A NEW POLITICAL HERO THUS A NEW POSSIBLE POLITICAL PARADIGM

By Edwin Cooney

A hero is someone who performs or undertakes to act when it is dangerous to one's well-being while preserving the well-being or safety of others.

Our national and individual histories are bedecked with instances in which both friends and acquaintances have been heroes!

Among my national heroes are: the Marines of Iwo Jima, Dr. Jonas Salk, the seven Mercury astronauts, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Carter, and Obama. My personal heroes are named Edith, Rhoda, Eric, Ryan, Olivia, Bailey Jane, Britney, and, of course, Marsha Cooney. There are still other personal heroes but these are at the very top of my list. All of them have been vital to preserving my social, emotional, spiritual, and personal well-being!

All of our heroes invariably re-enforce our values and expectations regarding everything that's important to us.

Like most conscientious voters, regardless of political ideology, the well-being of my country is of continuous importance to me. Like most of my fellow citizens, I'd prefer to have an administration in Washington that shares my personal political agenda. However, living in a free society as I do, I know that from time to time, my political opponents will prevail.

Accordingly, during the administrations of President Reagan, Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and initially during the Trump presidency, I looked for aspects of the opposition's person or administration that I could approve.

Last Thursday night after the latest public session of the January 6th Committee, I've had to conclude that there's absolutely nothing to admire about the person or presidency of Donald Trump! In the wake of that conclusion, I've had to acknowledge the existence of a new political hero.

Elizabeth Cheney in almost every aspect of her political being is an anathema to me. However, her willingness to draw the distinction between personal and national well-being and thus risk the enmity of her constituency and, subsequently, her seat in Congress, means that Elizabeth Cheney recognizes the distinction between governing and politicking. Second, she understands that the loss of office is ultimately a matter of national priority rather than a matter of personal preference. Election to public office is ultimately not about a candidate but the quality of what a candidate has to offer.

Elizabeth (Liz) Cheney is probably the greatest political hero since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon back in 1974.  I didn't see President Ford's courage back then, I saw only what I regarded as his political cronyism, but I unconsciously drew some comfort from Jerry Ford's cronyism as it justified my anger with my former hero Richard Nixon. Although I'm not in the least sorry for my support of Jimmy Carter, my political and prejudicial cynicism stultified my capacity for quality judgment of an historical event!    

So, here it is! Were I living in Wyoming, a vote for Elizabeth Cheney on Tuesday, August 16th, 2022 would be one hell of a temptation. The truth is, however, that come the election in November, even if she unexpectedly prevailed this August, I'd probably vote for her Democratic opponent.

Remember a few lines ago I asserted election to public office is ultimately not about a candidate but about the quality of what a candidate has to offer. Thus, although I could never vote for Ms. Cheney, I still regard her as a hero. After all, I didn't vote for Jerry in 1976 and he was as significant a hero as Elizabeth Cheney.

Oh! Here's an irony for you! Do you recall who President Ford's Chief of Staff was back in 1976? His name was Richard Bruce Cheney.

You may reasonably conclude that throughout this musing I've demonstrated my incapacity to follow a new paradigm as has Elizabeth Cheney. Ah, but a paradigm isn't a belief; a paradigm is an approach or a way.

Next week, let's compare the Cheney paradigm and the Trump paradigm!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

HEY, SELF, WHEN IS A NATION REALLY AND TRULY GREAT?

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, I admit it. I am like little Jack Horner who sat in the corner pulling plumbs out of cherry pies! Just for this week, I'll take a break from plumb-pulling and pull greatness out of America and, believe it or not, out of other nations as well. Here I go:

Question 1: What makes a nation truly great?

Answer: Nations are often great long after their dominance has passed. Greece and Rome in their times established political, social, legal and religious institutions that future nations were anxious to adopt for their own benefit. These include languages, prose and poetry, educational institutions, philosophical concepts of learning, and government. (My favorite Greek philosopher was Plato who defined “justice” as rewarding someone for their accomplishments. He defined “injustice” as setting up someone for failure and punishing them for failure.) Britain's greatest accomplishment was the concept of legal and social fairness and, as imperfect as it was, it established a system of jurisprudence that remains a part of all just governments today. As for the British Empire, it spread its greatest institutions to its colonies widely throughout the world from the Americas to the Asian subcontinent and on to Africa and Australia. Great Britain spread the expectation that good government serves rather than rules the people.

Question 2: Which is higher, society or government?

Answer: Society constitutes the collective mores of its citizens. Medieval, monarchical, federalist, free market, socialistic, or oligarchical forms of government are established by societal hopes and expectations.

Question 3: What's the most vital element of a great society?

Answer: Social inclusion constitutes the greatest element of a great society.

Question 4: Is a great nation “great” in everything it does?

Answer: Of course not! From 1789 into the 1960’s, even as America became freer and freer for white property and business owners and, ultimately, white women, America enslaved Blacks, legally murdered Mormons in some states, committed genocide to native Americans, and established Jim Crow laws to hold down Blacks even in the face of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and in defiance of the 13th 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Question 5: Is America great enough as it is?

Answer: Certainly not! There's plenty of room for improvement. If it was up to “me, myself, and I,” I would do away with the electoral college, widen the wall separating church and state, regulate gun manufacturers by making them legally responsible for the damage guns do to people when they are in the hands of individuals who are nonmilitary and those who aren't part of law enforcement. I'd do away with capital punishment which I regard merely as government-sponsored legalized murder. I'd reject efforts by individual states to limit the voting rights of Blacks and other ethnic minorities out of fears that these minorities may become majority voters.

I believe as Abraham Lincoln believed that all of us were and are created equal, not according to our skills, but out of the value of our natural existence!

After talking long and hard to myself about it, I've decided that:

(1.) A great society creates a great government as LBJ tried to tell us in his often bumbling and even self-centered way.

(2.) As former New York State Governor Al Smith often put it: "The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy!"

(3.) Because government is a tool designed to be used by all aspects of society and not merely a political entity, it is empowered to both regulate and deregulate the manner in which people function in its domain.

About the time President Benjamin Harrison turned the government over to Grover Cleveland whom he'd defeated for re-election four years previously, the era of "manifest destiny" was complete and the frontier was considered closed. Since March 4th, 1893, we have experienced the era of political doctrine consisting of progressivism, old guard conservatism, and mid-twentieth century liberalism. Since 1969, modern conservatism has largely ruled.

Today, the states don't appear to be at all united! But as little Jack Horner sits in his corner eating George Washington's cherry pie, he discovers a bit of real greatness on the end of his thumb!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A RESPONSIBLE CIVIL RIGHT! WHAT SAY ME?

By Edwin Cooney

My column last week asserting that the chickens have come home to roost and that now it's time for them to rule, brought two or three powerful responses worthy of consideration.

Becky from Minnesota writes: I thought most of your column was pretty balanced. That is until you said that abortion is "a responsible civil right.” Because I don't believe in killing anything human, I can't say that is what abortion is. Calling that a civil right of any kind is a slippery slope!

My immediate or mere defensive response to that would be to assert that all civil rights are subject to irresponsible exercise including freedom of speech, assembly and, of course, freedom of the press. Beyond that, let's remember that at the heart of Roe v. Wade (whatever the later change of heart by Roe) was a woman's right to counsel with her physician with a view to a medical procedure regarding her state of pregnancy. You’re right, Becky, abortion itself isn’t a civil right, but to have an abortion under safe and clinical conditions is something pretty close to a civil right. Remember, the Supreme Court didn’t end abortion on Friday, June 24th. It merely transferred it to the states. All they did was to make abortion harder and more expensive to obtain. 

Roe was neither a political quest nor was it, as one friend of mine charged: The decision in Roe was essentially a policy decision camouflaged in legal garb.  It was raw political power exercised by unelected justices, rather than by the political branches of our government.

That response on the part of my friend from Albany, New York appears to come straight out of a Conservative instructional handbook. The fact of the matter is that Supreme Court Justices become what they are straight from appointment by a president and confirmation by the United States Senate. Their job, as my friend, a lawyer, well knows, is adjudication. Justices, of course, have standards as to what cases they'll consider, but these cases aren't drawn up by the justices. They're considered as they might affect different aspects of  constitutional government. Even more ironic, the author of the majority in Roe v. Wade was Justice Harry Blackman, appointed as a "strict constructionist" by Richard M. Nixon, 37th President of the United States, a self-proclaimed "conservative." It has become standard rhetoric that the Warren and Berger courts were filled with radical socialists, otherwise called “judicial activists,” appointed by liberal Democratic presidents. Presidents who had appointed the 1973 justices included Franklin Roosevelt (Justice Douglas), Dwight Eisenhower (Justices Stewart and Brennan), John F. Kennedy (Justice White), Lyndon Johnson (Justice Marshall) and  Richard Nixon (Justices Powell, Rehnquist and Blackman). Even more, the Court in 1973 had a Republican majority: Stewart, Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Berger, Blackman, Rehnquist, and Powell. Justices Rehnquist and White dissented in the matter of Roe v. Wade.

I think it's fair to say that most of us regard both the approval of Roe v. Wade as well as its dismissal as being largely questions of morality. I have a friend in California, one of the smartest and most knowledgable men I know, who says it's not at all a question of morality. Here's my friend Oakland David:

“Who decides what is a moral issue and what the "moral" choice is? Five of the six justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade are Roman Catholic, as is one of the justices who voted to retain it. The Roman Catholic church believes that the soul attaches, and thus life begins, at conception, and almost every state which now will ban abortion follows that idea. However, not every religion believes that. Some believe that life begins when the fetus is "viable" or capable of surviving outside the womb. Some believe that life begins when the newly-born infant draws its first breath. Science cannot answer that question, which is essentially a religious issue. So, under our supposed separation of church and state, why is one church's belief forced on everyone? The conservative majority currently running the Supreme Court seems to consistently vote in favor of the litigant claiming freedom of religion over the rights of everyone else, whether it is the right to freely engage in commerce or the right not to have their tax money support religious instruction. The glaring exception is abortion, where they are quite willing to impose their religion on the entire country, and decide that governments, state governments in this case, can override the religious faith of their residents. They can't do this to require that adoption agencies which receive public funds don't discriminate. They can't require bakers offering their goods to the public not to discriminate. They can't refuse to fund religious schools if they fund non-sectarian schools. I see hypocrisy here.

"There have been 115 Justices on the Supreme Court, and only 15 have been Roman Catholic. That we currently have six of those 15 is astounding. The court certainly does not reflect America."

The obvious question to Oakland David and to everyone else is: what belief, behavioral expectation, political doctrine, human expectation does represent America?

I close with two ironic historical facts.

Oakland David points out that out of the 115 Supreme Court Justices only 15 have been Roman Catholic. In 1960, millions rightly celebrated the election of John F. Kennedy as the  first Roman Catholic President of the United States. Too few realized, then or today, that Roger Brooke Taney was the first Roman Catholic Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Andrew Jackson in 1835 and served until 1864. It was Roger Taney who ruled in 1857 that slaves were not human beings, but were rightfully the property of slave holders. Quite a decision for a morally upright gentleman of justice, wasn't it?

Finally, the “Wade" in Roe v. Wade was nationally prominent nearly a decade before he was linked to the case of Jane Roe. (Her name was Norma McCorvey.) Henry Wade was the Dallas County Prosecutor who would have prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of JFK. but wound up prosecuting Jack Ruby for Oswald's murder instead.

Comments are always welcome, but don't be too profound or I'll have to continue on this topic for a third week!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY