DOES IT MATTER?

By Edwin Cooney

A few weeks ago, a reader of these weekly musings asked me to stipulate in a column why it matters whom we elect to serve as America’s 45th president next November.  There are numerous ways of looking at the inquiry. However, there’s only one constructive answer to that question. Before offering it, let’s briefly examine the overall nature and historic conduct of the presidency.

The president’s ultimate powers lie in the meaning and scope of his command and executive or administrative authorities.  Between the presidencies of George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt, the powers of the presidency were executed either in reaction to a circumstance (such as war or a rebellion) or to a condition such as a need to respond to possible foreign encroachment (as in the case of the Monroe Doctrine).  The constitution outlines the president’s administrative duties rather than his or her socio/political options.  Eighteenth and nineteenth century presidents weren’t expected to solve social crises which is why issues such as the legitimacy, existence and the possible advancement of slavery went wanting only to be settled by civil war.  Then it all began to change with the dawn of the turbulent 20th century -- for along came Teddy Roosevelt.

Upon the death of William McKinley, TR went into action after becoming President just as he had as Civil Service Commissioner under President Benjamin Harrison, as Police Commissioner of New York City, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinley and as Governor of New York State. In his first annual message to Congress in December 1901, he asserted that even with all the good that private enterprise had done for the nation, for the health of the free market, and for the protection of consumers, big business needed to be regulated. In October 1902 during the Anthracite Coal Strike, Roosevelt forced management to meet with labor to settle the dispute.  If management had refused even to meet with union representatives, it was likely that TR’s northeastern GOP constituents would freeze and thus turn into Democrats by Election Day.  Thus, the young bombastic Teddy Roosevelt took charge of the negotiations personally presiding over the meeting from a wheelchair since he had suffered a leg injury in a recent carriage accident.  While the result wasn’t recognition of the right to unionize as Teddy had hoped, a temporary settlement was reached which lasted through the winters of 1902 and 1903.  Hence, the new, young, energetic, idealistic, and determined president rescued his party while preserving his political prestige. Next, TR went on to shepherd passage of The Conservation Act of 1902 which set aside public lands primarily in the west for the preservation of wildlife and our national resources.  Passage in 1906 of the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug Acts protected the health of consumers in the wake of decades of shoddy food and drug preparation practices.  Thus between 1901 and 1909 TR began involving the government in a way that affected the lives of the people more directly and continuously than ever before.  By broadening the scope of presidential responsibilities, early, mid and late progressive or liberal presidencies have brought about an expectation that government is a legitimate tool for protecting the livelihoods of the people.

This is in contrast to the conservative or more traditional outlook toward government which holds that the only legitimate responsibility of the federal government is to protect us from foreign threat or invasion.  As conservatives see it, your health, education, safety, and prosperity under the constitution are not the responsibility of the federal government.  Therefore, presidents and congresses pass laws and appoint judges they conclude are most likely to adhere to their distinct ideals of governing.

From time to time, such as in the 1950s and 1960s, the two major political parties tended to be somewhat alike in their socio/political outlook.  Southern Conservatives hated federal encroachment in civil rights but more than welcomed the federal government when it appropriated money for badly needed federal projects or, if you prefer, federal jobs.  Northern liberals were suspicious of the military industrial establishment when it justified the Vietnam War, but like their Conservative Southern cousins, they accepted the employment it offered.

There are those who will tell you that America is lately controlled by certain powerful families or banks or international ideological entities rather than by the collective will of its people. If you buy such conclusions, you surrender to a reality that doesn’t exist.  Change, however small it often seems to be, is inevitable. History demonstrates that fundamental change takes place when a significant percentage of the American people consent to strong executive and legislative leadership as they did in 1933 under FDR and in 1981 under Ronald Reagan.  Otherwise, even inevitable change occurs at a glacial pace. There are too many corporations, causes, and politicians competing for your allegiance for what you believe in not to matter.  If you believe you don’t make a difference, you may relieve yourself from the heady demands of citizenship, but by so doing you starve America of its most valuable natural resource.

That resource is spelled Y O U!  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

  

“LIAR! LIAR….!"

By Edwin Cooney

It’s my guess that it’s not necessary that I complete the above taunt most of us used when we were “kids”!  What’s amazing is how much Republicans and other opponents of Hillary Clinton are depending on this phrase to prevent her from officially entering 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. next January 20th!  I hereby offer some advice — forget it, it won’t work!

Here’s the absolute truth.  For more than one reason, labeling her a “liar” misses the mark entirely.  We’ve had successful political candidates vulnerable to the liar designation almost from the very beginning of the republic.  First of all, here’s a list of successful presidential liars:

Thomas Jefferson promised during his inaugural that he believed all Americans were “Federalists and Republican-Democrats.”  He didn’t mean a word of it as he hired Republican-Democrats and fired Federalists! Second, Jefferson broke his word to strictly interpret the constitution when he purchased the Louisiana territory.  What Jefferson is primarily remembered for is all of the benefits of that acquisition to America’s wealth, security and abundance rather than the violation of his publicly stated strict constructionists’ constitutional principles.

Grover Cleveland basically lied or misrepresented who he was when he represented himself as a friend of working men and then sent the army in to stop the 1893 Pullman strike.  His sop to laboring men and women was the adoption in 1894 of Labor Day.

Franklin Roosevelt promised the people in 1932 that he’d balance the budget in 1933.  However, he more than unbalanced the budget.  He saved the homes, farms, bank accounts and businesses of thousands of grateful citizens who came to love him and some pretty arrogant conservatives who hated him even as they prospered.  Eight years later, he promised to “keep our boys out of World War II,” but eventually molded those boys into a grand army that won our last “necessary war.”  FDR often said he never let his left hand know what his right hand was doing.

Dwight Eisenhower publicly lied about the purpose of the U2 flight that was shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1st, 1960 that precipitated an increase of “cold war” tensions.  We forgave him because, after all, he was Ike.

John Kennedy, during the 1960 presidential campaign, assured Americans we were behind in the “space race” when he knew we really weren’t.  Then, he brought about Camelot which included a successful race to the moon and a tax cut proposal which 1980s and 1990s conservatives would grasp to their prosperous bosoms.

Lyndon B. Johnson promised that American boys weren’t going to fight a war that should be fought by Asian boys.  That was a major policy statement during the 1964 presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater.  President Johnson did ultimately pay in unpopularity for that “lie,” but even today he rates in the top 10 presidents we’ve ever elected.

Richard Nixon lied so frequently that it’s hard to choose one lie.  However, the biggest lie was his promise during the 1968 campaign not to interfere with LBJ’s foreign policy.  Then, just before the election when it appeared that there might actually be a possibility for peace, he privately told the South Vietnamese government to withhold its cooperation with the Johnson administration because he’d give them a better deal.  Some believe candidate Nixon’s act was worse than a lie, that it was downright treasonous.

Ronald Reagan promised he’d balance the budget by 1984 and proceeded to leave us in a debt that was over three times what it was when Jimmy Carter left office.  However, Reagan was “the great communicator” whose anecdotes were so eloquently delivered that he was labeled “the Teflon president” by Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.  (It was once observed that had President Reagan driven through a car wash with the top down on his presidential convertible, Jimmy Carter would have gotten wet!)

Now, like a number of Hillary’s “lies,” some of these are petty, but truthfulness is generally not what the voter is looking for.  Voters are looking more for acknowledgment of their fears and anger than they are what specific strategy a potential president will use to tackle a national or international crisis.  Second, few Americans really know what it takes to have Congress convert a presidential promise into law.  Third, all of the presidential candidates, with the possible exception of Governor Kasich, are as vulnerable as Hillary on socio/political and even spiritual grounds.  Ted Cruz is so arrogant that few of his senate colleagues find him at all easy to work with.  Mr. Trump is openly anti-ethnic, anti-Islamic, and anti-women’s movement.  Ideological conservatives, both socio and economic, don’t really trust him. On top of that, his crudeness exacerbates his negative image more than it draws people to him.  Bernie Sanders won’t ultimately be able to escape the socialist label and, sadly, his ethnicity and his age are likely to hurt him once election time draws nigh.  As I see it, not only is Hillary far from being the liar too many people enjoy saying she is, but too often in the past Americans have demonstrated their willingness to be lied to.  The 1984 election comes to mind when Walter Mondale announced during his acceptance speech that he’d raise taxes and President Reagan insisted he’d never raise taxes.  Then came the tax reform bill of 1986 that brought tax increases in the form of social security payroll taxes within it, in exchange for further cuts in corporate and high end individual taxes.  Walter Mondale was joyfully proclaimed a political fool for telling the voter what he intended to do while President Reagan, who was so smooth and eloquent, quipped his way to re-election.  Remember the second debate when he promised not to hold Mondale’s comparative youth against him during the campaign?  Also, what do Hillary opponents expect Hillary to lie about during the campaign?  Do they doubt that she’s more progressive then Mr. Trump, Senator Cruz or Governor Kasich? Do they expect her to portray herself as somebody she really isn’t? Which GOP candidate has more experience in foreign affairs than Hillary Clinton?

So the question is: How much does it really matter if Hillary Clinton has told a whopper or two or three?

Some of Hillary’s strongest detractors still long for the days of Richard Nixon.  Still others long to be wooed once again by Ronald Reagan.  Then there are those who love wallowing in their own personal indignation!  After all, we’ve accustomed ourselves to being the victims of politicians!  We enjoy asserting that “…all politicians are crooks” which thereafter frees us from even caring who we elect.  Even more, lies energize too many of us.  Additionally, so many of us enjoy our sense of indignation.

Sometimes I wonder who lies more to us — our politicians or ourselves!

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

BASEBALL - A GAME OF IMPROBABILITIES

By Edwin Cooney

Probabilities and improbabilities are hardly terms used in sports or baseball. Nevertheless, with increasing team parity over the past two decades, pennant and championship probabilities have become increasingly unlikely or, if you will, improbable. No longer is it “probable” that New York City will be represented in the World Series as it has been 55 times since the modern World Series was inaugurated 113 years ago. Happily, even with their mutual passion for baseball, their athletic talent, and their dreams of victory and even glory, the stories of individual players, coaches, managers, umpires and owners fascinate the fan and the reader with drama and the surprise of improbabilities.

Get a load of this baseball improbability: his name was Morgan Bulkeley. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1937. He never played a game and, although he owned the National Association’s Hartford, Connecticut club, there is no record of any baseball achievement on his part. The son of the co-founder and president of the Aetna Life Insurance Company, Morgan Bulkeley was the president of the Hartford team in the National Association of Baseball Players in February 1876. During a meeting at the Grand Central Hotel in New York City on Wednesday, February 2, 1876, where the National Association was abandoned and the National League was formed, it was decided that the league’s first president should be someone from the east rather than the man who had called the meeting, William A. Hulbert, the president of the Chicago White Stockings. Thus the names of the owners present were tossed into a hat and Morgan Bulkeley’s name was drawn. Thus, the name Morgan Bulkeley would be on the letterhead of all official National League communications and correspondence throughout 1876, the new league’s first season. After that fateful meeting, he went back to Hartford and resumed his banking and insurance careers. When he failed to appear at the National League’s 1877 winter meeting, National League owners elected William A. Hulbert as the league’s second president. Bulkeley would go on to become Mayor of Hartford in 1880. In 1888, he’d be elected Governor of Connecticut. During his term, he angered the Democratic majority in the legislature so much that they locked him out of his office in the capital. Governor Bulkeley promptly pried the door open and resumed his duties. He was hence known as “the crowbar governor.”

A progressive Republican, Morgan Bulkeley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1905. In 1937, as baseball officials planned the Baseball Hall of Fame, Ban Johnson, the first president of the American League, was rightfully enshrined in Cooperstown. Therefore it was only fitting that the first president of the older National League should also be admitted to the Hall of Fame. As for William A. Hulbert, the man who conducted the meeting that created the National League, he would not be enshrined in Cooperstown until 1995. Hence, the Baseball Hall of Fame has had many improbable entrances.

It’s unlikely that you have ever heard of Ed Killian. He pitched for the Cleveland Indians and the Detroit Tigers between 1903 and 1910. Known as “Twilight Ed” because he pitched so many extra inning games, Edwin Henry Killian was born in Racine, Wisconsin. Killian, a 5 feet 11 inch left-hander, won 103 and lost 78 games in his eight year career. His ERA was 2.38. What was improbable about his career is that he pitched 1,001 consecutive innings without giving up a home run. That was the dead-ball era, but it was still a remarkable achievement. Other great pitchers of that time such as Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, and Tim Keefe, all who would one day end up in Cooperstown, never achieved that accomplishment. Throughout Killian’s career he gave up only nine home runs, an average of just one homer every 178 innings. In 1907, his greatest season, Killian won 25 and lost 13, and even more incredible, he batted .320.

Two other improbable baseball successes were Peter J. Gray, the one-armed outfielder of the 1945 St. Louis Browns, and Jim Abbott, whose mighty left arm pitched for the California Angels and the New York Yankees during the 1980s and 90s. Pete Gray played only one season for the St. Louis Browns, batting .218 and driving in 13 runs in 77 games. An accident had cost Pete his right arm at age six. Determined to make it to the majors, Gray fulfilled his dream although in later years he would too often wonder how significant it really was.

James Anthony Abbott was a six foot three left-hander who was born without a right hand. Like Pete Gray before him, he made his dream come true. Jim Abbott led the United States Olympic Baseball Team to a gold medal in 1988 and, in 1989, Jim was pitching for the California Angels without spending a day in the minors. Traded to the New York Yankees after the 1992 season, Abbott pitched a no hitter against the Cleveland Indians on Saturday, September 4th, 1993. His ten-year career record was a mediocre 87 wins and 108 losses, but his improbable success is a part of baseball lore.

This season, some 775 plus men will play on major league rosters, each one a unique individual. Their hopes, like those of their fans, beckon the improbable glory of ultimate victory in this October’s World Series. This year’s championship team will have stars, men whose reputation predicts their World Series stardom. Beware, however! One of 2016’s heroes will be someone you never expected to celebrate - indeed an improbable star!

How about this? “Improbable World Series Stars” sounds like a perfect topic for this fall’s World Series column! What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

TRUTH AND THE AMERICAN BODY POLITIC

By Edwin Cooney

“Politicians just don’t tell the truth!”  That constituency complaint is much older than even the American experiment in free government.  Even more significant is the fact that much of the time lately politicians and opinion makers make it almost impossible for the voters to distinguish between principle and truth.  That circumstance obscures the three most significant and mind-numbing truths of our day.

First, a high percentage of twenty-first century American voters are more interested in the dramatics of politics than they are interested in or knowledgeable about the processes of good government.  Ask yourself how much you know about what it takes for Congress to pass a law compared to what you know about the assets and liabilities of our more prominent politicians?  Second, there’s more immediate profit in socio/political dramatics than there is in problem solving.  Third, most politicians and opinion makers obscure the difference between truth and morality.

A few days ago, I got a response to last week’s column from a very sweet friend of mine.  Here’s what she wrote:

 

“Hillary would not get my vote because of dishonesty and for fighting dirty!  What really makes me say something to that effect is the response she gave to President Obama. I believe that response was: “what difference does it make?”

If one does not tell the truth, it makes a lot of difference

Hopefully before election day, some of Hillary’s friends will point this out to her.”

You don’t have to concur with my friend’s observation in order to grasp the confusion between truth and morality that she and millions of Americans share.  This sweet intelligent lady is dedicated to both truth and morality.  They are her guiding stars.  Such being the case, she and most of her fellow citizens believe that those who are moral are always truthful.  Hence, truth and morality go hand in hand.

So, here’s a truth: Hillary Clinton “fights dirty.”  Here’s another truth: “Hillary Clinton is the object of dirty scheming politics and politicians as is her husband, the man many partisan but patriotic Americans call “Slick Willie.”  Here’s still another truth: much but by no means all of the opposition to President Barack Obama, especially from southern conservatives, is because he’s black.  Much of the president’s support from blacks and liberals is due to the same reason.

More broadly speaking, here are a few truths you won’t find emphasized in too many American history books. The reason we rebelled against Great Britain is that we didn’t want to pay for the seven years war that Great Britain fought, largely on our behalf, against the French and the Indians to ensure our safety as well as to ensure the value of land owned by rich southern plantation owners north and west of the Ohio River.

Here’s still another truth.  One of our grievances against King George III was that he forbade settlements more than 300 miles west of the sources of eastern rivers because they would likely cause too many conflicts with Native Americans.

Finally, one of the main reasons Texans fought Mexican rule during the 1830s was that the Catholic Church and the Mexican government sought to ban slavery in Texas.  In other words, the freedom of white men was precious, even a matter of morality.  The freedom of black men was worth nothing. (This historic truth makes Davy Crocket, Colonel Travis and Colonel Bowie lose their historic luster for me!) Almost from the beginning of our great republic, we’ve been less than truthful about our motives even as we have advanced (arguably) the best form of government on earth.

In order to promote and document public policies, politicians – be they named Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or Donald Trump --  all insist that truth (moral truth, that is) is the basis for every doctrine, policy, or purpose they advocate.  We require our political leaders to wrap their policies and principles from both the Bible and the American Constitution. 

Most uncomfortable of all is the fact that both truth and morality are largely circumstantial.  We often don’t tell loved ones that they are fatally ill.  We often withhold the details of unfortunate personal conflicts from both family and friends to avoid additional personal complications between innocent friends and family members.

Truth-telling strictly for socio/political advantage or for personal control over others invariably imprisons us in fear and anger.  Truth-telling “sets us free” when it reveals information about events and circumstances that men and women of good will, personal integrity, objectivity, and wisdom can alter.

Oh, yah, one more thing.  There is no such thing as absolute or unconditional truth!  I’d suggest that you could “bank” on that but the history of banking reveals much that’s quite unreliable and most certainly less than truthful!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HOPES AND FEARS - THE ROOT OF ALL ASSUMPTIONS

By Edwin Cooney

About ten days ago, a friend sent me a powerfully persuasive piece of political commentary.  The piece was from “Current Affairs,” a new political publication.  The author, Nathan J Robertson, asserts that the only hope Democrats have of preventing the election of Donald Trump is the nomination of Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton.  In fact, Mr. Robertson insists that Mrs. Clinton actually should withdraw her presidential candidacy in favor of Sen. Sanders as soon as possible.

Listing about seventeen of Mrs. Clinton’s “lies,” many of them going back to the time when she was First Lady of Arkansas, Robertson argues persuasively that Donald Trump will, as he has throughout the Republican primary season, dominate the general election campaign with putdowns, insults, and misrepresentations of Mrs. Clinton (many of which, in the public mind, have a basis of truth).  Furthermore, Robertson asserts that Mrs. Clinton is far from a stellar campaigner.  Finally, he insists that Sanders’ weaknesses are so mild in comparison to Trump’s weaknesses that by simply ignoring anything Trump has to say that is negative about him, Sanders can easily deflect Donald Trumps nonsubstantive, reckless and irresponsible thrusts. This would show the public what a reckless and irresponsible political demagogue Donald Trump truly is and demonstrate to the American people Sen. Sanders’ own mastery of public issues. 

Now, I like Bernie Sanders.  I plan to vote for Bernie in the upcoming New York State primary on the 19th of April.  However, after decades of hearing Republicans rather successfully degrade “radical liberals,” I’m almost as skeptical of the Sanders candidacy as Nathan J. Robertson is of the Clinton candidacy.  Even worse, you can be certain that with all the breast-beating conservatives recently did on behalf of Israel, too many conservative types don’t view Bernie Sanders’ Jewish faith very favorably.  One of the most constant threads woven into American culture is the tendency to mix Judaism with socialism and even Soviet communism.  Hopefully, Robertson is right to observe that this tendency is lessening. However, I’m not sure one can bank on that possibility. 

As I read the list of “lies” that Robertson insists will be the devastating core of Donald Trump’s successful march to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, two historic political occasions occurred to me.

The first took place back in 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon’s campaign, with absolute confidence in the vice president’s debating prowess, agreed to accept Senator John F. Kennedy’s challenge to four debates.  In so doing, the studious Dick Nixon gave handsome and vigorous Jack Kennedy a stage he otherwise would not have had from which to showcase his knowledge, wit and movie star presidential persona.  The second occasion was during a debate between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio, the GOP’s candidate for the United States Senate seat from New York back in 2000.  During their September debate, Congressman Lazio, seeking to press Clinton to sign an agreement not to accept “soft money” from outside of New York State, moved from his podium into Mrs. Clinton’s personal space waving a paper in her face which he suggested they both should sign agreeing to that end.  Lazio’s “Trump-like behavior” was the turning point in the campaign.  Lazio looked like a political bully and, by comparison, Mrs. Clinton (who was in fact America’s reigning First Lady) at least looked like she could be a viable United States Senator.

Three times since 1960, presidential candidates have refused to give their political opponents a national debate stage on which to demonstrate their personal presidential preparedness.  The first time was in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson refused to provide the handsome and articulate Barry Goldwater a national debating platform.  In 1968 and 1972, Richard Nixon, forever wary from his 1960 experience, refused to debate Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972.  Despite a rather continuous political blowback all three times, both Johnson and Nixon prevailed. 

There is some indication that the public may be weary of televised political debates now in 2016.  Mr. Trump, who has to this point already refused to participate in two GOP debates, is hardly in much of a position to protest too effectively should “Lady Hillary” refuse to grant him a platform from which to ridicule her public record, call her and her husband Bill liars, insult women, slander minorities, and recklessly speak his mind, a habit that seems to endear him to too many voters.

Nathan Robertson’s warnings regarding Mrs. Clinton’s public persona should be taken seriously especially by Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff.  However, Robertson’s hopes for Sen. Sanders’ success shouldn’t be confused with inevitable reality.  As the primary season concludes, the constituency will vastly widen.  Additionally, political decisions and public events, domestic and international, will affect the outcome of the campaign to a greater degree than they do before the general election campaign season.

Six months ago, the hopes of 19 politicians and their followers that they individually might sit in the White House were as shiny as newly minted Lincoln pennies.  Today, the hopes of all but five of those politicians and their constituents are as dull as lead slugs.  Still, the hopes and fears of free Americans will play a significant factor in our ultimate choice.

Back in 1964, pointing to the less than 60% national voter turnout in 1960, conservative Republicans suggested to young potential voters like me that there existed a huge silent reservoir of voters who would vote if they only had a choice rather than having to support an echo of the then-entrenched Democratic party.  Barry Goldwater was that “choice in 1964.”  Today, Donald Trump, although hardly a tried and true conservative, clearly is that “choice.”  The question that has never been answered is whether such a reservoir of voters exists!  The existence of such a voting block has always been a major conservative assumption.

Hence, then and now the fearful and the hopeful, confident in their own assumptions and scared to death of yours, peek out at the unpredictable and uncertain world.  Some world, isn’t it?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

CHARACTER — THAT’S THE WRONG ISSUE!

By Edwin Cooney

You’re not going to be very comfortable with what I’m about to declare.  I’m sure of that, because I’m not either!  Here’s the truth.  Historically, character has little or nothing to do with the person that Americans elect as their president.  To assert otherwise is a distortion of American history!

American voters, generally, are most comfortable when they like what a political party stands for, as well as when their perception of the candidate’s character pleases, entertains, or even inspires them.  Character is of only marginal importance to us.  As for 2016, I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders on primary day here in New York State.  However, because political philosophy plays a major role in determining the future of the country, I generally give primary preference to political philosophy.  Thus, although I have some concerns about Hillary Clinton’s personal and political tendencies, I expect to give her my vote in November.  The question is, how does one measure the morality of presidential candidates?  I suggest we never have and never will accurately gauge the morality of potential presidents or any other public office holder, for that matter.  It’s hardly a matter of conservatism or liberalism.  There are “saints” and “sinners” all over the political spectrum and points in between. 

Consider these factual historical realities:

Christian America elected Thomas Jefferson, a Deist not a Christian, president in 1800 over John Adams, a Unitarian. Protestant clergy and Federalist leaders warned voters that if elected, Jefferson would confiscate all Bibles.

If character is the most important or even a vitally important historical factor in our presidential elections, how could Americans in 1828 have elected General Andrew Jackson, an almost merciless killer of Indians? Jackson was always ready to hang military deserters and to duel with those who hurt his personal pride. President John Quincy Adams’ Christianity mattered little against General Jackson’s capacity to administer violent death to almost anyone who dared to cross him!

Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, but the other three candidates, Vice President John C. Breckinridge, John Bell and Stephen A. Douglas, all looked the other way when it came to the question of the morality of human slavery.  Mr. Lincoln received only about 39% of the national vote on Tuesday, November 6th, 1860.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t publicly advertise what he admitted privately, that his left hand never knew what his right hand was doing. However, a lot of important and influential people knew such was the case.  Was FDR’s substantial morality to be found in the number of people whose homes, jobs and well-being were preserved from the ravages of the Great Depression or was his capacity for political manipulation and obfuscation an essential force behind his success as a national leader?

President Richard Nixon is known to have been quite proud of his unpredictability in foreign affairs.  If the leaders of North Vietnam believed he was unstable as opposed to being a man of principle and peace, that was to his advantage.  Mr. Nixon, whom we twice elected to presidential glory, practiced practicality more than he practiced principles.  Ironically, many of those who today express contempt for Hillary and Bill Clinton insist that Nixon never should have been forced to resign his office in disgrace.

Finally, back in 1980, I would guess that most people would have rightfully rated President Jimmy Carter’s moral credentials equal (if not greater) to those of Ronald Reagan, but they needed lower interest rates, less inflation and lower taxes in order to improve their living standards.  By comparison, morality never stood much of a chance.  Hence, Jimmy went back to his hometown and to his church to establish a new Carter Center for peace and to build homes for the poor as a member of Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton appear to be ready to appeal for our votes by demonstrating that the other is possessed by the “…devils of our nature.”  We’re foolish if we fall for it. To paraphrase the late GOP Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, “…all of us must, on occasion, rise above principle.”

Knowledge and prioritization of the challenges we face at home and abroad are what ultimately matter to our present and future prosperity, safety and peace.

Recently, a fascinating article was written in Current Affairs magazine that insists that only Senator Sanders can defeat Donald Trump.  The author’s theme is primarily based on a set of assumptions.

Hang on tight!  I’ll write about those assumptions next week.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HERE IT COMES—RUMBLE, RUMBLE, RUMBLE!

By Edwin Cooney

Listen!  Can you hear it?  It’s the Trump Monster and it’s hungry!

First, it will gobble the beloved Republican Party.  You know, that bastion of economic and socio/political freedom so praised by right wing talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin, etc.  Next, its appetite only partially quenched, it will consume with relish the religious, ethnic and racial minorities who many believe may actually become the majority in America in the not too distant future.  After that, it will be examining your personal sins. Suddenly, it won’t be funny, let alone entertaining, anymore.  So the question is, how did this all come to pass?

Back in the 1790s, George Washington tried to warn his two cabinet underlings, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, against the evils of political parties.  They wouldn’t listen and, within eight short years of Washington’s 1789 inauguration in New York City, newly minted America found itself divided into two political parties, Federalists behind Hamilton and Republican-Democrats under Jefferson.  They both had territory to protect.  Jefferson, the champion of state fiefdoms, and Hamilton, the champion of marketplace fiefdoms, soon had the politically unsophisticated taking sides.

Originally, Washington and Jefferson, both slaveholders, agreed that slavery was immoral and hoped that it would die away in a generation or two.  Ah, but money was involved and, by the 1830s, a new generation of southern leaders became emotionally and spiritually married to slavery to the extent that abolitionism of slavery was considered immoral.  Slave labor versus paid labor clashed and thus came the great Civil War.

The 20th Century found Americans dividing along socio/economic differences.  There was labor versus management, urban versus rural and, sadly, black versus white all entangled in the gears of the Democratic and Republican bodies politic.  Next came division over the unpopular and unwinnable Vietnam War and the fabric-wrenching political wrangles over the Watergate scandal.  Add the inevitable political “gotcha” and payback of competitive politics and slowly but surely the definition, scope, and even faith in freedom became fractious.

Conservatives equate government with economic, social and, ultimately, political slavery.  Liberals look to the same government to protect them from what they regard as the slavery of the unfettered market place.  Thus, the two essential tools needed to function on all of our behalves are invariably being defamed to advance the causes of primarily selfish political faiths: conservatism and liberalism.  Conservatives, who generally possess much more economic and organizational skills and resources, have spent all of President Barack Obama’s seven and one half years degrading his person and even his office.  After all, he’s the head of “government,” the battering ram of “radical liberalism.”  Even worse he has Islamic ancestors and is thus racially and spiritually connected to the third world. Put simply and directly, most conservatives insist that anyone named Barack Hussein Obama can’t really be American.  Unable to separate the man from the office, conservatives have denied President Obama the respect most Democrats felt honor bound to grant to President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Like the Soviet government used to do with political dissidents, conservatives in this country label their opponents morally inferior as well as emotionally and mentally disabled.

Suddenly, here comes Donald Trump!  Like America itself, he is rich and willful.  Although he is part of the establishment, he is also rich enough to be dangerously anti-establishment.  Conservatives have been so taken up with selling their brand of angry evangelical and squalid self-praising patriotism that the very idea of political compromise has become as immoral as abolition of human slavery once was.  Thus we find the conservative movement flummoxed, begrudgingly led by the rise of a politician who promises that “everyone will win…” if he’s elected — and they are very, very afraid.  Why? First, they can’t control his takeover of their party.  Second, they can’t buy him and thus control him should he be elected.  Third, they don’t believe anyone should win if winning requires a free people to involuntarily contribute to the common good no matter what Jesus says.  Of course, with sufficient majorities in both houses of Congress they could stall him as they have President Obama. However, if they do that, they’ll soon find themselves politically ineffectual and thus politically vulnerable.

Yes, indeed, anyone with ears can hear the sound of the earthshaking rumble of the advancing Trump monster.  It’s hungry, it’s ambitious, it’s righteous and, like much of the Conservative movement, it’s kicking tail and taking names!

Sorry, but there appears to be only one political antidote — Hillary Rodham Clinton.  If I could bring myself to actually love Hillary, I’d rub my hands in gleeful delight.  However, I won’t do that. I’ll just vote for her over the monster the Conservative movement itself has created!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY