YA DON'T GOTTA, BUT YA OUGHTA

By Edwin Cooney

I have a friend who, lately, not only proclaims that he won't vote for president anymore, but appears to glory in his decision. He offers two reasons:

First, although he voted for President Biden in 2020, he feels that the president appears sufficiently weak and ineffective in comparison to Donald Trump whom he considers unqualified by temperament, reason and intention. Second, he considers the electoral college undemocratic and too vulnerable to manipulation to be worthwhile. Hence, in the spirit of former President Richard M. Nixon, I make the following declaration:

"Let me make it perfectly clear," that neither my friend's patriotism nor political value is reflected by his present determination, but he still oughta vote though he ain't gotta!  (He doesn't address non-presidential election voting but, as I see it, he glories too much in his current position.)

About 2005 or 2006, a group of interested parties sought to create an electoral college compact in which a group of states whose combined electoral college votes equaled the 270 majority of votes required to elect a president would cast all of their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who had the lead in the popular vote. To change the current system, a constitutional amendment would be required that was supported by thirty-eight states. However, if the states themselves adopted this alteration or compromise, no amendment would be needed since the popular vote as agreed would prevail without any change to the Constitution.

As of now, fifteen states with a total of 195 electoral votes have agreed to this compromise or electoral workaround. One hundred ninety-five votes is 72 percent of the electoral votes needed. However, even if the electoral vote compromise is agreed to, it's more than likely that it would go to the courts for adjudication. I'd like to see this compromise adopted, but be that as it may, let me address the circumstances that justify the electoral college.

Adoption of a method for electing a president was almost the last order of business for the Constitutional Convention. These 57 delegates representing  twelve of the thirteen states (Rhode Island wanted no part of a new constitution), were tired after four months of being locked up in a windowless room to avoid there being leaks of the proceedings of their work to the press. They had already dealt with such heady issues as freedom of the press, the status of religious worship, and cruel and unusual punishment.

One source tells me that counter to surrendering to the wishes of the south, northern delegates rejected the idea of the popular vote because of the south's “three fifths” rule which added to the south's popular vote margin. They agreed to a "republican" type of voting rather than a strict popular democratic method of voting for the president. Hence, northerners, not southerners, were worried about the popular vote.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the privilege of popularly electing candidates to public office was a brand new idea in the history of humanity. By 1787, Great Britain elected its House of Commons, but it was a deliberately manipulated kind of representation that was so blatant that it would be altered in 1832, 45 years following our Constitutional Convention. Our convention went from Saturday,  May 26th, to Monday, September 17th, 1887. (Note that the only day off during that convention was — you guessed it — Wednesday, July 4th, when everyone went to Ben Franklin's home for the holiday. It must have been quite a day!)

The summer of 1787 was blisteringly hot in midtown Philadelphia and the delegates debated our future with windows closed during the day, At the close of each day, George Washington collected all speeches and notes from the delegates for reasons of national security.

As I see things, no voting process or agreed upon proposition isn't ultimately vulnerable to abandonment.

Invariably, voters choose to vote for different reasons. Some vote to motivate candidates. Still others vote to prevent the election of other candidates. The same is true of policy propositions.

In the early 1900s, progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and others urged voters to adopt three voter measures which would empower voting: initiative, referendum, and recall of community and statewide office holders. Voter participation in government is only about 234 years old and it dates back to 1789, the first year of our republic.

It can only serve a purpose if we support its strengths rather than abandoning it to its vulnerabilities. Former New York Governor Al Smith was right when he observed: “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE LEGITIMACY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RIDICULE

By Edwin Cooney

The nature of American politics is contentious by history and by nature. The disgust millions of us feel at its present state of affairs was probably inevitable. After all, who do we Americans have to pick on but ourselves? At it's best, it can be genuinely funny!

Adlai Stevenson used to tell about a time in politics when local elections came down to which of the candidates was related to “savage” Indian tribes. On one occasion, a candidate said of his opponent: My opponent insists that he isn't part Indian and I believe him — for the Indians deny it too.

Then Congressman Brooks Hayes tells the story of an elderly woman voting for the first time who came out of the voting booth asserting that "as I looked up and down that list, I saw so many names of wonderful gentlemen that rather than vote, I just wrote at the top of my ballot: God bless you all!”

Then there's another Brooks Hayes character who cracked at a reporter's question about who would get his vote saying: ”What vote? I never vote! It only encourages ‘em!"

I've listened to many serious but eventually meaningless debates such as the one between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960 over whether or not we should go to war with the "Red Chinese" over the fate of two islands five and six miles off the coast of China. During two of the historic 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debates, a lot of time was wasted on discussion which turned out to be meaningless because there was never another Chinese shelling of those two islands after the election.

I sincerely believe that most Americans who run for office are fair-minded and genuinely anxious to please most of their constituents.

However, three or four times throughout our history (the 1828 campaign between General Andrew Jackson and incumbent president John Quincy Adams, the 1876 election between Hayes and Tilden, the 1928 election between Al Smith and Herbert Hoover, and even the 2008 election between Obama and McCain), the campaigns were about religion and personhood as much as they were about foreign and domestic issues.

As we approach 2024, political practitioners at almost all points on the political spectrum complain about one another's individual faults and how their faults and beliefs will destroy the voter, the society, and ultimately the country if something isn't done to put them in their place. The shouts of anger and suspicion, led most powerfully by the rich and well-connected, call in one way or another for the obliteration especially of ethnic minorities. A single night of television broadcasts demonstrates the determination of groups like the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, and antifa to strut their stuff. Ultimately, it legitimizes cruel and inhuman attitudes throughout our society.

This new legitimacy confuses the distinction between natural prosecution of a former president who may have committed crimes within a reasonable doubt and the dominance of America's traditional political circus.

Although prosecutors must prove their various cases and former President Trump is entitled to due process of law, I'm personally convinced he's guilty of more than one charge of illegal conduct caused by willful self-indulgence.

It's apparent to me that "cruel and unusual punishment” which is judged unworthy of a free society in the Constitution has been replaced by the legitimacy of cruel and unusual treatment by warring groups of citizens within society.

Ultimately, it's likely that most Americans tiring of this continuous national food fight will bring a powerful halt to it via the voting booth very, very soon!

The voting process is likely my next topic.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

A FEARFUL PEOPLE?

By Edwin Cooney

For over a decade or two, I've observed that fear is the father of anger. It's only logical and yet disturbing that the social and spiritual fate of one Donald John Trump has become both the uniting and dividing factor in 21st Century American politics.

Throughout history, a large consensus of the public has had confidence in the fate of the home of the brave and the land of the free. However, this general faith appears to be cracking at the edges of our national awareness in the following ways:

(1) Some people believe that our climate is wantonly being destroyed by greedy capitalists urged on by the profit motive and they are exceedingly and genuinely frightened. However, their very fear is dismissed as being politically motivated due to their allegiance to socialistic doctrines rather than to their devotion to the lessons of science.

(2) In the belief that the fabric of traditional Christian and Judeo beliefs are being undermined by principles of "secular humanism" also akin to socialism, Christians and Jews believe that we're abandoning the "God of our fathers,” assuring our own ultimate failure.

(3) Politics has become principle and principle likewise has become politics. This undermines legality, thereby confusing and confounding traditional value structures and blurring the distinction between principle and practicality.

(4) Traditionally, Republicans are more inclined to be loyal to their leaders than Democrats. Hence the fate of former President Trump appears on the surface to matter more to Republicans than the faith and credit of our economic standing in the world while a Democratic president and a GOP House majority struggle over national spending priorities and strategies.

(5) It's hard for this observer to avoid the following observation: if fear is the father of anger, Americans are angrier at each other than we have been at any time since the lead up to the Civil War. We've opposed Russian and certainly Soviet authoritarianism up to the point of President Trump's possible association with Putin and other strong European dictators including those in Hungry, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Fortunately, we're still backing Ukraine.

As for the legal fate of Mr. Trump, the question has to be: what does Mr. Trump’s legal status have to do with our own national security?

The answer to that question is ultimately up to the capacity of our legal system. Of course, charges aren't and shouldn't be conclusive at the time of indictment. Out of necessity, officers of the court must make their case against Mr. Trump provable beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that doesn't mean that accusation constitutes proof. 

What worries me the most is that we've run out of our capacity for genuine equity. 

As of April 10th, 2023, all of our hopes, fears, desires, and conclusions about what ought or ought not to be have become predominately parochial!

Therein lies the path of disunion for the sake of those who would benefit most from the spoils of disunion!

Fortunately, there appears to be sufficient time to avoid disunion, but now is the time to start packing up the threads of healthy national unity and to start weaving them back together.

Remember, the most vital letter in U.S.A. is the “U.” Without that U, all we are are “states” in America and that means states in, not of, America.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY   

2023 BASEBALL IMPONDERABLES

By Edwin Cooney

I define an “imponderable” as an outcome or a situation that can be possible, but only probable in its effect. Example:

Even if Aaron Judge hits 72 home runs this year (10 more than in 2022), there's no certainty as to what effect that will have on the Yankees' success in 2023!

Some imponderables to consider: what effect the new pitching and batting clocks, the larger bases, and the abolishment of the defensive fielding shifts will have on the game! I'm told that two of last Thursday's games lasted 1 hour and 14 minutes. They were Detroit at Tampa Bay and the other was Cleveland at Seattle. The game at Yankee Stadium lasted 2 hours and 30 minutes. Sports writers, broadcasters, and fans all have their opinions but only time will tell us if anticipated results will be as good or as bad as feared or advocated by baseball purists and adventurists!

As for opening day at Yankee Stadium, it was loaded with several imponderables in addition to those mentioned above. Logan Webb, the Giants starting pitcher, was one of the leading Giants trying to convince Aaron Judge to sign with them. (The Giants were Judge's favorite team as a youngster.) Had that occurred, Judge would have come to bat at Yankee Stadium as a Giant, perhaps hitting a home run against Gerrit Cole. (I knew that the Giants would be opening the 2023 season at Yankee Stadium and this was an imponderable I feared until Judge's return to the Yankees was confirmed last December.)

Another set of imponderables in Thursday's game: Logan Webb, who  doesn't give up many home runs, gave up only 11 all last year compared to Gerrit Cole's 30. On Thursday, he gave up two: one to Aaron Judge and the other to Gleyber Torres. Still another was the fact that Webb struck out 12 Yankees while Cole struck out only 11 Giants. Cole pitched a shutout during his six innings of work. Still, for young Logan Webb, his pitching performance was remarkable.

Over the decades, baseball fathers have sought to adjust social and technical aspects to meet the demands of current and anticipated fans of the future. Thus we passed from the “dead ball” era to the “lively ball” era of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig in the 1920s. Next, baseball broke its color barrier thereby introducing Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and so many valuable others in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s. Then, in the 1970s, there came free agency. Now, in 2023, comes quickness and efficiency to meet the demands of fans who will live and love baseball beyond our time. 

The beauty of all sports, which was first demonstrated in baseball during the late 19th century, is that passion doesn't have to breed either contempt or hatred. To be a fan is to (at least temporarily) live in Peter Pan's Never Never Land. Not long ago in one of these musings, I observed that one especially imponderable is the almost universal belief by fans that their team really and truly belongs to them — hence “my” Yankees and “your”  Red Sox, an illusion we insistently deny but privately and emotionally depend on.  

For the time being, the surest antidote to those imponderables is the immediate assignment: just plain go figure!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY