By Edwin Cooney
By all means, argue with me if you must, but I think I’ve discovered Public Enemy Number One. Don’t be jealous, because I discovered PENO before you did! Its two deadliest factors are that it’s often not even a crime! Even more, it occasionally preserves your physical wellbeing.
Three weeks ago, I wrote of my serious reservations about Florida’s concealed gun law and -- what do you know! – seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin of Sanford, Florida, the black kid who walked home with his hand in his jeans while toting only iced tea and skittles, is dead. Even more, the root of the problem ultimately goes beyond the writ or effect of that law. After all, crime, it seems, is an ever increasing danger both at home and abroad. Hence, politicians and gun dealers encourage John and Susie Q. Citizen to purchase and conceal guns. Police and other public law enforcement people aren’t nearly so enthusiastic about such weapon concealment statutes. Guns, as is their purpose, have the power to eliminate troublesome and perhaps only seemingly troublesome people.
One of the major factors that triggers “Public Enemy Number One” is illness—especially, potentially fatal illness. This cause is almost unavoidable since all of us have yet to experience what I’ll refer to here as “eternity.”
Over the past twenty or thirty years, smoking has been shown to be harmful to smokers and nonsmokers whatever the state of their health. So, slowly but surely, it has become unlawful to smoke tobacco. It can be dangerous to drive motor vehicles and even bicycles without seat belts or helmets so we make it unlawful to ride them without such safety devices. Many will insist that both antismoking and vehicle safety requirement laws are beneficial to all of us, however others will insist that they are “politically correct” just as much as they are beneficial to the public.
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution empowers Congress (and the bad old federal government) to “lay and collect taxes” from whatever income source derived. It is said that politicians, especially those nasty liberal politicians, “tax and spend—elect and elect.” Their motive is that some make more money than others and therefore it is only fair to redistribute our national wealth.
America, the nation every American from President Barack Obama on down prays aloud that God will bless, lives in a world that doesn’t unanimously share its social, economic, political, or spiritual values. Thus some of those taxes maintain what Ike in his January 17th, 1961 farewell address called: “the military-industrial complex.” Most conservatives insist that the military-industrial complex, even with all of its weapons of mass destruction, is as sacred as is the “good book.”
Hence, above we have death, government regulations, war, and taxes as the main factors in the preeminence of Public Enemy Number One!
In case you haven’t already guessed, Public Enemy Number One is fear. By its very nature, fear limits or intimidates our capacity to respond effectively and rationally to conditions and circumstances that are real and potentially harmful to our wellbeing. Whatever my cause or my urgency, whether I’m a politician, a bureaucrat, a parent, a teacher or even a member of the clergy, I can depend on being able to control you if I can successfully make you afraid.
Fearful people may be determined, focused, and, in their defensiveness, creative. Inevitably, however, when people are afraid they’re angry. An angry person may, on occasion, be righteous (or, if you prefer, justified) in his or her anger but an angry person is seldom either a just or generous person.
Consider this: when your parent, teacher, preacher, and, most certainly, a politician wants to convince you of the righteousness of a cause, more often than not they scare you into seeing things their way. However, most of the time, when someone wants to sell you a product, they usually appeal to your desire for pleasure or gratification. While unhealthy or perverted gratification can be nearly as emotionally destructive as fear, most gratification is energizing in a positive way.
I’m convinced that the lowliest and the saddest people in the world are those who are afraid. Fear brings on vulnerability and eventually hopeless, resentful and soul destroying resentment.
The politician most readily convinces me when he or she offers peace and freedom in exchange for my vote. The preacher can most readily draw me to his or her message when the lure is love.
Make me afraid and you’ll numb my senses as I blindly take your advice and apply for a concealed gun license. Energize me and my senses are wide open to the best of all possibilities including the likelihood that most of the time those trained to enforce the law are perfectly capable of doing their jobs.
As I see it, Public Enemy Number One is a fear driven response to all conditions and circumstances. Anyone who only seeks to make you afraid is never a friend.
Bang! Bang! Bang! PENO—what do you mean you’re not dead!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
FORWARD, MARCH!!!
By Edwin Cooney
Okay, make of this what you will! Every day of every month of every year is transitional, but to me, there’s something special about the month of March. Up until 1752, March 25th was the first day of the New Year in the British colonies – and that, of course, included us. In 1751, the government of King George II subtracted eleven days from the calendar and made New Year’s Day on January 1, 1752 instead of on March 25, 1752.
What’s so attractive to me about March is that it seems that so many world transitioning leaders have been born in March or have conducted transitional events during the month. Let’s take a chronological trip through March from the 1st to the 31st rather than by year.
On Thursday, March 1st, 1945, FDR sat in his wheelchair before the 79th Congress and reported on his recent trip to the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin. It was his last speech before that body thus ending the New Deal era in American history.
On Sunday, March 2nd, 1931, Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader who brought Russia and its fifteen other republics out of Communism, was born in the Soviet state of Georgia.
On Wednesday, March 4th, 1801, Thomas Jefferson became the first president to be inaugurated in Washington, D.C.
On Saturday, March 4th, 1933, FDR was the last president to be inaugurated on the fourth of March. His inauguration, the first of four for the people’s aristocratic patrician president, ushered in “The New Deal,” bringing about a new relationship between the government and the people.
On Thursday, March 5th, 1953, Joseph Stalin, perhaps historically the most notorious practitioner of brutal repression, died near Moscow thus ending the darkest era in Soviet history.
On Sunday, March 7th, 1965, “Bloody Sunday,” John Lewis of SNCC (The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) and the Rev. Hosea Williams of SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) guided about six hundred people across the Edmund Pettus Bridge just east of Selma. Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark led local law enforcement officials who successfully blocked civil rights advocates on their first attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.
On Tuesday, March 9th, 1965, the second march from Selma to Montgomery was also halted by Sheriff Jim Clark and the Rev. James Reeb was beaten to death.
On Wednesday, March 12th, 1947, President Harry Truman ushered in a new era in foreign policy by asking Congress to provide aid to starving people and nations otherwise threatened by anarchy or Communism.
On Thursday, March 12th, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed legislation lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.
On Sunday, March 15th, 1767, President Andrew Jackson, the president many historians credit with largely democratizing American politics, was born in the Waxhaws Region which straddles the border between North and South Carolina.
On Monday, March 15th, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson in one of his most eloquent speeches delivered his Voting Rights address before the 89th Congress.
On Tuesday, March 16th, 1751 (or Friday, March 5th, 1751 using the “old style” date), James Madison, father of the American Constitution, was born at Port Conway, Virginia of King George County.
On March 17th, St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated annually to honor the life of the man who brought Christianity to Ireland.
On Sunday, March 21st, 1965, the third and ultimately successful march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama began.
On Thursday, March 25th, 1965, civil rights leaders brought their grievances to the steps of the state capitol at Montgomery, Alabama.
On Thursday, March 26th, 1979, President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed an Israeli/Egyptian Peace Treaty in Washington D.C. to bring to an end 30 years of war between the two states.
On Sunday, March 31st, 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced at the end of an address on Vietnam that he would not seek or accept renomination as President of the United States of America. Many historians mark that announcement as the close of “the old politics” and the beginning of “the new politics!”
Aside from significant dates, the month of March brings Spring to northern latitudes and Fall to southern latitudes between the 19th and the 21st. March is the month Christians often celebrate the resurrection of Christ. The “Ides of March” (March 15th) marks the murder of Julius Caesar by Brutus and Cassius. Here in the United States, March marks the beginning of spring training for professional baseball and the close of the college basketball season, “March Madness,” a tournament that includes 68 top college teams.
Since everyday is the first day of the rest of all our lives, you may legitimately argue that what you’ve just read is a lot of fluff -- and I wouldn’t argue too vigorously with you. Still, March, which was once primarily known as the month named after Martus, the Roman God of War, has “come a long way baby!”
As for this particular piece of writing, you may, if you like, legitimately paraphrase the cowboy, who said, after being shown all of the fancy “doo-dads” at the Neiman Marcus Department Store in Dallas, Texas:
“I ain’t never in my life read so much information I could do without!”
My only defense is that I had a hell-of-a-good time giving it to you.
Oh, one more thing: “company, halt!” Who says I never give the reader a break?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Okay, make of this what you will! Every day of every month of every year is transitional, but to me, there’s something special about the month of March. Up until 1752, March 25th was the first day of the New Year in the British colonies – and that, of course, included us. In 1751, the government of King George II subtracted eleven days from the calendar and made New Year’s Day on January 1, 1752 instead of on March 25, 1752.
What’s so attractive to me about March is that it seems that so many world transitioning leaders have been born in March or have conducted transitional events during the month. Let’s take a chronological trip through March from the 1st to the 31st rather than by year.
On Thursday, March 1st, 1945, FDR sat in his wheelchair before the 79th Congress and reported on his recent trip to the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin. It was his last speech before that body thus ending the New Deal era in American history.
On Sunday, March 2nd, 1931, Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader who brought Russia and its fifteen other republics out of Communism, was born in the Soviet state of Georgia.
On Wednesday, March 4th, 1801, Thomas Jefferson became the first president to be inaugurated in Washington, D.C.
On Saturday, March 4th, 1933, FDR was the last president to be inaugurated on the fourth of March. His inauguration, the first of four for the people’s aristocratic patrician president, ushered in “The New Deal,” bringing about a new relationship between the government and the people.
On Thursday, March 5th, 1953, Joseph Stalin, perhaps historically the most notorious practitioner of brutal repression, died near Moscow thus ending the darkest era in Soviet history.
On Sunday, March 7th, 1965, “Bloody Sunday,” John Lewis of SNCC (The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) and the Rev. Hosea Williams of SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) guided about six hundred people across the Edmund Pettus Bridge just east of Selma. Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark led local law enforcement officials who successfully blocked civil rights advocates on their first attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.
On Tuesday, March 9th, 1965, the second march from Selma to Montgomery was also halted by Sheriff Jim Clark and the Rev. James Reeb was beaten to death.
On Wednesday, March 12th, 1947, President Harry Truman ushered in a new era in foreign policy by asking Congress to provide aid to starving people and nations otherwise threatened by anarchy or Communism.
On Thursday, March 12th, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed legislation lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.
On Sunday, March 15th, 1767, President Andrew Jackson, the president many historians credit with largely democratizing American politics, was born in the Waxhaws Region which straddles the border between North and South Carolina.
On Monday, March 15th, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson in one of his most eloquent speeches delivered his Voting Rights address before the 89th Congress.
On Tuesday, March 16th, 1751 (or Friday, March 5th, 1751 using the “old style” date), James Madison, father of the American Constitution, was born at Port Conway, Virginia of King George County.
On March 17th, St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated annually to honor the life of the man who brought Christianity to Ireland.
On Sunday, March 21st, 1965, the third and ultimately successful march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama began.
On Thursday, March 25th, 1965, civil rights leaders brought their grievances to the steps of the state capitol at Montgomery, Alabama.
On Thursday, March 26th, 1979, President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed an Israeli/Egyptian Peace Treaty in Washington D.C. to bring to an end 30 years of war between the two states.
On Sunday, March 31st, 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced at the end of an address on Vietnam that he would not seek or accept renomination as President of the United States of America. Many historians mark that announcement as the close of “the old politics” and the beginning of “the new politics!”
Aside from significant dates, the month of March brings Spring to northern latitudes and Fall to southern latitudes between the 19th and the 21st. March is the month Christians often celebrate the resurrection of Christ. The “Ides of March” (March 15th) marks the murder of Julius Caesar by Brutus and Cassius. Here in the United States, March marks the beginning of spring training for professional baseball and the close of the college basketball season, “March Madness,” a tournament that includes 68 top college teams.
Since everyday is the first day of the rest of all our lives, you may legitimately argue that what you’ve just read is a lot of fluff -- and I wouldn’t argue too vigorously with you. Still, March, which was once primarily known as the month named after Martus, the Roman God of War, has “come a long way baby!”
As for this particular piece of writing, you may, if you like, legitimately paraphrase the cowboy, who said, after being shown all of the fancy “doo-dads” at the Neiman Marcus Department Store in Dallas, Texas:
“I ain’t never in my life read so much information I could do without!”
My only defense is that I had a hell-of-a-good time giving it to you.
Oh, one more thing: “company, halt!” Who says I never give the reader a break?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 12, 2012
MY LITTLE PILGRIMAGE
By Edwin Cooney
Okay, so my recent trip wasn’t exactly a “pilgrimage” since it was neither to Lourdes nor Mecca, Jerusalem, or even Saddleback Ranch. Yet, there was something about my recent visit to my elder son Eric that had religious overtones about it. I guess I’ll let you decide whether or not I’ve just returned from a “pilgrimage.”
The greatest irony of my referring to my recent trip as a pilgrimage is that it was to Las Vegas, Nevada -- perhaps the most singularly sinful/secular of places in the whole wide world.
To visit my elder son on his birthday was to relive, through the veil of time and events, the miracle of his birth on that increasingly long ago date of Tuesday, March 7th, 1978. It was a snowy and blustery day in Batavia, New York as Eric’s sweet petite mommy and I were awakened at 2 a.m. Mama’s water had broken and it was obviously time to go to the hospital. As it turned out, the placenta was ahead of the baby and the possibility that mama might otherwise suffer a fatal hemorrhage necessitated a cesarean section. Happily, baby Eric was safely born at 8:26 a.m. and thus a 34 plus year journey began for Eric, his mama, and his daddy.
Countless times during the past few days I’ve wondered at his handsomeness, his articulateness, and his capacity for love which today he’s doling out in heaping spoonfuls to his newly born daughter. Countless times, during the last few days, I’ve recalled almost every aspect or event of those 34 years.
I’ve thought of the box of Eric cigars I handed out to every male I could find who’d accept and smoke one of them -- and as it turned out, I handed all of them out before I realized I hadn’t saved one for myself! I’ve thought of his christening and the little blue outfit he was dressed in and how happy his Grandma Edith (whose last name is Eric’s middle name) was that day. I’ve thought of Grandpa Tom and Grandma Connie as well as Aunt Kathy and Uncle Tom. I’ve thought of origins and beginnings, of ends and conclusions. I’ve thought of those arduous side trips of warning and worry, disappointment and renewal, experience and reflection all of us have known since his very first birthday.
Additionally, I’ve recalled how anxious I was and how calm and strong his mama was the time we had to take him to the hospital when he was only ten months old. Then there was the time I kicked his nerf football way up on the roof and how impressed he was that his daddy could kick anything so high and far. Also, I recall his heartfelt wish when his mama was pregnant with his brother. He made it plain that he wanted “a boy brother -- not a girl brother.” Later, there’s the memory of the unassisted double play he made at third base to end a baseball game during the summer of 1986 when he was just eight.
One of the most natural tendencies of fatherhood is to be proud and I’m certainly proud that he’s my son. Yet, to say I’m proud of him is to suggest that I’ve achieved what in reality only Eric has achieved. Hopefully, the love Eric’s mother and I feel for him has energized him to overcome his mistakes and thus to become what he’s rapidly becoming: a nurturing adult contributing to our national wisdom and prosperity. However, the achievement of solid citizenship is Eric’s -- not ours!
Eric and his younger brother are extensions of their mother and me and while divorce, sadly, has separated us, we still share that abiding love and concern for the future of both our sons.
Even after thirty-four years, there remain points of contention between father and sons. Neither of my lads exactly reflects either my preferences or my values. Very disappointing is the fact that neither of my sons is a Yankee fan. In fact, both are practically anti-Yankee! Neither lad has my interest in history, although my younger son comes closest. Neither accepts as much as I do the doctrine of Christianity. However, I was encouraged during my visit to hear Eric assert sympathy for the idea that God is the source and the main force of love in the world. (I don’t know that his brother would disagree with that at all, for he and I haven’t yet had that conversation!)
To have visited Eric and his family is to come as close to the past and the present, the injured and the healed, the sinned against and the forgiven, the loved and those to be loved as I’ve recently experienced.
As I promised, I’ll let you decide whether or not I’ve just returned from a “pilgrimage,” but if you want it straight, that’s how it feels!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Okay, so my recent trip wasn’t exactly a “pilgrimage” since it was neither to Lourdes nor Mecca, Jerusalem, or even Saddleback Ranch. Yet, there was something about my recent visit to my elder son Eric that had religious overtones about it. I guess I’ll let you decide whether or not I’ve just returned from a “pilgrimage.”
The greatest irony of my referring to my recent trip as a pilgrimage is that it was to Las Vegas, Nevada -- perhaps the most singularly sinful/secular of places in the whole wide world.
To visit my elder son on his birthday was to relive, through the veil of time and events, the miracle of his birth on that increasingly long ago date of Tuesday, March 7th, 1978. It was a snowy and blustery day in Batavia, New York as Eric’s sweet petite mommy and I were awakened at 2 a.m. Mama’s water had broken and it was obviously time to go to the hospital. As it turned out, the placenta was ahead of the baby and the possibility that mama might otherwise suffer a fatal hemorrhage necessitated a cesarean section. Happily, baby Eric was safely born at 8:26 a.m. and thus a 34 plus year journey began for Eric, his mama, and his daddy.
Countless times during the past few days I’ve wondered at his handsomeness, his articulateness, and his capacity for love which today he’s doling out in heaping spoonfuls to his newly born daughter. Countless times, during the last few days, I’ve recalled almost every aspect or event of those 34 years.
I’ve thought of the box of Eric cigars I handed out to every male I could find who’d accept and smoke one of them -- and as it turned out, I handed all of them out before I realized I hadn’t saved one for myself! I’ve thought of his christening and the little blue outfit he was dressed in and how happy his Grandma Edith (whose last name is Eric’s middle name) was that day. I’ve thought of Grandpa Tom and Grandma Connie as well as Aunt Kathy and Uncle Tom. I’ve thought of origins and beginnings, of ends and conclusions. I’ve thought of those arduous side trips of warning and worry, disappointment and renewal, experience and reflection all of us have known since his very first birthday.
Additionally, I’ve recalled how anxious I was and how calm and strong his mama was the time we had to take him to the hospital when he was only ten months old. Then there was the time I kicked his nerf football way up on the roof and how impressed he was that his daddy could kick anything so high and far. Also, I recall his heartfelt wish when his mama was pregnant with his brother. He made it plain that he wanted “a boy brother -- not a girl brother.” Later, there’s the memory of the unassisted double play he made at third base to end a baseball game during the summer of 1986 when he was just eight.
One of the most natural tendencies of fatherhood is to be proud and I’m certainly proud that he’s my son. Yet, to say I’m proud of him is to suggest that I’ve achieved what in reality only Eric has achieved. Hopefully, the love Eric’s mother and I feel for him has energized him to overcome his mistakes and thus to become what he’s rapidly becoming: a nurturing adult contributing to our national wisdom and prosperity. However, the achievement of solid citizenship is Eric’s -- not ours!
Eric and his younger brother are extensions of their mother and me and while divorce, sadly, has separated us, we still share that abiding love and concern for the future of both our sons.
Even after thirty-four years, there remain points of contention between father and sons. Neither of my lads exactly reflects either my preferences or my values. Very disappointing is the fact that neither of my sons is a Yankee fan. In fact, both are practically anti-Yankee! Neither lad has my interest in history, although my younger son comes closest. Neither accepts as much as I do the doctrine of Christianity. However, I was encouraged during my visit to hear Eric assert sympathy for the idea that God is the source and the main force of love in the world. (I don’t know that his brother would disagree with that at all, for he and I haven’t yet had that conversation!)
To have visited Eric and his family is to come as close to the past and the present, the injured and the healed, the sinned against and the forgiven, the loved and those to be loved as I’ve recently experienced.
As I promised, I’ll let you decide whether or not I’ve just returned from a “pilgrimage,” but if you want it straight, that’s how it feels!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, March 5, 2012
WHEN IN SEARCH OF TRUTH, I CHANGE MY MIND -- BLAME TRUTH, NOT ME
By Edwin Cooney
At least two of those who responded to last week’s column (in which I challenged the wisdom of Florida’s concealed weapons law) wondered when I became sympathetic to the plight of criminals rather than to the plight of the victims of crime.
I’m not aware of being in the slightest sympathetic to the plight of criminals any more than I’m sympathetic to the goals and mores of Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden. However, my insistence that there may be a flaw in our response to criminality caused at least two readers to suspect that perhaps Jesse James or Al Capone must be among my ancestors!!!
What I am increasingly aware of, however, is how a lifetime of experiences and observations can change one’s outlook on issues that one had made conclusions about many years ago.
At one time I saw murder as immoral, but I didn’t see state or nationally authorized killing (aka “war”) as immoral because I didn’t believe that democratically elected authority could be immoral. I once saw capital punishment and war as sad but necessary realities for our personal protection. I’ve come to believe that we seldom have to kill to protect ourselves. However, when that becomes necessary, it’s usually because we didn’t take a preventive measure before things became dangerous. Remember Winston Churchill’s observation that even as late as 1935, World War II could have been prevented without the firing of a single shot (Churchill’s Sinews of Peace speech on March 6th, 1946 in Fulton, Missouri).
Even more, I once saw reality as absolute truth rather than as situational or circumstantial truth. Unsettling as it is, I’ve come to realize that every situation possesses its own reality and that reality is often, although not always, amoral.
At one time I was sure that every sane person understood the relationship between cause and effect. However, after years of parenting, riding in cars as a passenger with both good and bad drivers, and studying history, I’m not sure any of us really grasps cause and effect when our need for gratification or justification gets in the way.
Call me a relativist if you must, but it has been my experience that those things that are most true are circumstantial. Try these “truisms” on for size and see how they fit:
1) People don’t realize the crushing dehumanization of being a victim until they’re victimized!
2) Most people don’t understand the forces of criminality until they commit a crime or are accused of one.
3) Most people avoid those who live with disability unless they bear a disabled child or become disabled themselves.
4) Even with its numerous virtues, democracy has no monopoly on morality.
5) Taxpayers have no monopoly on righteousness.
6) Truth doesn’t belong exclusively to good people.
7) Human principles are the keys to both morality and immorality.
8) True righteousness has more to do with love than it does with judgment.
9) As our “Creator,” God blesses others as much as God blesses America.
10) Finally, anyone who thinks he’s just composed ten absolute truths is absolutely full of himself!
Even more unsettling is what happens when truth is obscured by myth. This is what President John F. Kennedy had to say on that subject during a June 1962 Commencement Address to the graduating class of Yale University.
“As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality. For the great enemy of the truth is—very often—not the lie: deliberate; contrived; and dishonest; but the myth: persistent; persuasive; and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion rather than the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere.”
Unlike those of us who call ourselves “columnists,” presidents come face to face every day with reality. Ah, but it’s a very special kind of reality, isn’t it?
It’s called “political reality!”
I may miss my guess, but I’m betting that most of you see little that’s true or real about politics!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
At least two of those who responded to last week’s column (in which I challenged the wisdom of Florida’s concealed weapons law) wondered when I became sympathetic to the plight of criminals rather than to the plight of the victims of crime.
I’m not aware of being in the slightest sympathetic to the plight of criminals any more than I’m sympathetic to the goals and mores of Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden. However, my insistence that there may be a flaw in our response to criminality caused at least two readers to suspect that perhaps Jesse James or Al Capone must be among my ancestors!!!
What I am increasingly aware of, however, is how a lifetime of experiences and observations can change one’s outlook on issues that one had made conclusions about many years ago.
At one time I saw murder as immoral, but I didn’t see state or nationally authorized killing (aka “war”) as immoral because I didn’t believe that democratically elected authority could be immoral. I once saw capital punishment and war as sad but necessary realities for our personal protection. I’ve come to believe that we seldom have to kill to protect ourselves. However, when that becomes necessary, it’s usually because we didn’t take a preventive measure before things became dangerous. Remember Winston Churchill’s observation that even as late as 1935, World War II could have been prevented without the firing of a single shot (Churchill’s Sinews of Peace speech on March 6th, 1946 in Fulton, Missouri).
Even more, I once saw reality as absolute truth rather than as situational or circumstantial truth. Unsettling as it is, I’ve come to realize that every situation possesses its own reality and that reality is often, although not always, amoral.
At one time I was sure that every sane person understood the relationship between cause and effect. However, after years of parenting, riding in cars as a passenger with both good and bad drivers, and studying history, I’m not sure any of us really grasps cause and effect when our need for gratification or justification gets in the way.
Call me a relativist if you must, but it has been my experience that those things that are most true are circumstantial. Try these “truisms” on for size and see how they fit:
1) People don’t realize the crushing dehumanization of being a victim until they’re victimized!
2) Most people don’t understand the forces of criminality until they commit a crime or are accused of one.
3) Most people avoid those who live with disability unless they bear a disabled child or become disabled themselves.
4) Even with its numerous virtues, democracy has no monopoly on morality.
5) Taxpayers have no monopoly on righteousness.
6) Truth doesn’t belong exclusively to good people.
7) Human principles are the keys to both morality and immorality.
8) True righteousness has more to do with love than it does with judgment.
9) As our “Creator,” God blesses others as much as God blesses America.
10) Finally, anyone who thinks he’s just composed ten absolute truths is absolutely full of himself!
Even more unsettling is what happens when truth is obscured by myth. This is what President John F. Kennedy had to say on that subject during a June 1962 Commencement Address to the graduating class of Yale University.
“As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality. For the great enemy of the truth is—very often—not the lie: deliberate; contrived; and dishonest; but the myth: persistent; persuasive; and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion rather than the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere.”
Unlike those of us who call ourselves “columnists,” presidents come face to face every day with reality. Ah, but it’s a very special kind of reality, isn’t it?
It’s called “political reality!”
I may miss my guess, but I’m betting that most of you see little that’s true or real about politics!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, February 27, 2012
DO I “GOTTA”?
By Edwin Cooney
“Gotta love Florida's concealed hand gun law!” proclaimed the headline of an email a friend of mine sent me recently. Its author had a “happy” story to tell.
Two men, 22-year-old Donicio Arrindell and 21-year-old Frederick Gadson, were stupid enough to rob a Plantation, Florida Subway shop late on a Wednesday evening not long ago.
The two men surely saw the 71-year-old John Lovell finishing his meal as they robbed the cashier but must have disregarded him. Eventually, they got around to robbing him as well and shoved him into a bathroom. What they didn’t know, until it was too late, was that John Lovell, a former Marine pilot who’d flown both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before working for Delta and then Pan Am, possessed a concealed weapon. He was also a crack shot.
When it was all over, Arrindell was dead and Gadson was in Broward Medical Center with a head wound.
We who have the luxury of reading the story can be excused, I suppose, if we view it much as we would a good western. After all, the “good guy” who was the victim of Arrindell’s and Gadson’s selfish and willful deed came out on top. However, I think it is fair to say that none of us would like to have personally witnessed or taken any part in that tragic incident.
Even more, as I see it, the tragedy goes beyond the actual occurrence of the incident to the forces that brought it about and subsequently echoed in the wake of the tragedy.
First, here are two young men with their entire lives ahead of them who somehow have gotten it into their heads that they, through the use of force, may reasonably obtain money by intimidating and perhaps harming the rest of us. Thus, they obtain masks and weapons and proceed to bully their way to their definition of prosperity.
Second, because men like Arrindell and Gadson do what they do, we’re compelled to spend billions of dollars a year on adequate police protection and penal retention which could be better spent on education, health care, or our own personal enjoyment.
Third, and even more tragic, we’re intimidated into believing that if everyone carried a gun, the incidence of crime throughout the country would dramatically diminish. In other words, if Arrindell and Gadson had known that Lovell was armed, and perhaps that every other restaurant in town was serving an armed customer, they wouldn’t have dared commit armed robbery!
We’re informed that thanks to Florida’s concealed weapon law, John Lovell, a man of steady nerve and skill with a firearm, was able to effectively end the criminal careers of Arrindell and Gadson. That’s all well and good, but there’s a crucial piece of information that’s not in the email that I received.
Many years ago, I had the occasion to ride on a Trailways bus between Batavia and Rochester, New York with an inmate who’d just been released from New York’s Attica State Prison. (Back then it was still called Attica State Correctional Facility.) That particular prisoner told me that many times those who commit armed robbery do so with empty weapons. He insisted that the weapon is often strictly for show. Thus, what we haven’t been told is whether either Arrindell’s or Gadson’s weapons were loaded. As some will justifiably point out, in no state is burglary or even armed robbery punishable by death.
Still, a largely unarmed public can be excused if it takes seriously the sight of a thug wielding a weapon whether empty or loaded. Nevertheless, I believe that we, the innocent public, often miscalculate the forces that motivate antisocial behavior.
As much as they need stopping, men and women desperate enough to commit antisocial behavior will never be stopped by sheer numbers. Whether they are involved in an armed robbery, murder, terrorism or international war, they face danger which is usually quite secondary to their cause. Adolf Hitler, as he demonstrated on April 30th, 1945, was ready to end his life, not as an act of apology or closure for his victims, but rather as a statement that he alone controlled his fate. Although Osama Ben Laden concealed himself for nearly a decade in that Afghan compound, he wasn’t intimidated from financing and directing terror by the likelihood of his own demise.
It’s my guess that, dominated by their frustrations and resentments toward society, neither Arrindell nor Gadson was capable of comprehending their ultimate fate; hence they gave in to their greedy hunger. My guess also is that John Lovell, being the respectable citizen he is, doesn’t view himself as quite the hero the author of that email sees him as being. My guess is that Lovell, however he may justify his own action that Wednesday night not so long ago, views that action with far more solemnity than he does with triumph.
Florida’s concealed weapon law may occasionally satisfy our legitimate outrage, but if we see it as an effective antidote to armed robbery, we’re nearly as foolish as both Arrindell and Gadson were.
No, I don’t “gotta love” Florida’s concealed weapons law. As a conscientious and informed citizen, I only “gotta” sadly acknowledge its existence!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
“Gotta love Florida's concealed hand gun law!” proclaimed the headline of an email a friend of mine sent me recently. Its author had a “happy” story to tell.
Two men, 22-year-old Donicio Arrindell and 21-year-old Frederick Gadson, were stupid enough to rob a Plantation, Florida Subway shop late on a Wednesday evening not long ago.
The two men surely saw the 71-year-old John Lovell finishing his meal as they robbed the cashier but must have disregarded him. Eventually, they got around to robbing him as well and shoved him into a bathroom. What they didn’t know, until it was too late, was that John Lovell, a former Marine pilot who’d flown both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson before working for Delta and then Pan Am, possessed a concealed weapon. He was also a crack shot.
When it was all over, Arrindell was dead and Gadson was in Broward Medical Center with a head wound.
We who have the luxury of reading the story can be excused, I suppose, if we view it much as we would a good western. After all, the “good guy” who was the victim of Arrindell’s and Gadson’s selfish and willful deed came out on top. However, I think it is fair to say that none of us would like to have personally witnessed or taken any part in that tragic incident.
Even more, as I see it, the tragedy goes beyond the actual occurrence of the incident to the forces that brought it about and subsequently echoed in the wake of the tragedy.
First, here are two young men with their entire lives ahead of them who somehow have gotten it into their heads that they, through the use of force, may reasonably obtain money by intimidating and perhaps harming the rest of us. Thus, they obtain masks and weapons and proceed to bully their way to their definition of prosperity.
Second, because men like Arrindell and Gadson do what they do, we’re compelled to spend billions of dollars a year on adequate police protection and penal retention which could be better spent on education, health care, or our own personal enjoyment.
Third, and even more tragic, we’re intimidated into believing that if everyone carried a gun, the incidence of crime throughout the country would dramatically diminish. In other words, if Arrindell and Gadson had known that Lovell was armed, and perhaps that every other restaurant in town was serving an armed customer, they wouldn’t have dared commit armed robbery!
We’re informed that thanks to Florida’s concealed weapon law, John Lovell, a man of steady nerve and skill with a firearm, was able to effectively end the criminal careers of Arrindell and Gadson. That’s all well and good, but there’s a crucial piece of information that’s not in the email that I received.
Many years ago, I had the occasion to ride on a Trailways bus between Batavia and Rochester, New York with an inmate who’d just been released from New York’s Attica State Prison. (Back then it was still called Attica State Correctional Facility.) That particular prisoner told me that many times those who commit armed robbery do so with empty weapons. He insisted that the weapon is often strictly for show. Thus, what we haven’t been told is whether either Arrindell’s or Gadson’s weapons were loaded. As some will justifiably point out, in no state is burglary or even armed robbery punishable by death.
Still, a largely unarmed public can be excused if it takes seriously the sight of a thug wielding a weapon whether empty or loaded. Nevertheless, I believe that we, the innocent public, often miscalculate the forces that motivate antisocial behavior.
As much as they need stopping, men and women desperate enough to commit antisocial behavior will never be stopped by sheer numbers. Whether they are involved in an armed robbery, murder, terrorism or international war, they face danger which is usually quite secondary to their cause. Adolf Hitler, as he demonstrated on April 30th, 1945, was ready to end his life, not as an act of apology or closure for his victims, but rather as a statement that he alone controlled his fate. Although Osama Ben Laden concealed himself for nearly a decade in that Afghan compound, he wasn’t intimidated from financing and directing terror by the likelihood of his own demise.
It’s my guess that, dominated by their frustrations and resentments toward society, neither Arrindell nor Gadson was capable of comprehending their ultimate fate; hence they gave in to their greedy hunger. My guess also is that John Lovell, being the respectable citizen he is, doesn’t view himself as quite the hero the author of that email sees him as being. My guess is that Lovell, however he may justify his own action that Wednesday night not so long ago, views that action with far more solemnity than he does with triumph.
Florida’s concealed weapon law may occasionally satisfy our legitimate outrage, but if we see it as an effective antidote to armed robbery, we’re nearly as foolish as both Arrindell and Gadson were.
No, I don’t “gotta love” Florida’s concealed weapons law. As a conscientious and informed citizen, I only “gotta” sadly acknowledge its existence!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, February 13, 2012
GO, MARY -- GO, GO, GO!!!
By Edwin Cooney
Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!
Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.
Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.
Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.
Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:
Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?
One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.
OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.
She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.
But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.
This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.
The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.
The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton
There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.
The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.
Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.
Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!
Respectfully submitted,
Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney
Due to the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mary Wolski got her job back the other day -- and a lot of people’s undies are in a bunch over it!
Mary Wolski was hired in the late 1990s as Erie, Pennsylvania’s first female firefighter. She had a spotless record until Thursday, December 28th, 2006 when she made a mood and drug-induced mistake.
Throughout the previous year, Mary had watched helplessly while her mother suffered from a staph infection. In the wake of her mother’s slow and painful death, Mary went into a severe depression and sought the support of a psychiatrist. Ultimately, she was taking six different drugs, some of which could bring on thoughts of suicide.
Then, on that fateful December day in 2006, Mary decided to end it. She traveled to her brother’s vacant home, filled the bathtub with old clothes and set them afire hoping that she would die of smoke inhalation. However, the heat was too intense so she doused the flames and then sought to cut her wrists. Subsequently, as the clothes were still smoldering in the tub, Mary’s colleagues at the Erie Fire Department became involved in her rescue.
Ultimately, the city of Erie fired Mary and Mary sued under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus we have the debate:
Was Mary legitimately disabled? Does the ADA cover people with mental as well as physical disabilities? How significant was it that Mary, a firefighter, used fire to end her life? Might Mary’s rehiring bring about a dangerous degree of low morale in Erie’s fire department?
One of my very best friends lives in Erie and we’ll let him act as the judge for the lowest appeals court for the city of Erie and all right-thinking ADA supporters. This is what he wrote me.
OK, let's deal with Ms. Wolski's woes.
She had a spotless record as an Erie firefighter, a point for Mary.
She became depressed as a result of facing the long and difficult dying process of her mother, not Mary's doing, yet another point on Mary's side.
Indeed, she was under the care of a psychiatrist who had, one might argue, over medicated her, another point for Mary.
But as a firefighter, she set a fire, not a point for Mary. Granted, when she did so she was not in her right mind; and perhaps the fact that she had been a firefighter was part of the reason she chose fire, the destructiveness of which she had seen, first hand. But a firefighter who sets a fire, regardless of the accompanying circumstances, sacrifices his or her right to serve a community, putting out fires.
This kind of act is the unfortunate unlocking and opening of a hitherto nonexistent door; a door that once open, can be closed but can never be locked or eliminated. And the irreversible fact that the existence of such a door, having been brought to fruition by a servant whose responsibility it is to prevent the existence of such a door, should, in the view of this commentator, prevent that servant from serving in such a capacity wherein the opportunity is all too available to, once again, open that door.
The arrival of mental health challenges is almost always unfortunate. But the citizens of a community should not be put in a position wherein they might feel less than fully confident in the behavior of their public servants.
The death of a loved one is a trying time; but most individuals weather the process, and do so, as a rule, without abandoning a majority of their commitments to their chosen profession. A distraught firefighter who sets a fire is a troubled individual, one who deserves our empathy but not one who should be returned to the unspeakably difficult challenge of fighting fires in a community of more than 100,000 individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a statute designed to level the playing field for members of our society who confront physical barriers, such barriers based on the presence of a physical limitation, not common throughout the rest of society. It is not, in my view, a statute which should allow an individual to return to an endeavor, the very nature of which the individual has transgressed, based on a temporary illness.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is herewith reversed with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted, Mr. Justice Chesterton
There are three questions before this court. The first is whether the city of Erie dismissed Mary Wolski with prejudice. Since the city fired rather than suspended her pending further investigation, the answer to that question is clearly in the affirmative.
The second question facing this court is Ms. Wolski’s condition at the time of the act. According to all testimony, Ms. Wolski was mentally and emotionally limited at the time she set the fire. The cause of her disability was physician proscribed drugs rather than the voluntary recreational abuse of drugs. As a person suffering from a disability, Mary Wolski had the right of protection and support under the ADA’s provisions that allow for overcoming barriers to employment. As this court sees it, the greatest barrier to forward progress is prejudice—and clearly, in this case, the city of Erie, Pennsylvania has shown prejudice throughout this unfortunate incident.
The third question before this court is the nature of Mary Wolski’s act. It must be observed that Ms. Wolski’s use of fire, which appears to particularly concern the good Justice Chesterton, was uniquely to her credit as opposed to her condemnation. Ms. Wolski’s use of fire was exceedingly skillful, limited and above all responsible. She set a fire in a bath tub, dousing it when she couldn’t use its effect. The fire was in a vacant house, controlled in its range and in its capacity to spread. No one was harmed nor was anyone intended to be harmed. Neither the city nor the district attorney chose at the time to indict her for the incident.
Ms. Wolski is now recovered. Her energy and determination for protecting the public is renewed. Released from the harsh medicines she was taking at the time of the incident, Ms. Mary Wolski is now fully capable of resuming her professional duties to which she has demonstrated unflagging dedication.
Accordingly, this court overturns the ruling of one Judge Chesterton with exceedingly vigorous prejudice!
Respectfully submitted,
Super Justice,
Edwin Cooney
Monday, February 6, 2012
FOR WHOM SHOULD HE CARE?
By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t particularly surprised this week when I learned that the leading GOP presidential contender, Willard (Mitt) Romney has decided that he cares about neither the poor nor the rich since the rich can take care of themselves and the poor have a "safety net" under them. As for you in the middle class, the socio/political domain of workers who earn between $50,000 and $250,000, the handsome, articulate former Massachusetts governor has finally discovered you.
Up until now, you, the middle class, have been the strategic domain of President Obama who has kept his pledge not to increase taxes on you. Of course, the president’s opponents love to point out the obligations that “Obama Care” puts on everyone -- especially the middle class -- which they insist amounts to a tax increase. It is a reasonable argument when you’re being strictly political rather than responsibly objective. After all, a tax increase is more money taken for income taxes under the status quo, where healthcare is an additional service being offered which extends the status quo. Whatever position you take, the question remains: should the president especially care about classes of Americans?
Harry Truman, in had his usual straightforward way of looking at a president’s responsibilities, asserted that "the rich have the luxury of being able to pay lobbyists to come down to Washington to lobby Congress to meet their demands. There’s nothing wrong with them. As for the rest of America, the only lobbyist they have is the President of the United States. That’s his job -- to look out for the interests of the average person.”
The idea that the president should particularly care about anyone’s welfare is a relatively recent expectation.
In the early years of our republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison held the view that a president should be politically “disinterested” in the outcome of public affairs as they directly affect the people’s lives. Recent scholars have suggested that one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson (our third president) fell out with Aaron Burr (our third vice president) was because Burr was more interested in serving people’s needs than he was in being the expected “disinterested” public servant. (Certainly his duel with Alexander Hamilton didn’t help, but it wasn’t the source of Jefferson’s unhappiness with Aaron Burr.) Presidential policies generally had to do with the broad interests of the young United States: our relations with Britain and France (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison from 1794 through 1815), Indian affairs (Monroe through Cleveland from 1819 until 1887), and the Civil War (Lincoln through Hayes from 1861 through 1877). As late as the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge vetoed the McNary- Haugen Farm Relief Act designed to provide badly needed financial assistance particularly to western farmers who’d been plagued for several years by floods, droughts and soil erosion. Coolidge and many other Republicans saw direct assistance to farmers as “class legislation.” For the most part, government wasn’t seen as a legitimate tool on behalf of everyday working people until the New Deal. Thus, only since FDR has there been a debate about the legitimate role government should play in people’s lives.
Hence, the question: what should a perspective president care about?
During the course of one of his more folksy 1930s Fireside Chats, FDR put it this way:
“I like to think of our country as one home in which the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know, by now, that the welfare of your family or mine cannot be bought at the sacrifice of our neighbor’s family; that our well-being depends, in the long run, on the well-being of our neighbors.”
FDR’s appeal brought about a solid political coalition of some farmers, laborers, students, Southern conservatives, northern and western liberals, and intellectuals that established moderate forward-looking government from the 1930s through the 1960s. Even Richard Nixon insisted that if a presidential candidate is to be successful, he must appeal to conservatives during the primaries but move to the left to accommodate the center during the general election (the opposite extreme to center in the Democratic party).
Hence, after months of appealing to the right, Governor Romney appears ready now to keel sharply to the center.
Will the GOP’s right wing allow him to do that? Will they interpret his move leftward as an effort to protect conservatism against the slings and arrows of the left until he can start practicing conservatism in the White House? Or will they see his move as a betrayal of conservative dogma to which all of the GOP candidates have paid such intense homage during this campaign?
Is it the poor, the rich or the middle class to which any successful presidential candidate must appeal? I say it’s the middle class. However, of the three class categories, the middle class is the most fickle and therefore the most dangerous. Their demands, resentments, and needs are so intertwined yet contradictory that they’re more easily offended than pleased—-and when offended they’re deadly!
Most of all, they possess more votes!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I don’t know about you, but I wasn’t particularly surprised this week when I learned that the leading GOP presidential contender, Willard (Mitt) Romney has decided that he cares about neither the poor nor the rich since the rich can take care of themselves and the poor have a "safety net" under them. As for you in the middle class, the socio/political domain of workers who earn between $50,000 and $250,000, the handsome, articulate former Massachusetts governor has finally discovered you.
Up until now, you, the middle class, have been the strategic domain of President Obama who has kept his pledge not to increase taxes on you. Of course, the president’s opponents love to point out the obligations that “Obama Care” puts on everyone -- especially the middle class -- which they insist amounts to a tax increase. It is a reasonable argument when you’re being strictly political rather than responsibly objective. After all, a tax increase is more money taken for income taxes under the status quo, where healthcare is an additional service being offered which extends the status quo. Whatever position you take, the question remains: should the president especially care about classes of Americans?
Harry Truman, in had his usual straightforward way of looking at a president’s responsibilities, asserted that "the rich have the luxury of being able to pay lobbyists to come down to Washington to lobby Congress to meet their demands. There’s nothing wrong with them. As for the rest of America, the only lobbyist they have is the President of the United States. That’s his job -- to look out for the interests of the average person.”
The idea that the president should particularly care about anyone’s welfare is a relatively recent expectation.
In the early years of our republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison held the view that a president should be politically “disinterested” in the outcome of public affairs as they directly affect the people’s lives. Recent scholars have suggested that one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson (our third president) fell out with Aaron Burr (our third vice president) was because Burr was more interested in serving people’s needs than he was in being the expected “disinterested” public servant. (Certainly his duel with Alexander Hamilton didn’t help, but it wasn’t the source of Jefferson’s unhappiness with Aaron Burr.) Presidential policies generally had to do with the broad interests of the young United States: our relations with Britain and France (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison from 1794 through 1815), Indian affairs (Monroe through Cleveland from 1819 until 1887), and the Civil War (Lincoln through Hayes from 1861 through 1877). As late as the 1920s, Calvin Coolidge vetoed the McNary- Haugen Farm Relief Act designed to provide badly needed financial assistance particularly to western farmers who’d been plagued for several years by floods, droughts and soil erosion. Coolidge and many other Republicans saw direct assistance to farmers as “class legislation.” For the most part, government wasn’t seen as a legitimate tool on behalf of everyday working people until the New Deal. Thus, only since FDR has there been a debate about the legitimate role government should play in people’s lives.
Hence, the question: what should a perspective president care about?
During the course of one of his more folksy 1930s Fireside Chats, FDR put it this way:
“I like to think of our country as one home in which the interests of each member are bound up with the happiness of us all. We ought to know, by now, that the welfare of your family or mine cannot be bought at the sacrifice of our neighbor’s family; that our well-being depends, in the long run, on the well-being of our neighbors.”
FDR’s appeal brought about a solid political coalition of some farmers, laborers, students, Southern conservatives, northern and western liberals, and intellectuals that established moderate forward-looking government from the 1930s through the 1960s. Even Richard Nixon insisted that if a presidential candidate is to be successful, he must appeal to conservatives during the primaries but move to the left to accommodate the center during the general election (the opposite extreme to center in the Democratic party).
Hence, after months of appealing to the right, Governor Romney appears ready now to keel sharply to the center.
Will the GOP’s right wing allow him to do that? Will they interpret his move leftward as an effort to protect conservatism against the slings and arrows of the left until he can start practicing conservatism in the White House? Or will they see his move as a betrayal of conservative dogma to which all of the GOP candidates have paid such intense homage during this campaign?
Is it the poor, the rich or the middle class to which any successful presidential candidate must appeal? I say it’s the middle class. However, of the three class categories, the middle class is the most fickle and therefore the most dangerous. Their demands, resentments, and needs are so intertwined yet contradictory that they’re more easily offended than pleased—-and when offended they’re deadly!
Most of all, they possess more votes!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)