimacy of our first unelected president,  John Tyler, was endorsed along with the legitimate independence of an opposition congress. On Tuesday, November 8th, 1870, the American people elected a congress that supported the establishment of America's new Industrial Age with all its assets and liabilities. In 1898, following victory in the Spanish-American War, Americans adopted President William McKinley's international expansionism. On Tuesday, November 8th, 1910, we elected a new progressivism congress in opposition to President William Howard Taft's conservatism. In 1938, the people put limitations on FDR's New Deal. In 1966, LBJ's authority was checked in the wake of the Vietnam war. Finally, in 1994, the GOP's "Contract with America," in opposition to President Bill Clinton, became a temporary political reality.    

Today, we're on the verge of a new version of what's expected in America's body politic. We could know more after tomorrow although, at the outset, I asserted that was unlikely. Still, tomorrow's election of the entire House and one third of the United States Senate, as practically non-responsive as it may be, will begin to give us a clue to our future.

Remember, our democratic-republican government is only 246 years old while the royal authoritarian-type government has thousands of years of experience. It constantly beckons citizens who have lots of money to rule. Examples include the truly “great” like Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, and England's Henrys.

Next week I'll share with you a most revealing warning sign of that possibility.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY   

IT'S ALL ABOUT HOPE VERSUS HURT AS THERE'S NOTHING LOGICAL ABOUT FANDOM!

By Edwin Cooney

Are you a fan? Did you become a fan through the power of logic? Really? It's possible that there's some logic in your explanation of your fandom, such as your love for the hometown team, but if you come from New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, it's possible that you heartily dislike one of your hometown teams! 

It's my guess (and that's all it is) that the Houston Astros will defeat the Philadelphia Phillies in the upcoming 2022 World Series! The Astros are so talented, deep, and, yet, young, that like the old Bronx Bombers, it doesn't seem they can possibly lose. 

After all, the human truth is that neither winning nor losing really and truly makes sense. Both victory and defeat often strike without the least bit of warning! (Ask the 1969 Orioles and Mets.)

If you still don't believe me, just ask a Los Angeles Dodgers' fan if, after winning 111 games, they expected to lose to the San Diego Padres, a team that didn't even win 90 games in 2022.

I've been a New York Yankee fan since 1954 and my fandom, although many don't believe me, my love for the Yankees has little to do with the Yankees themselves. I was forced to separate from my biological family at birth, but during a rare visit in 1954 with my "real" Uncle Joe who was a Yankee fan, I became a Yankees fan as well in order to identify with him. (I love to shock people by asserting that had my Uncle Joe been a Communist, I'd have become a Communist!)

Of course, there are all kinds of fans! First, there are the disillusioned fans such as the Chicago Cubs' William Sianis, a tavern owner. The Cubs (foolishly, of course!) refused to let Sianis bring his pet billy goat to a World Series game against the Tigers in 1945. Thus Mr. Sianis put a curse on his Cubs. His “curse” lasted until 2016 (71 years) when those celebrated Cubs won the World Series over the Cleveland Indians (who, of course, really lost on their own). (Note, one can't mention curses of any kind or type without referring to "the curse of the Bambino" on the Boston Red Sox in 1921 for selling Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees.) 

Then there's the stupid or, at least, the selfish fan like Steve Bartman who caught a foul ball during the 2003 playoffs that Cub outfielder Moisés Alou would like to have caught to subdue a Marlins rally. The Marlins offense was allowed to proceed and the Cubs lost that series which they might well have won thus ending Sianis' curse thirteen years earlier.

Next, there's the gullible fan like me who, for many years, allows him or herself to believe that the team he or she roots for belongs to them. Fans like that are told that “your" Yankees, Dodgers, or A’s are "on the air!" There are even such entities as "Red Sox Nation" designed to convince the fan that his or her status as a "fanatic" encompasses an actual national patriotism.

Finally, there is the hopelessly unlucky fan like the Phillies grandmother who, sitting behind third base during a Phillies/New York Giants game in 1957, was struck twice by a foul ball off Phillies outfielder Richie Ashburn. The second foul ball hit this lady as she was being assisted onto a stretcher right after being hit by the first Ashburn lined foul. Richie Ashburn was doubly embarrassed and brought her flowers and candy throughout her hospitalization. He even arranged for her two grandsons to visit the Phillies' clubhouse. However, the boys (who were big Philadelphia Eagles fans) suggested that she take them to an Eagles' scrimmage, where  she might accidentally be tackled. Obviously, those two little boys were fans as much as they were grandchildren!

Emotional investment in a singer, a sports hero, or even a politician is as American as voting or enthusiastically screaming (keep Jack Kennedy and Elvis Presley in mind). Taking all of the advertising dollars, the ballpark concessions, and memorabilia revenue into consideration, our economy even depends on it. 

The perspective here is that as wonderful, exciting, and profitable as it all is, little of fandom has anything to do with logic, patriotism, or what everyone else (except me) calls “common sense!”

One more thing: If today's New York Yankees really and truly belong to the fans, there's no way the Yankees will let Aaron Judge go to another team even if they have to legally adopt him!

As for hope versus hurt, hope ultimately prevails because without hope neither you nor I would dare to be a fan!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AMERICA AS IT'S LIKELY TO BE — PART 2

By Edwin Cooney

AMERICA'S NATIONAL STRUCTURE — Few countries that humankind has ever created are even as equally designed as the United States of America! Our federal system of social and political checks and balances is as sound as human genius is likely capable of both creating and maintaining.

OUR NATIONAL VULNERABILITY — Our national weakness is most readily apparent in our political system. Every human being who would be "free" must possess the capacity to regulate his or her behavior. This individual need can be found in everything we do whether it's business or recreational in its function. Sports and games have umpires and referees. Artists have associations and critics. Medical personnel have the Hippocratic Oath to evaluate their overall practice. You and I have our families and schools, along with our spiritual institutions and guidelines. Meanwhile the behavior of public officials at all levels of government is largely guided by the American voter through the imperfect political process and the set of values and mores of the time. The instruments that most reflect the national mood are our political parties. These political instruments, while generally made up of genuine outlooks and agendas, are most powerfully fueled by the nature of their business. Their ultimate business is competition for the hearts and minds of free men and women. This competition is ultimately personal in nature and could (unless free men and women master its effect) poison our political, social, and spiritual destiny.

SINS AND VIRTUES — As I've pointed out, because we're so powerfully significant in the international body politic, many times both our sins and our virtues have been monumental in their force and by their nature.  

These days, whenever we preach freedom and practice any form of  discrimination, we stir up a hornet's nest of criticism and indignation. Even as we seek to offer equity, we're often very moody in our outlook especially toward large groups of political and social advocacy.

As a member of my college's political affairs club back in the fall of 1971, I had the honor of introducing Lyndon Johnson’s former Press Secretary George Reedy who was speaking on campus. His book was entitled "The Twilight of the Presidency." Mr. Reedy reminded us that up until Franklin Roosevelt took to the airwaves via his "Fireside Chats," few citizens had any sense of the personal assets or liabilities of the man sitting in the White House. Hence, in the wake of FDR's combination of eloquence, political mastery, and physical disability, Harry Truman's pugnacity and daring, Ike's grandfatherly wisdom and well-meaning agenda, JFK's refreshing and youthful guidance and appeal, and LBJ's determined imperial force and expectations, Americans came to take national leadership in a more personal way than they had since George Washington took the presidential oath in 1789.

Accordingly, our impressions of national leaders have become toxic rather than wise or just. Rather than arguing the merits of issues, we argue the demerits of people.Too few office seekers appear to realize that their often criminalization of their political opponents endangers their own credibility once they are elected to public office.

As for the public, we seldom insist that our national leadership draw any distinctions when it comes to the application of public policy. Careful deliberation of public matters has been cheapened by ideological hopes, fears, and expectations of ultimate victory and political dominance. Political dominance is the pathway to both absolute and dictatorial socialism and oligarchy.

Chaotic, confusing and discomforting as they are, the merits as well as the demerits of public issues will ultimately save us from the sheer terror of absolutism!

The effect of public policy is ultimately personal. However, the election of public officials and the debate of public issues are too important to be strictly personal.

As to the fate of the Trumps or even the Clintons, remember that they are  mere mortals subject to the history which will be written and evaluated largely by those yet to be born! 

As human beings, our most common characteristic is our imperfection. Thus, our most ongoing task is that of completing our forbear's task of forming a “MORE PERFECT UNION."

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A MUCH NEEDED BREAK!

By Edwin Cooney

I like to browse through history dates to see what I can come up with regarding coincidences and matters of significance. Such findings, if seldom instructive, can be most interesting and even fascinating. Such is the case with this very date of October 17th.

Several events of national significance occurred on past October 17ths. However, an event occurred on one October 17th that's just plain fascinating.

Before getting to it, I am compelled to remind you that on Wednesday, October 17th, 1781, British Commander Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General George Washington at Yorktown ending a month’s siege and bringing with it American independence.

On Wednesday, October 17th, 1860, the British inaugurated their annual British Open Golf Tournament which was won by Willie Park, Sr. It was the first of the title events that are held today. The winner received the “Challenge Belt" but there was no prize money. What was valuable or significant about the prize my source doesn't reveal.  

On Tuesday, October 17th, 1933, physicist Albert Einstein fled Nazi Germany and found asylum here in America, securing his valuable and personal safety and our deliverance over Adolf Hitler and Imperial Japan in World War II.

On Saturday, October 17th, 1931, gangster Al Capone was convicted of income tax evasion and sent to prison for 11 years.

However, the most fascinating event I discovered for the first time that occurred on this very day happened on Monday, October 17th, 1814.

This event would be remembered as the Great London Beer Flood. The Meux and Company Beer Brewery suffered the sudden eruption of a giant vat containing 150,000 gallons of beer. That mighty splash sent beer throughout the brewery with such force as to set off a chain reaction of large vat eruptions of beer. As the beer left the plant, over 300,000 gallons of brew were surging forward.  The beer crushed a wall and went through four homes, demolishing two of them. Next, the wall of amber water rolled through a funeral parlor where people were celebrating a wake and five mourners drowned. Once it had attacked a family as it sat at tea, most of its work was done. By the time it was over, ten good citizens were dead and hundreds of pounds of property damage had been done. 

As you can imagine, a group of mighty angry Londoners launched a suit against the brewery. Alas, the jury eventually ruled that the incident wasn't a crime of any sort, but an "act of God." The brewery continued to function for another 108 years until 1922 and a pub that sits at the site of the long lamented brewery annually puts out a "special porter” (whatever that is!) to commemorate the occasion. 

Whatever news event occurs this Monday, October 17th, 2022 may be more important or significant than the last instance I have just related, but can it be more fascinating?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE AMERICA THAT'S LIKELY TO BE!

By Edwin Cooney

At the outset, there are three factors we might keep in mind.

(1.) Every country's story ultimately is a history of crises. Foreign wars, domestic conflicts (religious and racial), economic woes, and political uncertainties are all inevitable.

(2.) I'm convinced that countries founded on principles, rather than on circumstances and conditions, generally maintain those basic principles although in modified form. I can't think of a single instance when a democracy became a dictatorship. (Note: England in 1509 when Henry VIII took the throne was vastly different than in 1953 when Elizabeth II was crowned, but England was still England.)

(3.) Most Communist states were originally monarchies as were Russia, China and the Slavic offshoots of the Hapsburg and Hohenzollern Empires. Cuba is the only possible exception to this trend and that was tied to the “cold war.” Communist societies generally come out of monarchal dictatorships rather than what too many believe are the result of failed socialist democracies. 

Thus, whatever political and legal changes take place here will be more than likely to have a genuinely democratic flavor. Here's a thumbnail example of what I mean.

Despite its Republican Democratic form of government, America, without realizing it, was subject at birth to regional conflicts (North vs. South, Protestant vs. Catholic, rural vs. urban clashes, as well as institutional needs and demands vs. personal and moral expectations.) Had King George rather than President George Washington assumed office these conflicts would have affected our growth and development although measures for the solutions of these problems would have been different. 

As for our 21st Century dilemmas, beyond the possibilities of Trump vs. Biden, of oligarchy vs. progressivism, countering social forces and legal demands are likely to keep our national leaders sufficiently off balance thus minimizing the ultimate destructive effects of either progressivism or oligarchy.  Although we Americans will continue to do all of those things, good and bad, that past generations have done to one another, we hope that Abraham Lincoln’s characterization of “the better angels of our nature” will prevail over all of our political and social limitations. There are even signs that we're ready to tackle challenges such as climate change. I'm convinced that the electrification of gas-driven vehicles will clean the environment as corporations realize that there is money in electric, nuclear, and solar sources of energy. (Someday, former President Jimmy Carter will get the credit to which he is entitled for adopting solar energy at the White House in the late 1970s.)

Ultimately, there is some but not a lot of uniformity in the American body politic. Back in the early 1900s, progressives Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette called for voter initiative, voter referendum, and voter recall to regulate corporate and generally anti-labor, pro business trends in American government and society. Today, initiative, referendum, and recall have become powerful tools even by conservatives to get a grip on liberal state governments. We older folks are less likely to be optimistic about the future than our children and grandchildren. After all, following sixty or eighty plus years of fears brought about by the Great Depression, the cold war, racial and political unrest, corrupt politicians and threatening foreign leaders, we've had enough conflict and we have a tendency to be tired of it all!

Even as our world becomes our children's world, there will remain elements of our best mores and methods of problem-solving which is a good thing because, even with the documentation of all our human failures, America has given more of what's good for people all over the world than has any other nation.    

So long as we're conscientiously respectful of our past glories, what has meant the most to us will ultimately prevail to the benefit of all humankind!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY