WHAT'S GOING ON? IS THE COLD WAR BACK ON OR WAS IT EVER REALLY OVER?

By Edwin Cooney

Nearly 33 years have passed since the Berlin Wall came crashing down on Thursday, November 9th, 1989. Those who loved him best declared that President Ronald Wilson Reagan had won the Cold War on behalf of all free men and women everywhere. It was quite a heady time for a lot of people around the world!

It wasn't that all was secure as the wall bit the dust since a number of scores needed to be settled in Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and throughout all of Germany. There would be shooting in Vilnius, Lithuania, executions would occur in Bucharest, Romania and, in August 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev would nearly be overthrown in Moscow in a coup led by Vice President Gennady Yanayev and as many as seven others. By the late fall of 1991, the cold war was pretty much over with the formation of the Russian Federation and the termination of the Communist Party by both Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin in Moscow. By September, the Communist Party was abandoned by Gorbachev and, in early December, with the withdrawal of Ukraine, the Soviet Union was gone in favor of the new Russian Federation headed by Boris Yeltsin.

The next step was to assist the new nation in adopting a new government designed to establish justice and prosperity throughout eastern Europe and northern Asia. To that end we sent bankers, lawyers, judges, and even religious organizations to reform, purify, and re-indoctrinate the multiplicity of ethnics of the former sixteen Soviet Republics.

Capitalism would of course lead the way. The richer the people got, the happier and more contented they would be assumed most Americans. Many of us asserted: how could it possibly be otherwise?

Gradually, however, the world kept being the world! Boris Yeltsin served as president for 8 years and 5 months until Friday, December 31st, 1999. His administration was stormy and was not always compatible with foreign policy ventures by other nations. In 1994 and again in 1997, the Duma tried to impeach him led by former Communist party members. Twice in 1999, he reminded Bill Clinton (who was leading NATO against Slobodan Milosevic's Yugoslavian government) that Russia had a powerful nuclear force. More significantly, it was Boris Yeltsin who, in a desperate attempt to correct Russia's economic woes, transferred foreign money into the hands of the growing oligarchy which he ultimately passed on to Vladimir Putin, thus creating today's international crisis.

As bombs fall on Kyiv, most of us find ourselves rooting for President Volodymyr Zelensky. Writing in the New York Times a few days ago, Thomas Friedman observed that Vladimir Putin's current policy isn't based on fear that Ukraine might join NATO, but his real concern is that Ukraine might want to join the European Union — potentially more dangerous to Putin and his oligarchical support. After all, it's hard to argue with those who suggest that Vladimir Putin is striving to one day recreate the old Soviet Empire albeit with a capitalistic rather than a socialistic base.

Here at home there may well be a crisis in the GOP. Should he become a viable presidential candidate in 2024, Donald Trump may find his previous relationship to and predilection for Vladimir Putin exceedingly divisive! If President Biden can effectively solidify NATO thereby reining in Putin, whatever his mistakes in Afghanistan were, they will likely fade away.

Still the questions remain. Did the cold war really end in the late 1980s and early ’90's or did Russia simply need to take on a new economic strategy?

Did we really conquer godless communism or is Russia more acceptable now that it has adopted capitalism as its new god?

What lies at the root of a nation's being? Is its profitability more significant than its sense of morality? After all, we once had a capitalist economy that was, to a considerable extent, structured on human slavery! Still more, its advancement, or "manifest destiny" (at least, up until the late 19th century) was dependent upon native American genocide.

Of course, no society has existed and even flourished without its sins — not even Switzerland or the inoffensive and gentle Scandinavian folks. However, we Americans have traditionally set ourselves on a much higher course of human achievement. As scary as it is to lead an alliance even possibly risking life and limb, we can hardly avoid that risk while remaining who most of us really and truly desire to be!

Even if it's the old “cold war” merely evolving into a new phase, it's still humankind's oldest enemy: WAR!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

IS THE 21ST CENTURY PRESIDENT A LAWGIVER OR A PEOPLE PLEASER?

By Edwin Cooney

As of today, it must be observed that the sitting President of the United States is not a popular man. President Biden's lack of popularity isn't due to rudeness or crudeness as was largely the case with his predecessor, but is largely due to his seeming indecisiveness as an executive and even as a man.

During the 1960 presidential campaign, Senator Jack Kennedy used to insist that the main task of the presidency was to set before the American people the unfinished agenda of our nation. Others said that the president by virtue of his office was our political teacher and our moral leader!

Beginning with the assassination of JFK, we as a people were stripped of our innocence and were forced to face realities, especially when they were uncomfortable and contradictory of one another.

Sitting in his rocking chair before a national audience in December of 1962 following the near catastrophic Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy told Bill Lawrence of ABC News that a sitting president faces few easy decisions. He went on to say that all easy decisions would have been made elsewhere. President Kennedy's assessment certainly jived with President Harry Truman's famous desk sign: “The buck stops here!”

 .  

Of course, crises plague every president, but the nature of crises invariably change in their origin.

Thomas Jefferson inherited the crisis of the Alien and Sedition Acts brought on in the John Adams presidency. Abraham Lincoln's crises began as far back as James Monroe's administration when the Missouri Compromise required the admission of one free state for every slave state admitted to the Union. FDR faced the government paralysis Herbert Hoover felt he shouldn't alleviate even if working men and women were starving to death. 

Beginning with Lyndon Johnson, presidents began offering federal solutions to problems millions of Americans didn't want the federal government to fool with — specifically, their differing visions of their personal and legitimate civil rights. Next came the credibility question regarding the the necessity for the Vietnam War followed by the Watergate scandal.

When President Nixon resigned on Friday, August 9th, 1974, the common consensus was that Americans had established that we are a government of laws and not of people. Recent presidential attitudes and behaviors have, I insist, brought that national consensus into serious question. More often than not, the nation has been troubled by the attitudes and outlooks of individual presidents more than they have been about the institution itself. The behaviors of and the people’s attitude toward individual presidents haven't been as much about law as about personal presidential motives and intentions.  

In 1977, there were questions concerning both presidential wisdom and even patriotism when Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers. Then came the controversy as to whether President Reagan's ignoring of the National Security Act constituted presidential violation of the law. Then Bill Clinton's character and behavior both in and out of office was questioned followed by the problem of “hanging chads” and complicity of the Supreme Court during the 2000 presidential election. Next, President Obama was considered “too black” and possessed a Muslim name that for too many went to the core of his legitimacy through birth and national loyalty. Finally, there came President Trump's insistence that only he could fix America and that any electoral result that contradicted him and his aims was naturally "a steal.”

Hence, this 52nd Presidents Day that ought to be easy to celebrate brings with it serious questions about the value and effectiveness of the President of the United States. Remember that the American president is the only officeholder who is both head of government and head of state. Each of these crises has left its residue of doubt as to the power and even the usefulness of George Washington's great office!

Might the presidency be too powerful? Perhaps the presidency is even obsolete? Certainly, the adoption of political parties has tied the presidential office to politics!

If, as most of us as school children were taught, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson and Madison created the "freest government on earth,” they also created the hardest government to amend or alter since it takes 38 or three quarters of the states to ratify a single amendment to the Constitution. Can you imagine what it would take even if we all agreed (and in many instances we do agree) that the document badly needs fixing and that a Constitutional Convention could be most beneficial? Keep in mind that back in 1787, the proceedings that created the Constitution were strictly secret. Every night, General Washington, as presiding officer of the convention, collected all notes and kept them for redistribution the following morning. (I’m sure that that kind of supervision would be regarded as a violation of personal freedom today!) Ah! But here comes a potentially deadly crisis!

It's just possible that on this 52nd President's Day, Vladimir Putin may invade Ukraine. The obvious question is compelling: will President Biden respond to Vladimir Putin with your support or disapproval? 

It ought to be with your approval! After all, this crisis is much bigger than the one in Iraq in either 1991 or 2003, Afghanistan and Iran in 1979, or even Crimea in 2014.

It may not be only a presidential decision; it may be personal beyond our imagination! 

Hence, you and I ought to wonder what degree of support President Joseph R. Biden deserves. Eternity may be the judge as to the value of the benefit he actually receives!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

PERSONAL, BUT NOT CONFIDENTIAL!

By Edwin Cooney

Some readers have, from time to time, expressed wonderment and even fascination with my ability to address a different and, sometimes, even a new topic every week. Of course, a lot of my topics are socio/political or historical, but seldom do I experience what is generally known as "writer's block." Then came yesterday afternoon and last evening. Suddenly there it was: writer’s block. It was SUDDENLY THERE: great as day, big as life, threatening to cement me in! Not even writing partial sentences unblocked my flow of thought. Not even one of the stories I'm about to tell you helped. Then came the night and rest. Suddenly, in the wee small hours of the morning, it all came back identifying itself to me — plain as day! The key components to the solution of every riddle is twofold — knowledge of its cause and comprehension of its effect!

My problem last night was just plain fatigue. Since fatigue was the cause, writer's block had to be the effect. Like a visit from an energizing lover in the night, I was restored for the morrow!

Back in the late 1990s, when our Methodist pastor in Alameda, California, Reverend Mark Bollwinkel, would develop what one might call "preacher's block," he would make the block itself the subject of his sermon in the form of an open prayer to the Almighty! That type of sermon would open his mind to the turmoils his congregation was surely encountering while at the same time effectively making his parishioners aware of both his awareness and sympathy of their very personal and individual challenges.

Of course, when one is genuinely searching for the cause of an event or state of being, one is better served the fewer preconceptions one has about the origin of the cause during the investigation of the situation. It's also vital to keep in mind that the effects of a cause can vary.

For instance, one may reasonably say that President Donald Trump was the immediate cause of what occurred back on January 6th, 2021, but the origins, uncertainties, and anticipated resentment and bitterness about questions surrounding presidential elections go back as far as 1800 to the days of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr. 

(I expect that someone will write a comprehensive history of contested presidential elections very soon indeed. They've already been written about in summary form, but a huge study will probably be available soon at your local bookstore or on an accessible website.)

Another legitimate topic for examination right now in view of Vladimir Putin's possible invasion of Ukraine would be a comparison of the  similarities and contrasts and  the causes of World Wars I and II in 1914 and 1939.

From the very outset of my authorship of these columns I've had three overall goals: to inform; to stimulate and to entertain the reader. Although I'm a man of numerous opinions, I don't teach doctrines, be they religious or political. I may offer testimony as to the worthiness of a doctrine, but its adoption is your business, not mine! Doctrines generally reflect attitudes based on experiences.

Inquiry into cause and effect of a historic event is the key to all knowledge and understanding of any event. 

I hope my weekly interest in — and search for — cause and effect causes you, the reader, to wonder why and how even more than it enables you to know! After all, so long as you wonder, it is likely that your knowledge will be even more comprehensive regardless of the topic!

As for those "lovers in the night," bring 'em on!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

CONTROLLING THE AMERICAN KILLER

By Edwin Cooney

It has been increasingly clear to me that, with our permission, the American killer is stealing our lives, our children’s lives, and our very liberty!

A few days ago as part of the ongoing discussion of whether guns or people kill other people, someone sent me a video telling the story of young Kendra St. Clair. Kendra, a 12-year-old living in Oklahoma, was home alone one day when 32-year-old Stacy Jones broke into her home. Kendra grabbed her cell phone and called her mother and her mother instructed her to get her gun, go into a closet, and then call 911. Kendra had never fired a gun before. Complying with mom's instructions, she called 911 and the operator assured her that a sheriff deputy was on his way. After some anxious minutes, Kendra saw the door knob move so she fired through the door. The bullet entered Jones's shoulder causing him to flee. He was picked up a few blocks away by deputies and charged with first degree burglary. That charge was designed to get Jones twenty years in the slammer.

The purpose of the story (aside from praising Kendra's coolness and bravery) was to illustrate that guns save as well as take lives. (Note: Kendra's tale of bravery occurred on Saturday, October 20th, 2012.)

As far as I know, it wasn't until the assassination of President Kennedy that gun control became a national issue. What most Americans really wanted to achieve, by passage of gun control legislation, was to make it unlikely that anyone else could as easily replicate Lee Harvey Oswald’s and Jack Ruby’s dastardly deeds! Since powerful and deadly automobiles are licensed, it seemed reasonable to most Americans that the power of license would control gun users just as it does the behavior of drivers. Few people resent the licensing of automobiles especially since licensing vehicles doesn’t inhibit their use or their availability. However, most people regard driving as a privilege not a constitutional right. The United States Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the right to “bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Some would argue that since baseball bats, knives, ropes, bombs, and many other tools and methods are potentially lethal, it would therefore be downright unconstitutional to ban guns or even to license them. 

However, I argue that the Second Amendment is conditional. It reads as follows:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Proponents of the Second Amendment, as I see it, are too often in denial of the amendment's 18th Century culture lag. Guns were used during the 17th, 18th, 19th, and the early 20th centuries as much for food and clothing as for killing. They even appear to believe that all laws are “created equal,” perhaps even including the laws that were passed in the 1840s enabling angry Christians to kill Mormons in Missouri and Arkansas. Some of us wonder if the Ku Klux Klan constitutes a "well regulated militia.” After all, it's “regulated” not to kill white Anglo-Saxon Protestants!

All of the above arguments have been made thousands of times so there's no need to examine them more than we already have. However, there is a vital element of this whole matter that needs to be considered or our free society will be destroyed.

Opponents of gun control legislation insist that should the government succeed in regulating the ownership of guns, our very freedom would be at stake. Consider the following: First, I wonder if a people are really “free” when they are at the mercy of so many weapons? Can a people really be free when they, and their school children, are inevitable targets of gun possessors and bomb throwers?

Second, what does our primary dependence on weapons reflect about the moral priorities and values of our society?

Three, was the late, great Conservative commentator Paul Harvey right or wrong when he asserted that freedom wasn't merely permission to be absolutely free, but was rather a challenge to do as one ought to do for everyone's benefit?

Fourth, while no reasonable person will argue that guns and not people are the ultimate killers, the more weapons that are cheaply or even freely available, the more killing will occur!

Finally, the ultimate question before us isn't really gun control, it's American “Killer Control.” Remember, killers kill because they feel sufficiently powerful, resentful, and clever enough to avoid punishment for the act of killing. For many killers, due to low self-esteem, the rewards of their acts of killing are greater than their fear of retribution in the wake of their deed or deeds.

After all, many killers are beyond fear of their own mortality. Someone's death, even if it is their own, is the inevitable solution to life's woes! 

The wisdom or foolishness of possessing arms and the use of arms depends on the legitimacy and the rights of others.

There's little doubt, as I see it, that it's getting cheaper and safer to obtain and use guns than to avoid being victimized by guns or by some other deadly weapon.

It’s my guess that once we conclude that all we can do to prevent killing is to justify and accomplish killing as the primary antidote, sooner or later America is going to be as dead as George Washington!

Until we find some formula to control American killers, I suppose gun control is the only reasonable place to start, so I support it.

Since the right to make a profit appears to be as dear as life itself, I guess we’re just going to have to discover a way to make life as precious as profit.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY