IS THURSDAY’S SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ABOUT POLITICS OR PURPOSE?

By Edwin Cooney

I suspect that for most Americans, the nature of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s upcoming appearance before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will be that of sociopolitical revenge. After all, the very nature of American politics has been pretty dirty historically. Today, as Winston Churchill might well assert, American politics has gone from dirty to downright squalid. I’m hopeful that we’re all about to be pleasantly surprised! Whether I’m right or wrong in this hope, the only way out of this 21st Century squalor is to think our way out of it. I’ll try and help here. We have within the latest sensational political crisis one of the main keys for our deliverance from this culture war that has gone on far too long.

We have two American citizens about to approach the United States Senate Judiciary Committee who appear to find themselves in locked cross purposes. One is a distinguished federal judge who holds pristine legal and politically ideological credentials which are more than sufficient for him to occupy a seat on the highest court in the land. His purpose is to be appointed to that seat.

The other is a highly intelligent, scientifically-oriented professional woman who claims that way back when they were very young, she was sexually assaulted and abused by this man of high judicial  accomplishment and stellar integrity. Exactly what her purpose is in bringing to the public’s attention the above unfortunate incident is yet to be explained by her. The question before the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as that which faces a very judgmental American public is whether what did (or didn’t) happen approximately 36 years ago is yesterday or today’s issue!

Since Judge Kavanaugh emphatically denies the charges, his dilemma is that he can’t possibly disprove them unless he can demonstrate that he was somewhere else on the occasion of the alleged sexual assault. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is equally  unlikely to scientifically prove her accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. Therefore, in the absence of proof (certainly beyond a reasonable doubt), neither the American people nor the distinguished members of the United States Senate will have anything but the manner in which Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh present their cases on which to make a judgment about the veracity of the charges or of the denial.

It recently has become a progressive practice to weigh the sins of youth and the sins of adults on different scales. In 1982 when this incident apparently occurred, both Dr. Blasey Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh were minors prone to the indiscretions of youth. Neither their compulsions nor their actions were sufficiently adult. Accordingly, on the surface, it seems to me that the adult Kavanaugh ought to be the Kavanaugh that’s relevant to our national judgment except for one factor. That factor is Dr. Blasey Ford’s purpose for bringing her painful past to our attention.

If her sole purpose is to damage Judge Kavanaugh then shame on her. If her purpose is to dramatize the victimhood of women by perhaps going so far as to publicly forgive Judge Kavanaugh for his youthful indiscretion, she may well have taken the first step in the humanization of 21st Century American politics even as she testifies as to the veracity of her charges.

It’s possible, as we study history, to discover an aggressor and a victim behind every crisis in American history. In 1776, King George the Third was the aggressor and we colonists were his victims. Throughout the civil strife of the 1840s, 50s, and 60s, the slave owners were the aggressors (if you were to ask the abolitionists) and free men and women were the victims. If you had asked the Confederates, the abolitionists and the federal government were the aggressors and those who believed in states’ rights were the victims. When I was growing up, liberals, for the most part, held the higher hand of morality (especially on the civil rights issue) because both discrimination and racism were (and still is) immoral. Not until the Vietnam War and the Watergate eras did the personal morality of the President of the United States and his fellow politicians become the focus of questions of intense debate.

Since the resignation of President Nixon and the advent of President Bill Clinton, political leaders and commentators make every controversial issue primarily a moral issue. Americans are in continuous doubt about the very humanity of our national leadership. Accordingly, today Conservatives who once condemned the lack of morality in Bill Clinton’s White House see little relevance in what clearly appears to be immoral in President Trump’s White House.

Thus we come to the Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford crisis. One of the ironies here is that back in 1991 when Clarence Thomas’s and Anita Hill’s involvement became an issue, that issue was a question of adult behavior. It seems to have been far more relevant than the behavior of youths. Not too long ago, a United States Senator was forced to resign due to behavior considerably less objectionable than that of young Kavanaugh or the adult Justice Thomas.

What we need to realize is that the very fabric of truth, believability, as well as integrity, have become weakened not because they are no longer valuable, but because they have become mere tools of persuasion for the sake of immediate political one-upmanship.

Women are understandably angry over the ways in which they’ve been taken advantage of by the males in their lives. Nevertheless, since they’ll always have to live with them, their challenge is to master all men in such a way that at all times commands their respect.

Dr. Blasey Ford’s challenge before the United States Senate even as she puts him on notice that she remembers that awful night (whether or not he does) is to master the man with whom she has a conflict with so that the end result is for her own healing. 

The political correctness or political moral self-righteousness must come to a screeching halt! No matter what you believe or in whom you believe, be it ideological politics or your religious faith, you’ll never enable it to prevail by belittling or destroying the reputations or sensibilities of others.

Here’s a brief example of what I mean. President Woodrow Wilson was absolutely right about the need for the establishment of the League of Nations in the wake of World War One. However, once he allowed the League of Nations to become a moral difference between himself and the GOP-controlled United States Senate, he lost his fight and the casualties and deaths of World War Two were almost inevitable. In other words, Wilson allowed his dislike and jealousy of Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr. of Massachusetts to destroy his dream as well as the very lives of millions during the war and the holocaust that were to come twenty-five years later.

With that lesson and that spirit in mind, may the meeting of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee please come to order!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

231: THAT’S A LOT OF YEARS — EVEN FOR A NATIONAL CONSTITUTION!

By Edwin Cooney

Don’t get nervous. I’m not about to analyze either the origin or the meaning of the Constitution of the United States — nothing real heady like that. What I am going to write about this week is what two rather strong-minded Americans believe about its significance and meaning.

Last Thursday night, I called an old friend of mine to catch up on things. I think we may have talked perhaps once in the last five years since we’ve both been away from California. When we first met back in the 1990s, it became immediately clear to both of us that the most compelling aspect of our friendship was, and would always be, the enjoyment we both got out of debating one another. Once, during a fit of pique over Rush Limbaugh’s book titled “The Way Things Ought to Be,” I tossed some keys I was holding at him. He caught the keys and, luckily for me, simply laughed. (After all, he used to be a policeman and would have had no trouble at all handling me!) The point of all this is the vital significance in our attitudes and outlook toward life in 21st Century America.

My friend BD is a “born again” Christian. He’s also a Conservative which means that he’s a strict constructionist as an interpreter of the Constitution. He would have been a member of “The Silent Majority” during the days of Spiro Theodore Agnew, John Newton Mitchell, and Richard Milhous Nixon had those days been extendable. On the other hand, I, although a Christian, am primarily a civic-minded citizen who believes in both equity and equality — contradictory as the two may seem. As a progressive, I believe that the Constitution is a living document flexible enough to fit changing times. BD dismisses me as a “secular humanist.” His two guideposts are the Bible and the Constitution. My two guideposts are my history books and my clearly liberal interpretation of the Bible. I welcome all those immigrants Jesus loves and BD just doesn’t.

Last Thursday night, BD expressed, as he always has, his belief in the ongoing wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Although he concedes that times have changed bringing with that change circumstances that they couldn’t possibly have anticipated, he sees in their construction of it and its implied outlook an essential rigidity which we ignore at our extreme peril. He even defends (hang on tight now!) the electoral college as did men such as Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

Most of me, although not all of me, rejects the idea that there exists a group or class of men or women who are sufficiently gifted with the unerring ability to continuously make wise decisions for the ongoing freedom and moral betterment of us all. The part of me that does believe that we not only should but ought to construct bodies of regulation takes this belief from my study of history. Specifically, I have observed that men and women, unless checked, will invariably tend to regulate their opposites or opponents leaving themselves free to savor the profitable and delicious benefits (largely financial) of this free and most vital American society.

BD, as I understand his outlook, would regulate people’s moral attitudes and behavior, leaving their financial behavior or options absolutely alone. During our conversation he used the old worm-eaten “socialist” label to describe the agenda of “the left.” I countered with the long overdue observation that conservative social and political doctrine, when you come right down to the heart of the matter, is antisocial just as much as it is anti-socialist!  (There is an element of ideological conservatism that isn’t antisocial. These citizens are generally known as Civil Libertarians. They believe in the best of both worlds: fiscal freedom and civil liberty.)

On the other hand, only with great reluctance would I regulate people’s social behavior. The social behavior I would regulate would be, of course, that behavior that endangers our safety and security. Insofar as I’m concerned, you neither endanger me, my children or grandchildren because you’re gay. Nor do you enhance their future because you are “straight.” These are just some of the matters that my friend BD and I have debated over the years.

Eventually, as you can well imagine, we got down to the present, the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States. Of course, BD voted for Mr. Trump although his first choice was Senator Cruz. Ultimately, Donald would do.

I came away with several conclusions from my conversation with BD.

Up until the November 22nd, 1963 assassination of President Kennedy, Americans, for the most part (despite the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, and William McKinley beforehand), largely lived during a period of political innocence.  

That innocence was shattered by the increasing capacity of the national media to bring the whole unsettled and dirty world into our living rooms. Thus Americans who were born after the traumatic events that took place during the Vietnam War and political scandals that followed were exposed to the causes and forces that brought them into being rather than sheltered as my generation was.

Thus, I, who was born during the 1940s, remain in some emotional way secure in the knowledge of what society can be once it chooses to be a certain way. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, I don’t advocate forcing people to be a certain way through either political or economic means. I think it is my friend BD’s hope that people will one day be compelled to be both righteous and moral — according to both scripture and to the laws of liberty.

BD’s world is logical and profitable which he believes are the blessings of his religious faith. My world is a world based on the Biblical admonition to “love thy neighbor as thy self”  which is reinforced by the Golden Rule.

Finally, I’m convinced that neither Donald Trump nor any other single person or body of persons (specifically the Supreme Court of the United States) can overpower the writ of the Constitution of the United States, the 231st  birthday of which we celebrate this vary day. My guess is that on that observation my friend BD and I pretty much agree.

Oh, one more thing! With all his rigid righteousness, BD really and truly is not only a good friend to have, he’s a good citizen. During the week of Tuesday, October 17th, 1989, I mostly worried and fretted following the World Series earthquake. BD rolled up his sleeves and without compensation did all he could as a trained ambulance medic to aid and comfort those injured and distressed. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A SOCIO/POLITICAL POTPOURRI, PART ONE

By Edwin Cooney

Usually, I write about one topic. Today, I offer a political potpourri in response to two occurrences and to one proposed event. This musing could be called “A Potpourri of Reactionary Red Meat” because it is composed of straight opinion rather than my usual balanced thoughtful reactions to events. For what it’s worth, here it goes:

(1.) Monday, July 16th, 2018. Standing beside President Vladimir Putin, President Trump tells the world, in particular his Republican colleagues, that he trusts the word of President Putin regarding Russia’s activities during the 2016 presidential campaign more than he does America’s intelligentsia. Since 1945, Republican and conservative leaders have shamelessly charged President Franklin D. Roosevelt with treason at the February 1945 Yalta Conference during which he made certain concessions to Premier Joseph Stalin enhancing the Soviets’ influence and power especially in Eastern Europe. For all the legitimate criticism that might be thrown at FDR, his concessions to Stalin were made with two vital purposes in mind. First, FDR sought the Soviets’ essential participation in the new United Nations. Second, and vitally important at the time, was Stalin’s agreement to declare war on Japan once the European war was over. As history unfolded, the Soviets ultimately got more out of Roosevelt than he got out of Stalin. Since the Trump-Putin conference at Helsinki, anti-Soviet and even anti-Russian Conservative Republicans have been reluctant to tag President Trump the way they have labeled Roosevelt for over seventy years. As I see it, herein lies a bit of hypocrisy! Even more, FDR’s objectives were, at the very least, forward-looking. So what were President Trump’s objectives by comparison? The least that can be said about them is that they were strictly self-serving and lacking any degree of purpose or patriotism. The most that can be said for the president’s behavior is that he “out Roosevelted” Roosevelt! Remember the story about Vice President Nixon’s first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in July 1959? They spent much of their first 30 minutes together arguing over whether pig or cow dung smelled worse. Nixon ultimately prevailed when Khrushchev agreed that pig dung really was worse than cow manure! On July 16th, Americans got a pasture full of both Putin and Trump manure which traditional Republicans and Conservatives couldn’t even smell! Nuts!

(2.) Since Senator John McCain’s death on Saturday, August 25th, many have been searching for ways to honor him. One such suggestion has been to rename the Richard Brevard Russell Senate Office Building after John McCain who, unlike Senator Russell, was no racist. The justification for such a move is in support of a desire, especially on the part of Liberals, to tear down monuments to the Confederacy. Although I’m generally sympathetic toward the long overdue de-glorification of the Confederate States of America because they really were both racist and treasonous by their very founding, Senator Russell’s career didn’t take place during the life of the Confederacy. Richard Russell, although unapologetically racist, was the most capable member of the United States Senate of his era according to the testimony of his colleagues. He was the father of FDR’s New Deal in the Senate. He founded the National School Lunch Program and vigorously backed and advanced the National Youth Administration, of which young Lyndon B. Johnson was the Texas State Director. Many senators insist that had he not been a Southerner, he would have been the Democratic party’s presidential nominee in 1948 or 1952. He was Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and, in 1964, the same year he fought LBJ’s Civil Rights Bill, he was appointed to the Warren Commission which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Senator Russell’s appointment was a testimony to his intellect as well as to his integrity. Thus, as I see it, since Richard Brevard Russell of Georgia who served in the US Senate from January 12th, 1933 until his death on January 21st 1971 was honored by his Senate colleagues, the withdrawal of that honor would in itself lack honor. There are at least four reasons why I say this. We have rightfully honored slave owners because their accomplishments vastly outweigh their sins of slave ownership. Senator Russell’s life was neither about the confederacy nor about slavery. The Senate that supported the naming of that office building for the late Senator Russell was bedecked with such liberal senators as Humphrey, McGovern, Kennedy, Brook, Muskie, Javits, Hart, Bayh, Proxmire, Nelson, Symington, Eagleton, and others with solid non-racist backgrounds or outlooks. In addition, an honor reflects a cultural continuum. As such it ought not to be ignored by the mores of future generations. It’s true that Senator McCain undoubtedly deserves to be honored by his Senate colleagues, but that honor will be degraded if it is received at the expense of another Senator’s legacy. As I see it, downgrading Senator Richard Russell does not in any way honor the memory and life of Senator John McCain.

(3.) On Friday, September 7th, in Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, Obama took off the gloves, but rather than brawling, he punched with finesse. One of my continuing criticisms of President Obama has been his reluctance to “get in there and duke it out with the opposition.” In last Friday’s speech to students at the University of Illinois, the former president utilized all of the standard criticisms of President Trump including criticism of his denial of climate change, withdrawal from NAFTA, his identification with strong dictators over parliamentarians and, of course, the president’s unwillingness to condemn racists or ethnic bigots. “How hard,” Obama asked rhetorically, “can it be to declare Nazism bad?” In addition, his style of tweets and name-calling did not escape former President Obama’s notice.

However, the most powerful part of the former president’s remarks came near the close of his address. First, he minimized the significance of the activities by the individuals in the Trump White House who were doing their best to curtail Mr. Trump’s reckless activities while devoting their efforts to support 90% of his policies. Mr. Obama’s biggest concern wasn’t as much about Trump’s activities or policies as it was about the havoc he’s visiting on our most vital national institutions. As Scott Baker pointed out in the New York Times, Obama asserted:  “…in the end, the threat to our democracy doesn't just come from Donald Trump or the current batch of Republicans in Congress or the Koch brothers and their lobbyists, or too much compromise from Democrats, or Russian hacking,” he said. “The biggest threat to our democracy is indifference…”

For most of our lives, you and I have thought that hate is the opposite of love. In other words, hate for America, the opposite of love for America, just must be our greatest enemy. However, when you really think about it, that’s not precisely true. A hater may attempt to or actually commit a single deadly deed before he or she is caught. One who is indifferent may, even without realizing it, starve America of all its energy and desire to matter.

Political and ideological bombardment by ambitious talk show hosts, politicians, and especially by preachers may be numbing our very beings, not to the desire for personal comfort or satisfaction, but from a sufficient energy to identify and thus defend our genuine and vital national interests!

If that doesn’t scare you, then I guess you’ve already been had!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

GOING TO “THE ROOT OF THE MATTER!”

By Edwin Cooney

During World War II, one of  British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s favorite advisors was Harry L. Hopkins, President Franklin Roosevelt’s friend and chief all purpose advisor who was then living at the White House.

During the 1930s, Hopkins, who was a social worker by education and training, served as the New Deal’s Works Progress Administrator and later as Secretary of Commerce. Poor health had forced him to resign as Commerce Secretary and then to take residence at the White House with FDR. It was while serving as WPA Administrator or as Commerce Secretary that Hopkins demonstrated his ability to get to the heart of any question. During the mid-1930s, he was testifying before a congressional committee that was quite doubtful as to the need for and the efficiency of a government program. “In the long run,” one Congressman said, “this relief problem could be better handled by private enterprise, couldn’t it?” “People don’t eat in the long run, Senator,” Hopkins shot back, “They eat everyday.” That’s an example of why during World War II Churchill came to call Hopkins “Lord Root-of-the-Matter.”

It’s past time that Americans identified ‘the-root-of-the-President-Donald-John-Trump-matter.” If you’re reading this as a supporter of President Trump, I’m sure you’re about to hit your delete key. If you’re anti-Trump, and there was a “delight” key on your computer or iPhone, you’d probably be caressing that. However, there is a truism that I’ll save for the end of this commentary that brings what I’m about to write into its proper focus.

Twenty-one months ago, Americans entrusted Mr. Trump with even more of the powers of government than the electors of 1788 could give to George Washington (never mind that it was via electoral rather than popular vote). Mr. Trump appealed for our support on the grounds that practically every politician (even the president) since perhaps Abraham Lincoln had been a “failure.” Candidate Trump  would apply practical business efficiencies to remedy our woes. The question, therefore, is has he accomplished that? Has efficiency been the target of his administration?

On the positive side, President Trump has applied traditional conservative Republican values and principles to the nation’s fevered brow, some of which are pretty hard to swallow for those of us who have a different political and social agenda than the president. Nevertheless, such decisions as withdrawing from NAFTA, backing out of the international climate change agreement, his attempts to kill Obamacare, and even his “tax cuts for the rich” are not legitimate reasons let alone the “root of the matter.”

Every presidency has a flavor of some kind, or if you prefer, a culture that characterizes what it’s all about. Stability and legitimacy characterized the Eisenhower Administration. Vigor and youth and its possibilities stood out during the Kennedy administration. The possibility of a “Great Society” was the touchstone of the Johnson presidency which, tragically, was swamped by the Vietnam Conflict. The Nixon and Ford presidencies were ultimately about international detent, flavored unfortunately by the scandals stemming from the Vietnam War. Jimmy Carter’s presidency was about international human rights as well as environmental reform and regeneration here at home. However, the public saw President Carter as both naive and incompetent and sent him packing back to Plains, Georgia.

The culture of the Reagan presidency was “morning in America,” personal presidential affability and restoration of the workable over the mundane. President George H. W. Bush was about progressive conservatism under the twinkling of “a thousand points of light” which were snuffed out by angry GOP conservatives when he broke his pledge that there would be “no new taxes.” President Bill (“Slick Willie”) Clinton was a combination of both moderately progressive domestic and foreign policies which were vastly overshadowed by Clinton’s penchant for self-gratification and his opponents’ delight in calling him on it. 

Like Rutherford B. Hayes back in 1876, President George W. Bush was pushed over the “finish line” by his party. It brought about an administration that catered to his party’s hunger for tax revenue that could have been used to pay down the national debt, and for the GOP’s fears of and hunger for Saddam Hussein’s hide — and eventually Osama bin Laden’s hide as well. The second Bush administration’s culture was both defensive fear and an appetite for  foreign oil.

The Obama presidency was all about change, but many citizens’ lingering questions about the legitimacy of its black president’s citizenship overwhelmed his genuine attributes which stultified the change President Obama hoped to bring about.

There’s one conclusion with which I think both Trump enthusiasts and detractors will agree. Donald John Trump was elected to the presidency by an angry and bewildered people.  Rather than do what he could to decrease the nation’s anger and bewilderment, President Trump has obviously decided to depend on it both politically and morally. The American people have often been angered when voting for a presidential candidate just as they were in 1932 when they rejected Herbert Hoover and voted for Franklin Roosevelt. Rather than appealing to the people’s distress, Roosevelt sought to alleviate it, however imperfectly. The same was true of President Reagan in 1981. Unlike Presidents Roosevelt and Reagan, President Trump is an exceedingly angry man. Even more to the point, both supporters and opponents of President Trump are determined to be angry. Anger, rather than objectivity as to what ought to be done to calm the waters of our national discontent, is what sparks their very energy to participate in political affairs. Even worse, too many Americans have surrendered to professional “think tanks” and talk show networks and hosts to keep their anger stoked. Insofar as I’m aware, this is both a new as well as a poisonous factor upon our discourse which is more virulent today than at any time since just before the Civil War.

Being the obviously reckless man he has been so far, President Trump may well destroy himself before his opponents get the chance to do so. He nearly did that during that televised news conference in late July with Russian President Vladimir Putin. What might be the factor that does him in may well be either his mobster language and mentality or one of his public tantrums over someone’s disloyalty. One of the keys to understanding President Trump is his expectation of “loyalty” on the part of officials whose ultimate loyalty isn’t to a president but to the people they’ve been hired and hopefully honored to serve. I don’t recall even Richard Nixon appealing to members of his Cabinet for “loyalty” during Watergate. 

Mr. President, Attorney General Sessions, with all his imperfections, isn’t your Attorney General — he’s ours.

Hence, what lies at “the “root of the matter” is an determinedly angry and bewildered population which has allowed itself to be led by a president who, at least for the moment, is behaving like a cancer on America’s political soul.

The most imposing element at the “root of the matter” isn’t the personage of Donald Trump. His ambition and willingness to become our president is not one of his faults. His election and possible re-election would be our fault, not his.

Thus, the ultimate fault lying at the “root of the matter” has been — and perhaps will be — ours!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AMERICA: “GREAT AGAIN?” — WHEN DOES MR. TRUMP SAY AMERICA STOPPED BEING GREAT?

By Edwin Cooney

Except for being a reflection on how Americans assess their political system, our culture, as well as in general our domestic and foreign affairs, the argument over America’s “greatness” is silly, shallow, and quite boring. What is neither silly, shallow, nor boring is the apparent loss of that sense of togetherness that was predominant throughout America for over 60 years following the 1898 Spanish-American War. During that 60 plus year time period there was a general expectation of unity in both peace and war — an expectation that was much stronger than even the pull of political differences. That was the time that Tom Brokaw labeled as “The Greatest Generation.” Whatever their political differences, Americans were family first and foremost. This week, thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo, America’s “greatness” once again became a political issue rather than merely an American truism for all of us to hang onto and thus innocently take for granted.

Last Wednesday, in an effort to appeal to potential supporters of Cynthia Nixon, Governor Cuomo’s opponent for renomination from the left, Mr. Cuomo asserted that America never really had been all that great. In a rather eloquent New York Times editorial this past Saturday, Bret Stephens, among other things, chided Governor Cuomo for handing the Republicans a wonderful issue for the coming Fall campaign. Of course, Fox News and other Conservative mouthpieces took up the governor’s loose-lipped liberal lingo with “great gusto.” I read somewhere that a group of Republicans, it may have been the New York Republican Gubernatorial Campaign Committee, purchased a one way ticket to Montreal for the governor’s convenient use.

Mr. Stephens reminded voters that Mr. Cuomo’s 2010 campaign slogan was “Together, let’s make New York State great again.” Even more persuasive, Mr. Stephens reminded us that Bill Clinton’s 1993 Inaugural Address contained probably the best proclamation regarding America’s “greatness” when he said: “There is nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured by what’s right with America.”

So whether we like it or not, whether the argument over America’s greatness merits all of the negatives I just cited, America’s greatness is still there for the duration in 2018. So, here’s my two cents worth!

First, let’s get very personal. Are those you love important to you? If so, how have they earned that special place in your heart? Did they write a great document? Did they earn the Medal of Freedom? Are they collectively brilliant? Are they physically more beautiful than all others? Would those outside your immediate circle consider them significant?

Next, let’s get civic-minded. What about the teachers, preachers, doctors and nurses, police and firemen in your life? In your view, are all of them outstanding?

Next, let’s move to others we often consider “great.” Within their domains of occupation, many of them stand out by comparison with other sports heroes, entertainment figures, war veterans, business and civic leaders.

Finally, what about public servants? Okay, more specifically, politicians. Although that’s a subject for another time, we students of history insist that there have been great politicians who’ve earned a hallowed place in America’s Hall of Fame.

Those who’ve earned your love and regard, namely family members, have one thing in common — that’s you. That intimate proximity is their ticket to your personal Hall of Fame. In your heart, no matter what their imperfections may be, they have a significance you’d insist upon regardless of whatever teacher, preacher, judge or even jury might conclude about them or regarding a specific activity of theirs.

When the Founding Fathers began writing the Constitution, they didn’t promise a “great union” in its preamble. Nor did they promise a perfect union. What they did promise was a “…more perfect union.”

Of course, America is a great nation! It always has been and my guess is that it probably always will be. Ah, but there are other vital aspects to consider.

America never has held a monopoly on national greatness. The ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman homelands and empires were great. The British Empire was great, even though Americans from 1776 to about 1917-18 didn’t consider Britain a really great nation. Other nations such as France, Italy, Germany and even Japan, China and Russia have demonstrated greatness. Even more, most of the citizens of other nations regard their homelands as great.

As Bill Clinton asserted by at least implication in his 1993 Inaugural speech, what keeps America great is her built-in capacity to heal her sins and redress the grievances of her people.

Our love for our families and friends doesn’t require either perfection or greatness. I argue that neither relative nor actual perfection is the foundation of greatness.

Greatness is an outstanding or unusual subjective achievement. When we created our federal constitution with its checks and balances and its Bill of Rights, we achieved an outstanding system of government unprecedented throughout modern human history. However, throughout the history of our development, some European countries dealt with the injustices of modern industrialism faster than we did. In about 1909, Great Britain’s parliament passed the first old age insurance plan almost thirty years before Franklin Roosevelt and Senator Robert Wagner’s Social Security measure. One of the reasons for that had to do with Winston Churchill. Although his mother was well off, he needed to take care of his nanny Mrs. Everett who had taken such splendid care of young Winston. If you ask me, that act was a part of Britain’s greatness.

Yes, indeed, America is and always has been great. No one, insofar as I’m aware, has asked President Trump just exactly when America stopped being great so that he alone might make it great once again!

Finally, I’m convinced that America will continue in her greatness on the day we stop bragging about it.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

  

THANK YOU, MR. POPE SIR!

By Edwin Cooney

First of all, a disclaimer. Murder is always wrong and must be severely punished.

Yes, I know that Francis The First shouldn’t be addressed as “Mr. Pope Sir,” that he should be addressed as “Your Eminence” or even “Your Distinguished or Holy Eminence,” but I’m so pleased that human civility seems to have made an institutional breakthrough on the wings of the Pope’s latest proclamation, that some form of lighthearted expression of joy is most appropriate. Capital punishment has finally been declared by the oldest, and still the largest, Christian faith institution - the Roman Catholic Church - to be wrong in all cases. Praise the Lord and pass the wafers! Up until recently, the Catholic Church has only conditionally declared capital punishment acceptable when its use could somehow be seen as a possible prevention of future crimes. Now, it’s absolutely and under all conditions unacceptable.

Much of my life I’ve favored capital punishment:

First, because murder or severe bodily harm cruelly obliterates or, at the least cripples, the undeserving victim and members of his or her family and loved ones;

Second, I believed that revenge was both understandable and justifiable because it legitimately relieved the natural tension of living family members and friends;

Third, I believed that the threat of legal murder would always sufficiently prevent any increase in unlawful murders;

Fourth and finally, I believed that one who used murder as an instrument to achieve personal satisfaction simply deserved to suffer, within reason, the same fate as his or her victims.

One of the oldest human instincts is the desire for revenge against murderous enemies. We reason that the threat of death is the only workable antidote sufficiently powerful enough, short of his or her own demise, to stop a potential murderer. That assumes that most if not all murderers are rational. We also have a tendency to believe that, in his or her heart of hearts, murderers simply know better than to commit murder. In other words, murderers are as rational as you and me. So, from that standpoint, it’s preventive to have the threat of murdering the murderer on the books to protect society. “We’ll send the murderer a message,” goes the legitimate outcry of a righteously enraged society. History however demonstrates, as I see it, that no matter how legitimate may be our resentment toward both the act of murder and the murderer him or herself, duplicating the act of murder ultimately merely results in more and more as well as various types of murder.

Legal death is by its nature dispassionate justice, the dispassion aspect of it, supposedly removing the self-righteous aspect of the punishment. But, clearly, removing the outrage behind the administration of legal death by no means prevents its being outrageous on its own. Amnesty International can cite you case after case of prisoners who have been wrongly convicted, many of whom have gone to the gallows, the chair, the firing squad, the gas chamber and lately to the lethal stretcher.

Another aspect of “legal death” is war itself. War, devastating as it is, has historically been more manageable and preventable than pure murder because as they develop, rogue nations more readily display their defects than are possibly detectable in the workings of the private mind and heart.

My opposition to capital punishment has nothing to do with sympathy for any murderer. I’m totally sympathetic with the victims of crime. Not to have sympathy for the victims of crime is morally insensitive to say the least about it. Crime, and murder in particular, is anti-social. To be anti-social is to be anti-human. I have no objection to the permanent separation of the killer from society - in fact I vehemently support that.

Most debates over the legitimacy of capital punishment center on two propositions. The first one is that taxpayers should not be paying for the room and board of convicted killers. Room and board can cost as much as forty thousand a year. This argument can be countered by the fact that the continuous costs of legal appeals to avoid the death penalty vastly out costs the annual price of prison room and board. Also, prisoners eligible for capital punishment constitute only about three percent of the prison population. The second major argument favoring capital punishment is that the execution of a murderer provides the victim’s families with an understandable sense of closure in the wake of the horror of the crime. However, more and more lately perpetrators, especially of mass murders, often either commit suicide or are legitimately, as I see it, themselves killed by police during their acts of committing their crimes. Thus, there is no defense against such acts of mayhem.

The irony of all that is the public’s ongoing demand for fewer restrictions on the sale of assault rifles and the like.

My guess is that you and I, during our lifetimes, will be forced by both tradition and human behavioral habit, to suffer with the crucible of murder. It’s just possible however, that Pope Francis’s proclamation against what I like to call “legal death” over the years may well condition future generations to sufficiently abhor capital punishment.

One more thing: As I see it, it’s inconsistent to oppose abortion and to support capital punishment. If life is sacred, then it must always be sacred.

Insofar as I’m aware, no Pope has received the famous Nobel Peace Prize. My candidate for this October’s Nobel Peace Prize is Pope Francis the First.

Mr. Pope, Sir, “you’re a jolly good fellow!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY