DISAPPOINTED? – NOT ME!

By Edwin Cooney

You don’t have to read very much or very long to learn how disappointed in President Barack Obama almost everyone seems to be.

As president, of course, he’s answerable for almost every problem, or perceived problem, we face beyond the very personal conflicts and disappointments that affect us in our daily lives.  To the degree that these conflicts and disappointments are brought on by economic, environmental and social conditions, he is to a large degree rightfully held responsible for them as well.  After all, criticism (even harsh criticism) goes with the territory. Additionally, according to much political commentary these days, he’s even responsible for how we feel about him. Wow! What a responsibility!

As one reads socio/political commentary today, it appears that Barack Obama is responsible for your disappointment, your anger, your prejudices, your reluctance, your fear, and your discomfort.  After all, if he enticed your vote and hasn’t performed to your satisfaction, he has earned your disappointment, hasn’t he?  If, on the other hand, you didn’t like him from the instant you first heard or saw his name and especially his physiognomy, his daily notoriety is a personal offense for which Barack Obama alone is both responsible and accountable!

Now, I gladly stipulate that it is perfectly patriotic to be disappointed in President Obama.  Liberal ideologues are especially disappointed that the 2010 healthcare package wasn’t “single payer”, that climate change legislation has been too slow, that the president’s stimulus package wasn’t big enough, and that he’s been too willing to keep the United States involved in foreign conflict.  That’s how liberals feel regardless of the wisdom or practicality of these goals and objectives.

Professor Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center of International Scholars insists that the core of the president’s problem is his character.  Miller says that he is neither partisan, populist nor revolutionary.  He is dispassionate, imprecise and, worst of all, disconnected.  Hence, insists Professor Miller, he is constantly at war with himself.  His tendency to see all sides of a question or issue and his willingness to compromise or conciliate make it unlikely that he will ever be regarded as a “transforming president.”

President Obama is especially vulnerable to ideological criticism due to the nature of his 2008 presidential campaign.  He promised significant changes in our domestic and international outlook if he were elected president.  “YES WE CAN,” was his 2008 battle cry and it brought to him the support of both moderate and liberal-oriented Americans.  It is of course these Americans who are most disappointed with the president’s performance.  His chronic GOP and Tea Party opposition delight in almost any Obama failure because, after all, their agenda is exclusively patriotic and exclusively moral.  They’ve suspended patriotism until one of their own is elected sometime in the distant future.

Getting back to the president’s liberal or progressive constituency, a generous portion of their disappointment toward the president has as much to do with their rigidity as it does with the president’s intentions or actions.  Liberals, like their conservative cousins, are primarily driven by dogmatic standards and ideals.  For idealists, even practicality (or if you prefer expediency) is dictated by dogmatism.  Ideals rather than objectivity too often dominate our reaction to events. 

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012, but not because I had a specific agenda (although I am generally far more sympathetic to the liberal or progressive agenda than I am to that of the conservatives).  My vote was for a less rigid ideology in national policy.  I’ve always liked the concept of thesis (meaning and idea) coupled with an antithesis (meaning an opposite idea) to create a synthesis: a new idea or concept.  To me, President Obama is a mixture of dynamism and reserve, enabling him to function “outside the box,” as they say.

As for presidential disappointments and shortcomings, a brief trip down History Lane will make the point:

When George Washington completed his stellar presidential performance, not one, but two political parties were formed to improve upon his legacy.

When Andrew Jackson completed his eight-year presidency, as successful as he was credited with being, he left us with three legacies, only one of which was positive: a broader and stronger democracy, a “trail of tears” (Indian tears, of course), and an economic depression.

President Abraham Lincoln quashed the rebellious South and emancipated the slaves, but he brought no sense of national unity or tranquility.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln stirred up more social unrest than probably any president before or since.

Woodrow Wilson was a successful progressive on domestic issues, but his insistence on his own moral superiority toward his political opponents destroyed the League of Nations thus paving the road to the Second World War.

It’s been observed that “FDR lifted a crippled nation to its feet from his wheelchair,” but the world he left behind him was needlessly fraught with nuclear terror.

Of course, neither Washington, Jackson, nor Lincoln campaigned for the presidency.  Hence, seldom is voter disappointment a part of how they are historically evaluated.  Wilson and FDR certainly campaigned, and FDR is forever remembered for breaking two promises.  In 1932, he promised to balance Herbert Hoover’s unbalanced budget.  In 1940, he promised to “...keep our boys out of foreign wars.”

As Barack Obama begins the second half of his second term, much of his constituency is disappointed due to his imperfections.  Very little socio/political commentary these days praises his name.  If it can be said that he’s brought much criticism onto himself, it is equally fair to observe that his critics have been neither restrained nor shy.

As I’ve often written in these weekly musings and asserted to family and countless friends, I don’t love anyone because they’re perfect.  I expect and even believe that most of us do our very best when we must. Certainly our presidents must do their best according to their education, social and professional experiences, and the intellectual and moral fiber of their being.  No, I’m not disappointed in President Obama, even as I gladly stipulate that there’s always room for improvement.

When I was in grammar school, two of my teachers used to admonish us that “if you can’t say anything good about someone, it’s best that you say nothing at all.”

Sadly or realistically, I’ve discovered that the world doesn’t work that way.  In fact, the world functions much as Theodore Roosevelt’s oldest daughter (who was known as “Princess Alice”) handled her business of evaluating public personages:

“If you can’t say anything good about anyone, come sit next to me.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS – WHEN DO THEY HAPPEN?

By Edwin Cooney

I got a package the other day.  I knew it was coming and what it contained.  However, until the instant I opened it, its significance eluded me.

It was the last of the packages I prepared for moving East a year and a half ago.  However, not until I opened it did I realize that my move East from Northern California was finally complete.  Except for my lads, and a host of wonderful friends, nothing that belongs to me remains in Northern California.

Suddenly, I wondered as this thought occurred to me: now that the move is over, when did it begin?  Did it begin when my new bride said “yes” or when my previous lady friend said “forget it,” or when my first marriage ended?

A person might be tempted to question why it matters unless, of course, this person is a student of history as I am.  Why it should matter may not be easily understood, but for this student of history, the attraction comes from my belief that each life in microcosm is like the history of every society created by humankind.  Nations are born, mature, and grow. It takes time to gain experience and wisdom.  However, ever so slowly nations die (or if you prefer they evolve) just as human beings do.  Nations, like individual people, are inevitably mortal.  Nations and people have beginnings and ends.  Whether we look backward or forward, we are invariably looking for the horizon where the visible and the infinite merge into the impenetrable and the incomprehensible.

During a broadcast from the BBC in early 1942, Winston Churchill, while reviewing the major events of World War II up to that time, observed to those who wondered how long the war was likely to last: “Ah, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.”

When you reflect on the events in your own life to better comprehend their causes and effects, as well as their significances and meanings, you are acting as your own personal historian.  Such reflective exercises can be refreshing and even energizing when conducted at the right time and in the right spirit.  If such reflections are undertaken in a spirit of self-loathing and degradation, they are exceedingly destructive.  If they are undertaken with a determination to better understand where to go from here into a more satisfying future, then the past can be really and truly enlightening!

The late news commentator Paul Harvey once observed that the United States of America was the first country in the history of the world born with a birth certificate: the Declaration of Independence.  So, let’s consider, as I have from time to time in these musings, America’s life stages.  Its infancy was perhaps 1776 when it was born until 1789 when it became a “republic.”  Its second stage or childhood would be between 1789 when George Washington became our first president and 1845 when it entered the Mexican War.  Next came its adolescence during the Civil War and post Civil War era: 1845 to 1900.  Early adulthood could be 1900 to 1945 during which a newly united America was launched reluctantly with fits and starts into the world beyond its ocean girt boundaries.  Young adulthood could be the era from 1945 to 2000 as America was buffeted by international conflict and social changes here at home.  Mature adulthood may well be the era in which we are living.  The world melting pot which Americans once took pride in when it accepted the gift of the Statue of Liberty is taking effect just as our aging body politic is going through its own significant changes.  The ever-changing world keeps adult America constantly on its toes just as professional and parental responsibilities keep mature adults guessing. The lives, fortunes, and values of over three hundred million Americans are a hodgepodge of values, causes, effects, and meanings.  Where will these conflicts take us?  Might we recognize our America in another century?  (Note: Do you think Henry the Eighth would have recognized Victorian England 300 years after his reign?)  Ought we to be able to comprehend America after our time is up?  Would Washington and Jefferson have recognized Teddy Roosevelt’s America?  Should they have been able to do so?

Ah, beginnings and endings – when did they occur in your own life?  Some insist that you began at conception while others insist that you became you only at birth.  When did your beginning end? Did it end when you graduated from diapers or when you attended kindergarten or when you became a teenager?  Were you really and truly an adult at age 21 or were you only legally an adult at that age?  If you were legally married at the altar, were you emotionally and spiritually married at the altar or did that only happen later?

Yes, indeed, when it comes to beginnings and endings, there’s so much to think about. 

Nuts! I just remembered! A couple pairs of my socks remain in Northern California. What do you think? Is my move really complete or is it all an illusion?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

AMERICA’S REAL NATIONAL PASTIME

By Edwin Cooney

           

I know, you’ve always thought that baseball was America’s national pastime – me, too.  Unfortunately, you and I are sadly mistaken!  A new breed of politics and politicians constitutes America’s real national game.

Up until the last two years of President George Washington’s second term, he had governed without the use of political parties. Then in 1795, political partisanship began to take root and affect “the body politic” of the new republic. Both his Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and his Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, in addition to their other virtues and talents, turned out to be dedicated, practical politicians.  As early as April 11^th, 1789, nineteen days before General Washington took the presidential oath at Federal Hall in New York City, Hamilton, one of Washington’s closest advisors, gave John Fenno, owner of a newspaper called “The Gazette of the United States,” the contract to print all government publications.  Additionally, Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay and other believers in a strong central government published political commentary in Fenno’s paper – sometimes under their own names and sometimes under pseudonyms.

By 1793, Thomas Jefferson had hired Philip Freneau (a man known as “the poet of the American Revolution”) as a French translator for the State Department.  Jefferson, who spoke fluent French, needed no translator. Freneau, being of French descent and aligned politically with Jefferson, published Jeffersonian and Madisonian Democratic-Republican tracts in his “National Gazette” even as he was compensated by all of the taxpayers, whether “Jeffersonian” or otherwise.  Thus, long before Washington’s death on the night of December 14^th, 1799, some of the most negative elements of partisan party politics were already national institutions.

From Washington’s time right up until that of Teddy Roosevelt, politics was about meeting the needs of broad constituencies.  Federalists, Whigs and early Republicans sought to court and feed capitalism and commerce with federal favors -- it was called “the American system.”  On the other hand, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats (originally known as Democratic-Republicans) courted and fed rich southern slaveholding planters and small “yeoman farmers” or frontier settlers.

Today, 221 years after the founding of Hamilton’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans, we live amidst the complaints and self-righteous justifications of two governmental doctrines. They are doctrinaire conservatism and liberalism. 

Conservatism, which has its roots in Hamilton’s Federalist Party as well as in the Whig and very early Republican Party, articulates these five basic guidelines:  belief in the strict interpretation (or strict construction) of the United States Constitution; belief that human rights are the natural gift of property rights (in other words, that property rights are superior to human rights); a strong belief in the freedom to associate or disassociate with others without fear of government regulation or regimentation; belief in the supremacy and morality of pure economic capitalism; and, finally, belief that government that is separate from the influence of religious faith is immoral government.

Modern doctrinaire liberalism, which is primarily the offspring of early Twentieth Century progressivism, is compliant to the following guidelines:  belief in the elasticity of the United States Constitution (in other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit a law or policy it is automatically constitutional); dedication to the supremacy of human rights over property rights; insistence on the government’s obligation to oversee and regulate the lawful activities that affect the public welfare even when employing private profitmaking institutions; belief that the assurance of equal opportunity is a public obligation and not a matter of private choice; and, finally, belief in the absolute separation of church and state.

All these political guidelines (or, if you insist, principles) have a new twist in Twenty-first Century America.

Back in 1789 at the dawn of our new republic, royalty, which had dominated society since the beginning of time, was replaced by the most fascinating, manipulative and maddening species of humankind imaginable: the politician.  For most of the two centuries which followed, this needy but useful being appealed to us from the perch of the successful soldier, lawyer, or public official.  Many politicians served us well as inspirational teachers, jurists, and statesmen.  Then, something happened.

On the evening of Sunday, March 12^th, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, seated in a small metal wheelchair, rolled behind a set of microphones in the East Room of the White House and began to talk calmly, simply and directly to the American people about the banking crisis.  His cultured Harvard/patrician accent was like a balm to the nerves of a people who, even as he spoke, were in the midst of losing their homes, their bank accounts and their confidence in our form of government.  Hence, beginning that Sabbath March night, the president and the politician became a person to the American people in a way never known before.  In other words, that night government actions truly became our personal business in the starkest way imaginable.  Since that night, the motives and behaviors of men named Franklin, Harry, Ike, Jack, Lyndon, Richard, Jerry, Jimmy, Ron, the two George Bushs, Bill, and Barack have become as central to our concerns and to the evaluation of us as a people as almost any public issue.

Like the movie stars, music performers, and sports figures we’ve adopted as heroes in our personal lives and national games, it seems to this observer that we have lately allowed ourselves to be entertained rather than to be guided and served by politicians.  Even worse, we have allowed ourselves to be entertained by politics itself.  It may well be then that politics -- like anything else that lulls or entertains us -- has become our master!

I don’t know if that reality concerns you, but it sure does me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A DISHEARTENING CORRESPONDENCE

By Edwin Cooney

In mid August, while I was innocently vacationing in Northern California, the message you see below made its way into my mailbox:

“...THE POPE’S CONFESSIONAL GUIDELINES... So I went to confession on Saturday evening before Mass and started with the usual…

 

“Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It’s been 4 weeks since my last confession.

Last night, I beat the crap out of an Obama supporter."

 

The Priest responds, "My son, I'm here to forgive your sins, not to discuss your community service.”

(Note: The piece, at least the version sent me, doesn’t describe what the Pope’s “confessional guidelines” are or what they do. However, you’re going to have to do some pretty serious arm twisting to convince me that the Holy Father would even consider sanctioning violence against people who’ve supported and voted for President Obama!) 

So, who do you suppose sent this to me?

It could have been some radical liberal socialist angry with Obama for not nationalizing the banks as well as the auto industry back in 2009 when he had the chance.  It’s conceivable that such a “radical lib” is still morose over Obama’s decision not to advocate for “single payer” health care substituting the hodgepodge of public and private nonsense in “Obama care.”  That same “radical lib” might also be angry over drones in the Middle East, slow progress on climate change, or perhaps because the president was too slow instituting the new method of saluting military personnel with his coffee cup!  (Come to think of it, none of that really sounds right.)

Let’s see now!  Who could have sent it to me?  No! Don’t try and convince me that some conservative sent this piece of disrespect for the twice-elected President of the United States of America!  After all, former President Ronald Reagan, who had the respect of that former liberal Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, would never allow such a sentiment to pass a patriot’s lips or drip from a conservative’s pen.

There are, of course, two relevant questions here:

First, how can any true American patriot see this bit of ironic humor as being in good taste let alone the least bit funny? Second, why am I allowing what some might dismiss as a piece of humor to get under my skin?

What disturbs me is threefold:  fear that the advocacy of violence to the supporter of any public servant represents another tear in the fabric of the trust Americans ought to hold for its elected leadership.   Second, it seems in recent years that opposition to sitting chief executives is way too personal.  Third, I fear that the real root of this humor is racial.

As for my first point, every president has been the recipient of outrageous and often undeserved rancor.  Jimmy Carter rightly asserted in 1980 that criticism, unfair or not, “...goes with the territory.”  However, the attacks and the characterization of the last three presidents have been increasingly personal.  To conservatives, Clinton was little more than a gangster.  Liberals never forgave Bush #43 for the 2000 election.

Although, the opposition to President Obama is intensely doctrinaire (which is not only understandable but respectably traditional), way too much of it is both personal and racial.  Everything, from his heritage, to his birthright, to his religion, and yes, his race, draws a degree of enmity that’s not only unfair to him, but unhealthy to our future well being.  Even more, it’s downright unpatriotic.

The advocates of every political doctrine have occasionally crossed the boundary of fairness and good taste when referring to the personalities and policies of the opposition.  After all, no social, political or religious group has a monopoly on attributes good or bad, wise or foolish.

As for the likelihood that a conservative sent this piece to me, that is too horrifying to imagine.  Conservatism is dedicated to the freedom of all Americans including Obama supporters, isn’t it?  Conservatism at its best energizes creativity, investment, and stability at home and abroad.  However, conservatism as currently practiced is especially vulnerable to abuse, especially toward the most vulnerable among us, because it proclaims that the most successful Americans have been rewarded by the “Almighty.”  Hence, 21^st Century conservatives generally (although not always) side with the mighty against the less mighty.

To conserve is to manage and preserve the resources that are the birthright of us all.  That goes for everything from living wages to the benefit of the doubt when weighing matters of private and public morality.  At its worst, it invites dogmatic and indignant self-righteousness toward those who don’t share its values and encourages its proponents to regard themselves as morally superior to everyone else.

Okay, it’s confession time.  Of course, the above piece was sent me by a dedicated conservative, a gentleman proud of what he believes in rather than being merely respectful of the elements that make up his belief system.  Therein lays the Achilles heel of his political faith.

As traditionally followed by John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge and perhaps even by Ronald Reagan, conservatism was about the management and preservation of precious economic, social, and moral resources.  (Conservatism has never been about preservation of natural resources such as rivers and forests, because, like their liberal cousins, they too like the use of valuable resources free of charge.)

As evidenced by the piece that began this commentary, modern conservatism has its roots in Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 decision to free minorities and assist the poor.  With that decision, LBJ freed his own party, as well as his personal past, from its traditional advocacy of state supported ignorance and prejudice.

Sadly, the party of Abraham Lincoln has thoroughly lapped up and digested that old Democratic Party waste.  Modern conservatism fosters messages like this designed not only to disguise the application of meanness and bigotry with humor, but even designed to abuse pronouncements of the Holy Father!

Can you believe it?  Unfortunately, it’s all too real!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A LETTER TO SPEAKER NEWT

By Edwin Cooney

Dear Speaker Newt,

I recently read with interest and amazement your insistence that there were five strategic failures in what you called the president’s “pretty good” speech of Wednesday, September 10^th, 2014 outlining his new and more aggressive policy toward ISIL.

Although your concerns regarding the status of Qatar and Yemen, and the possible length and depth of our involvement have some substance, your tone and justification of them smacks more of partisan politics than patriotic concern.  If I possessed your historical knowledge and respectable celebrity status, I’d have sought a personal meeting with the president before going public with my concerns.  What’s even more amazing, given your considerable knowledge of history, governmental experience, and intellect, is the way you have contorted the history of our successful struggle with Communism to quarrel with President Obama on a matter of considerable international importance.

Unlike Communism, which was preached but never practiced as a worker’s paradise on earth, ISIL isn’t doctrinaire; it’s just plain gangsterism.  Even worse, you legitimize this international thuggary by suggesting that if they are successful, they will have the capacity to establish a government or “Islamic Caliphate.”  You know too much history not to realize that there’s a huge difference between fighting and governing.  

Hence, your first complaint that the president has failed to “define a global strategy to defeat doctrinaire radical Islam” is misleading.  There’s nothing doctrinaire or even genuinely Islamic about ISIL.  After all, Muslims are among ISIL’s tragic victims. 

Your second complaint that President Obama has failed to set “a positive goal” or strategy for combating radical Islam indicates significantly less faith on your part than you had a decade ago as to who we are and what we stand for and its importance throughout the world community.  As far as I’m aware, you never doubted the righteousness of our cause when President Bush (2001-2009) insisted we had a moral obligation to obliterate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2002 and 2003.

Your third complaint, that the president offered no plan to compel “our so-called allies” (as you sarcastically labeled them) to adapt sufficiently draconian measures to combat radical Islam within their borders ignores an historic reality with which you’re more than aware. Speaker Newt, you know better than a lot of Americans that our NATO allies fostered Communist parties within their borders throughout the entire cold war.  Hence, despite the NKVD and the KGB, Communism could not and did not prevail.  That American and western European citizens would join ISIL is exceedingly disturbing, but it won’t even come close to being fatal to our national survival.

Your fourth complaint that the president failed to adequately prepare us for a long hard struggle is clearly your most valid point.  No president, not even Mr. Reagan during Iran Contra, has leveled with the American people concerning the consequences of his actions especially when it comes to foreign affairs.  (Actually, Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Carter may be an exception to that observation!)  Perhaps John McCain was right during the 2008 campaign when he suggested that it would be more realistic to keep boots on the ground in Iraq as we have in South Korea since 1953.

As for your fifth and final complaint, that President Obama failed to ask Congress for adequate resources to win this kind of war, that is the sort of suggestion you, as a history professor, might receive from a student in History 101.  After all, sir, Congress has yet to even declare war on ISIL.  Therefore, as has been the case so many times since World War II, we are fighting on foreign soil absent a declaration of war just as President Reagan did in Granada, briefly in Libya, and poorly in Lebanon.  As for Congress having a “constitutional obligation,” there’s nothing in the constitution that forces Congress to declare war.  Congress may have a prerogative, but it clearly has no obligation to do anything.

Your reaction to the president’s speech is clearly more partisan than it is either constructive or instructive.  You complain on the one hand that the president and his team clearly haven’t thought through the war and then you suggest that having begun this war, justifiable as it is, Congress ought to be investigating the Commander-In-Chief and his administration during “war time,” a time of national emergency under any definition.

Mr. Speaker, you’ve probably forgotten more history than most of us have ever learned.  You’ve held an office second in line to the presidency and several professorships.  You could, if you so chose, be a knowledgeable and instructive educational force that people across the political spectrum would be compelled to listen to and learn from.  However, you appear to believe that your political views outrank in importance your professional knowledge.  I suppose I’m jealous, but had I been second in line to the presidency as you were between January 1995 and December 1998 and possessed as do you substantial academic credentials, I would hope to use them as a teacher rather than as a partisan preacher.

As you know, just after Great Britain went to war against Germany, Winston Churchill in a speech from the BBC wondered out loud about the likely actions of Russia.  He said they were a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.  But, he said, perhaps there is a key and that key is Russian national interest.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, to this observer that Churchilian observation about Soviet Russia appears also to be an apt observation about you!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IT ISN’T ABOUT EVIL YOU KNOW; IT’S REALLY WHAT EVIL’S ALL ABOUT!

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, ISIL or ISIS, take your pick, is evil.  The question, however, is whether that’s a good enough reason for us to destroy them.  Might there be a more compelling reason than their evil nature that thoroughly justifies President Obama’s determination to do them in?  I think so!

Sadly, people commit acts of “evil” such as murder, rape, theft, and deception every day.  The forces behind individual acts of evil are anger, resentment, greed, feelings of inferiority and perceived rejection by society.  Just societies seek to counter potential individual acts of evil in several ways.   First, they create an expectation of justice.  Second, they pass laws and create institutions to punish and thus control those guilty of evil deeds.  Additionally, they foster institutions to ease people’s anxiety, poverty and spiritual pain.  Fortunately, modern practitioners of medicine, psychology, and spiritual guidance are increasingly coming to realize that acts of evil don’t mean that most people are evil by nature.

Certainly people and the nations they populate have committed acts of evil since the dawn of creation. Some of the greatest human civilizations have not only prospered, but have flourished while creating and perpetuating “evil” institutions!

There was much that was evil in Greek, Roman, Spanish, French, and British societies.  Even we, the United States of America, the land of the free, home of the brave, the abiding place of noble men and women and authors of freedom and democracy, have done evil things.  After all, would the great North American Indian tribes have been justified if they had regarded as hoards of evil the ever-advancing Spanish, Dutch, French and British colonists who, without provocation, invaded and occupied the tribes’ native land?  Might the tribes of black Africa, whose lands were invaded, again without provocation, have legitimately regarded British and Americans slave traders as disciples of evil? Finally, didn’t President Reagan, after labeling the Soviets as “the evil empire,” negotiate and accommodate representatives of that “evil empire” before its political disintegration in 1991?

Last Wednesday night, President Barack Obama announced a four-point strategy that he asserted must be applied in a successful effort to destroy ISIL.  First, the United States will provide air cover and strategic bombing to destroy ISIL’s military forces and fighting capacity.  Second, we will work to cut off their financial resources.  Third, we will coalesce with a group of nations                     to accomplish the first two objectives.  Finally, we will insist that the government of Iraq and other Middle Eastern governments we support institute social, political and religious equity in that region of the world.

Policies and practices we regard as “evil” such as mass genocide, enslavement, political oppression, racial, ethnic and gender discrimination are hardly original with ISIL. They have been practiced by most “civilized” societies throughout human history as well as by us, meaning of course, the USA.  Hence, the question has to be: “What is it about ISIL that requires its absolute obliteration?”

The answer lies in its stated brazenness, in its flaunted disregard for any other political or spiritual entity except itself.  As the president pointed out, ISIL is not Islamic as many of its victims are Muslims. Nor, the president insists, is it a state.  Insofar as I am aware, its creed or reason for existence is its own perpetuation and dominance over any entity that might conceivably be willing to coexist with it.  In that way, it is comparable to Hitler’s SS, Pol Pot’s death squads and Stalin’s acts of midnight terror.  It appears to lack a willingness to even recognize, let alone acknowledge, the existence of anyone else’s worthiness.  The immediate danger lies in its proximity to the levers of power in two states, Syria and Iraq.  In the final analysis, ISIL is nothing more than a gang armed with sophisticated weapons and stolen money.  As such, it redresses no grievance nor does it seek justice.  ISIL is about ISIL and nothing else.  

ISIL has blatantly charted its mission and labeled itself.  Its methods are certainly evil, but its repulsiveness has to do with what it is all about: the perpetuation of gangsterism.

Unfortunately, evil as a human frailty pervades the planet.  It masters the weak and too often tempts the righteous.  Evil is a powerful source but, like all other human traits, it possesses within its DNA a vital weakness.

Happily, when “evil” compels men and women to become that which is intolerable in every society, specifically thugs and gangsters, that’s when “evil” really and truly sows the seeds of its own destruction!

That’s how I view both “evil” and ISIL!  How do you view them?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY