COUNTDOWN VIA PROLOGUE

By Edwin Cooney

Opening his second presidential nomination address at San Francisco in late August of 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told the following story to the assembled delegates.

Two new Republican office holders were riding in a Washington, D.C. taxi early in 1953, when one of them glanced up at a building bearing a sign that read: "What's past is prologue." “What does that mean?" one of them asked the learned taxi driver. "Oh," said the cabbie, "that's just bureaucrat talk. All that means is you ain't seen nothin' yet!"

There are 8,760 hours as of today remaining in President Donald Trump's term, realistically assuming his likely acquittal of impeachment charges in the U.S. Senate. (I could offer the minutes and seconds as well, but that would be absurdly absurd!) The question is: Who will use the time left most effectively, Trump or Trump's opponents?

On the night of November 6th, 1984 that Ronald Reagan was re-elected, referring to his upcoming term as compared to his nearly completed first term, he said "What's past is prologue" right out loud — "You ain't seen nothin' yet."  However, rather than balanced budgets and lower taxes, what was next was Iran-Contra, the 1986 tax increase, and a debt three times Jimmy Carter's 1980 one trillion dollar record deficit!

The key to America's socio/political and economic future is invariably our national attitude toward one another. Attitude governs outlook, which together constitutes socio/political and economic results.

In a critical commentary against Bernie Sanders last week, columnist David Brooks observed that Sanders and others live in an era of "theyism - that's T.H.E.Y.i.s.m.” In other words, there are groups (outside the rest of us) who are doing this or that to the national body politic. There's President Trump's theyism, which consists of all who disagree with, or oppose him. There’s Conservatism's theyisms consisting of gun grabbers, LGBTQ types, pro-choice advocates, socialists, and, of course, secularists and climate change suckers. Liberal’s theyisms are: exploiting capitalists, racists, anti-choice protestors, and sexists, as well as climate change deniers. All these “theys" are deliberately doing America socio/economic harm. Bernie Sander's personal theyism, according to Mr. Brooks, is his ongoing charge that capitalists are exploiting workers. Brooks says the flaw in capitalism is a lack of productivity rather than an abundance of greed-inspired exploitation. Brooks scolds Bernie Sanders for purposely exaggerating the capitalist's genuine productivity dilemma. If we feed that which produces, employers and workers will all be profitably productive according to David Brooks. Thus, socialist exploitive theory constitutes Senator Sanders’ theyism!

"Theyism" is apparently everywhere and crosses ideological lines. Just the other day I received two emails from a reader who doesn't think much of my "far left-wing BS,” but at least this reader looks forward to it. In one missive this reader sent, he/she expressed utter contempt for Barack Obama calling him scum, even though this reader voted for Obama in 2008. Pointing out that his/her family were once "Kennedy Democrats, but are no more.” this critic's theyism's are liberals like me who've "drunk the Kool-Aid of socialism instead of the tea of liberty.” Finally, this reader expresses regret for his/her past political choices. That's especially sad. I voted for Nixon and would have voted for Goldwater at one point except that I was too young to vote for Barry. I don't regret past choices as they constitute what I understood and how I evaluated what I knew then. I highly recommend that this reader give him or herself credit for voting his/her conviction in 2008 or any other time. I look forward to hearing from this reader again and again so that we might have a mutually enhancing dialog. All of your responses to these musings make writing them worthwhile.

What none of us knows, as the final months, days and hours of President Trump's term begin passing by, is the effect his behavior will have on how people vote. As I see it, Donald Trump's conservatism is the least of his offenses. His conservatism is enough to prevent my voting for him. The question is whether Donald Trump really and truly is a conservative! I know some conservatives who've told me that they doubted Richard Nixon's "conservatism" but for them his political instincts were sufficiently superior to John Kennedy's, Lyndon Johnson's, Hubert Humphrey's or George McGovern's liberalism to suit them. Ironically, there are apparently a number of prominent 2020 conservatives who doubt President Trump’s conservative credentials!

Change in times of tyranny or exploitation is what has kept this republic afloat since 1776. Federalism replaced confederacy in 1788 with the adoption of the federal Constitution leavened by the Bill of Rights in 1791. Slavery was abolished by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution in the 1860s and ‘70s. The 16th Amendment brought about the progressive income tax replacing the government's reliance on tariffs. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. All of these changes followed eras of limited opportunity for Americans.

If liberty-advancing change is the true prologue that dominates in 2020, we'll be well served. If the era of "theyism" prevails, which once represented 18th Century confederacy, then the best days of our republic may well be the new prologue which indicates regression into confederacy and perhaps into a new era of medievalism.

I don't know whose “theyism” is likely to prevail. What I am sure is that tomorrow's nation and world will be different from yours and mine.

Even more, that's the way it ought to be. History only informs, it never dictates. Tomorrow belongs not to us, but to our children, who hopefully will take the best of us and make a world suited to themselves, which they may regard as being better than our own. If they don't, perhaps their children will outdo even them!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IF THIS IS WAR, WHAT’S THE SCORE?

By Edwin Cooney

Beware of expectations and mindsets - especially your own!

President Trump's decision to eliminate Iranian Major General Qasim Soleimani, scary as it seems given President Trump's temperament and "seat of the pants” diplomacy, is not really new within the annals of our diplomatic history.

Those of us who were educated in post World War II America have been taught by parents, teachers, friends, neighbors and just about everyone else, that the United States has always been a reluctant player in foreign policy and that it has never been guilty of acting as did Japan on Pearl Harbor Day, Sunday, December 7th, 1941, the day which “will live in infamy!"

Unfortunately, this school lesson which most of us were taught is only true up to a point. Perhaps "we, the people" have been reluctant to bear the responsibility for international order, but that can't be said of the government or of very many presidents. Since the 1880s in the best interests of American commercialism, our governments, beginning with the administration of President Chester A. Arthur, have planned our military development to support our expanding needs for commercial markets abroad as well as for military advantage in case of international conflicts. Even before the Civil War, antebellum leaders sought to expand the South by annexing Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and, most dramatically, Nicaragua, under the American adventurer William Walker in the 1850s. (These sovereign nations would be slave states to match the political authority of northern non-slave states.) Certainly our adventurism has seldom, if ever, matched the dehumanizing of the Nazis, the Soviets, the imperialist Japanese, men like Qasim Soleimani, or any number of despots I can mention. Still, unless we are prepared to engage in total warfare, we need to be aware of our own capacity for international mischief.

Like most world powers, we have overthrown governments and watched other high governmental officials pay with their lives for their personal patriotism.

In 1953, we overthrew the elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh replacing him with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, for the next 25 plus years. He never allowed his democratic principles to show — if he even had any such principles. (Note that the CIA agent in charge of the Iranian coup d'état was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt for whom all wars were "just bully!") We overthrew the government of elected President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala in 1954, we sought to overthrow Castro's government in Cuba in April 1961 and Chile in 1973, and plotted against rulers such as Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1961, Rafael Trujillo of The Dominican Republic in 1961, and Salvador Allende, the Marxist president of Chile in September 1973. Of course, there were numerous attempts by the CIA throughout the Kennedy administration in the early sixties to kill Fidel Castro. Finally, there was the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government of Ngo Dinh Diem which was merely a foretaste of our tragedy which was the war in Vietnam.

In pursuit of sugar, fruit and even tobacco interests in Latin and South America and in industrial expansion in the Pacific as far west as China, we've meddled into the affairs of The Philippines, China, and, most successfully, into the sovereign independent nation once known as Hawaii. Opium, through what was called "dollar diplomacy,” guided our interests in China during the McKinley Administration.

In summation, since the end of World War II, we've attempted to overthrow governments in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Granada, Nicaragua, Panama, and twice in Iraq. Compared to all of this, President Trump's assassination of Suleimani  seems mild given the reality that Suleimani "died as he killed” as someone wrote last week.

It seems to me that if there's a threshold over which we could step that would mean war, it might be the personalization of a potential International conflict.

While in college, I read Winston Churchill's assessment of the growth of war from medieval days through the most recent war when he wrote the book — which was then World War I. In that 1930s book "World Crisis," Churchill observed how gradually but inevitably the process of war had changed. Churchill noted that science and technology were imperiling the peace to a much greater degree than most people realized. Throughout the Middle Ages, wars were generally fought between the royal families. They were fought in good weather and for the most part away from where most people lived. Generally, wars were fought by men who had sworn "fealty" to the nobles and who thus would personally gain or lose once the war was concluded. Changes in technology and science meant that from here on wars would be between nations rather than between mere armies. Today, ninety years after Churchill's book, the outcome of war has changed far more than even Mr. Churchill could imagine.

Nine years ago, most Americans were pleased when President Barack Obama gave the orders to successfully hunt down and, if necessary, kill Osama bin Laden. In order to do this, President Obama had to approve our invasion of the sovereign nation of Pakistan of international law than was the assassination of Qasim Suleimani. President Obama's mistake, as I see it, was to escalate the legitimate goals of war to include violation  of an innocent nation's territory without its consent.  President Trump's killing of Qasim Suleimani on the battlefield which Bagdad is today is somehow legitimate. After all, generals are expected to die on battlefields! Battlefields are where they gain their glory!

Another deadly threshold which we will hopefully never overstep is the one that President Trump threatened to step over right after the Suleimani assassination — namely, the destruction of cultural or religious sites. Such destruction might not cost us immediately, but you can be sure our grandchildren would reap their hatred due to our carelessness!   

As for the score of the war, the US hasn’t declared war since December 8th, 1941, yet, unfortunately, wars still thrive. At this point, since Friday, January 3rd, 2020, we clearly have the advantage. However, advantages are almost always temporary! To paraphrase men named Churchill and MacArthur, mere advantage is no substitute for victory. Victory could conceivably be too costly to even anticipate.

As for expectations and mindsets, let's hope we know how to identify and manipulate the enemies of peace, whoever they are and wherever they live, whether they live in Bagdad, Tehran, or Washington D.C.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE BIG YEAR IS FINALLY HERE! HANG ON TIGHT!

By Edwin Cooney

Election years are quite revealing, not only regarding the names of the victor and the loser, but also with regard as to who we are and ultimately why we are who we are! The result really and truly reflects our values, moods, political priorities, spiritual leanings, and domestic and foreign priorities.

As a student of history, I find that 2020 compels me to look back to America 100 years ago. The year 1920 was a momentous turning point of events in our history. Women got the vote, the "noble experiment" known as prohibition was launched, President Wilson's League of Nations was scrubbed in exchange for the newly elected President Warren Harding's concept of American normalcy. The details of historical events in 1920 are absolutely delicious to read and to ponder, but the point here is that national, political, and social events will occur in 2020 that will be worthy of comparison with 2001, 1980, 1968, 1933, 1932, and, of course, 1920. Above all, 1920 earned its place in history because it was a year of vital decision-making for better and for worse.

The elephant in the year 2020, will, of course, be the fate of President Trump. What is most compelling to contemplate is the anticipation of upcoming events, their effect on each other, as well as how all of those factors will affect our future.

The first question 2020 will answer is who will turn out to be the most influential decision makers? Might it be Fox News, angry conservative Christians, Democrats in Congress, or perhaps a centrist who is fed up with the progressive constituency? After four years in the White House, does Mr. Trump represent a dying generation soon to be replaced by a new multi-cultural America or have independent Americans moved from their expected progressivism back to the center of the political spectrum?

Another question up for consideration is who will emerge from 2020 as the most powerful decision-makers? In 1920, it was Congress, the Republican Party bosses, and, ultimately, President-elect Warren Gamaliel Harding, the genial Ohio Senator who was elected our 29th President on Tuesday, November 2nd, his 55th birthday. . 

President Trump's strongest asset as well as his most serious liability lies in his reputation as both a leader and as a man. In 2016, many conservatives along with many independent voters accepted him more because of who he wasn't (specifically Hillary Clinton) rather than for who he really was: Donald John Trump, unpredictable, rude, profane, and totally self-indulgent to the edge of decency and beyond, including the law.

The year 2020 is less than a week old and President Trump has already made a decision that could mean war or peace, life or death, a stable balance of power in the Middle East, or disastrous chaos. It's my guess, as well as my fear, that President Trump's willingness to make incautious decisions is exactly what could return him to the White House. After all, Iran's Major General Qasem Soleimani (as one commentator put it) "died as he killed" thus being deeply deserving of President Trump's vengeful wrath. Reckless as he is, President Trump, is a better decision-maker for many than most of his recent predecessors. To many Americans, President Trump decides rather than presides,  proceeds rather than balks, and acts almost as much as he talks. Still, there are very few indeed at home or abroad who consider Donald Trump of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. a worthy forward-looking international statesman!

As we enter the 1920's centenary, America is changing just as it has done since it was conceived in 1776 and born in 1789 in the wake of the 1787 Constitutional Convention which was presided over by George Washington, guided by little James Madison and deemed worthy by old Benjamin Franklin. Even as we conscientiously look ahead, something will occur during any year that alters its course in a way that wasn't readily predictable at the outset.

On January 20th, 2001, as President George W. Bush became America's second presidential son to be inaugurated president, no one anticipated the tragedy of Tuesday, September 11th 2001. No one in 1980 anticipated the failure of a mission to rescue our hostages in Iran, perhaps the single most significant event that cost President Jimmy Carter the White House that November. At the dawning of 1968, who could have predicted the withdrawal of President Lyndon Johnson or the assassination of Robert Kennedy? Could the famous 100 days of the 1933 New Deal have taken place under Vice President-elect John Nance Garner  had President-elect Franklin Roosevelt been assassinated in Miami on the night of Wednesday, February 15th, 1933? Most historians assert that Mr. Garner would have been unlikely to proceed as did FDR.

Would the 1932 presidential contest have been closer if the bonus marchers had not been gassed by the Hoover Administration during their march on Washington in July of 1932? As for 1920, there was some speculation early in the year that the former World War I food administrator under President Woodrow Wilson might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee were he to have declared himself a Democrat. His name was Herbert Clark Hoover and his prospective vice presidential running mate, who thought the idea might be quite wonderful, was young Franklin Delano Roosevelt!

The year 1920 was predictable in some ways, but not in every significant way. Each political season brings with it a surprise that not even the sitting president can predict!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

COMMON SENSE - IT DOESN'T EXIST AS IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

By Edwin Cooney

Let's see now, I've been writing columns and discussing them with readers since June 16th, 2005. The topic no one, not even my closest friends, agrees with me on is my insistence that there's no such thing as "common sense.” So, here's one more try.

Example: You're in an intense discussion on a subject with someone who insists your whole approach to that issue or circumstance or even behavior is totally wrong. Finally, your antagonist says: If you'd just use a little plain "common sense,” you'd change your mind!

With that admonition, the subject is closed. The issue is no longer about the substance of the topic at hand. It's now about the differences between you and the other party. If that other party is your parent, spouse, teacher, preacher, close friend, or your boss, their influence  and authority rather than how true their advice may be will inevitably carry the day. After all, everyone knows that somewhere out in the blue there lurks a body of pure "common sense" that, if tapped, can solve all mysteries, quandaries and challenges no matter how complex or serious. To that, I say “nuts!"

As I see it, “sense” is a combination of instinct, feeling, and logic which is applicable to any and all circumstances. "Common sense" insists that by human nature there is a common, positive or negative response to any and all circumstances which is readily available and obvious to everyone at all times. Were that the case, there would never be any disagreement between two people equipped with the same spiritual, emotional and mental coping mechanisms.

Invariably, people devoted, as most people are, to the existence of "common sense" insist that pulling one's hand from a flame or a hot stove is an example of "common sense.” To that I insist that the act of pulling one's hand from a flame or hot spot is instinctual. It's not even logical. One doesn't have either the time or inclination to decide whether it's healthy to keep one's hand in a flame.

Breathing, eating, sleeping, seeing, hearing, walking, and our capacity for emotional reactions to events are phenomena that are naturally available to us at birth. However, even these natural gifts are vulnerable to genetic interventions or other physical maladies that are too often beyond our control.

Beyond our instinctual or natural gifts is our reaction to the circumstances that create pain, stimulate hunger, cause anxiety or anger, or stimulate various types of love. All of these reactions are subject to both expectations and to the experiences we've had with those circumstances.

As I see it, too often "common sense" is ultimately a bullying tactic to keep any one of us in line. Here's a current example of what I mean: as we consider the value or lack thereof of impeaching President Trump, both sides appeal to our concept of "common sense" for and against impeachment.

I insist that the admonition to use “common sense" is mostly a myth, designed to somehow justify one person's dominance or superiority over another person's ideas.

Since we are all very human, we are subject to error from time to time. Thus, the true alternative to "common sense" is the phenomenon we ought to refer to as "good sense.” Good sense is an appeal to apply one's already recognized capacity for logic and wisdom.

Your spouse, child, other next of kin, neighbor, drinking buddy, student, or parishioner is, most of the time, someone who has not only the capacity for good sense, but their capacity for good sense might even be greater than yours! Rather than closing off all discussion by asserting that your contentious companion in a disagreement lacks "common sense," you should generously assume that he or she ultimately does share your capacity for good sense and it's likely that a resolution to your conflict will be closer than you ever thought was possible!

All of us are vulnerable from time to time to the misleading effects of myths. As I see it, ”common sense" is a mere myth. Good sense, on the other hand, is something that most of us possess in one way or another.

The fact of the matter is that our capacity to make any sense at all is highly individual. “Common sense” just doesn’t exist. If it did, our dream of “peace on earth” would surely be real rather than a prayer. 

I rest my case!  

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IMPEACHMENT! IS IT ALL REALLY AND TRULY ABOUT POLITICS?

By Edwin Cooney

At the close of last week's musing, I asserted that politics is a combination of both principle and hoax. Hence, the question is: how can the impeachment process, legitimate and constitutional as it is, be anything other than both principle and hoax and, thus, all about politics? Since I'm of limited wisdom, I decided to connect once again with my old watering hole buddies, Lunkhead and Dunderhead, in order to get a bit of perspective. After all, if there's anyone who needs perspective more than me, I haven't met him!

Lunkhead and Dunderhead had obviously been waiting for me as I entered because there was an empty seat between them along the bar. Lunkhead had lately swapped his old battered fedora for a "Trump in 2020” baseball cap. He was still big and burly and he had an unlit heavily chewed cigar jutting out of the left side of his mouth which he'd periodically remove to take a swig of straight scotch. Dunderhead, slim and dapper with blonde curls sat with an IPA and a bowl of peanuts in front of him. Dunderhead had obviously just annoyed Lunkhead with a question or comment, because there was a rather satisfied smirk across his thin, mustachioed lips.

"Hey guys," I began, "isn't this impeachment business really all about politics?"

"Of course it is!" Lunkhead shot back. "Those damned Democrats just can't get over crooked Hillary's loss back in 2016. That's all there's ever been to their whining behavior since a really great president was finally inaugurated back on January 20th, 2017. It took President Trump to discover and expose "the deep state” that the liberal media designed for nothin' else except to wreck the people's confidence in President Trump," Lunkhead said as he gnawed down once again on his unlit cigar.

"Nuts!" Growled Dunderhead through clenched pearly white teeth, "There never has been and there never will be a "deep state.” The fact of the matter is that liberals are too contrary, even toward each other, to create such a phenomenon! Even more, the sad truth is that even if we can get Trump, we'd still have to live with a gentleman named Pence. They know it and they know that "crooked Hillary" is gone for good. They only hang on to her because they need her more than even we ever did!" Dunderhead went on, "Trump and his boot-licking supporters had to create a "deep state" in order to justify their own sense of victimhood. Trump's minions deny the legitimacy of victimhood to the poor and the minority, but they openly advertise its existence when it comes to their own woes!"

"Here's where Lunkhead is actually right for a change. Of course, impeachment is political!” asserted Dunderhead. “How could it be anything else? It was designed to be political. Congress can't send Trump to jail no matter how criminally nasty he's been, but they can legally remove him from office to face the music for his deplorable prejudices and unlawful behavior over the past twenty years or so."

"Ah!" Shouted Lunkhead slamming his empty scotch glass (which the bartender promptly refilled) down on the bar. "That's right and when that impeachment resolution goes before the people's United States Senate and is voted down, as it damned well better be, the political game will be over.”

"Maybe and maybe not," said Dunderhead. “First, there still has to be an election and I'm confident that a lot of decent people cringe on a minute by minute timetable because they've had enough of the self-serving dramatics and the obvious incompetence of the administration. Listen now, Lunkhead, it's obvious to me that Nancy Pelosi has something up her sleeve that'll rock Donald's smelly socks.”

“Nonsense!” shot back Lunkhead. "When the people's Senate finds President Trump not guilty, that'll be the second time the president has been found innocent of charges made against him. The first time was that Mueller report. This verdict will actually re-elect President Trump. Get it through your thick skull, Dunderhead. Just as Mick Mulvaney recently and succinctly put it, "get over it." Once you take this good advice, Dunderhead, and "get over it," it will set you free. You might even become a true American patriot one day!"

“Look, Lunkhead," began Dunderhead. "You're forgetting something — if you ever knew it! According to the rules of the House of Representatives, the majority may pass and then table a resolution. That means that the Democratic majority could pass Articles of Impeachment and then hold them until a more favorable time."

"Does that mean that they could hold up those Articles of Impeachment until after a possible re-election of President Trump?” I asked.

"Precisely and absolutely!” Dunderhead chortled.

The rest was all dramatic but inconsequential — sort of!

"That would be cowardly, just like traditional Democrats," Lunkhead shouted.

"That's just plain smart which President Donnie Johnny isn't!"  Dunderhead insisted.

Lunkhead, for the second but final time that night, slammed his empty scotch glass on the bar and headed toward the door with Dunderhead right on his heels. In defiance of the no smoking ban, Lunkhead's cigar came to life just as he pushed the door open and that sweet but pungent smell became quickly apparent.

Suddenly it was all over and, as I paid the check, my real value to Lunkhead and Dunderhead became, as the late great Richard Milhous Nixon might observe, "perfectly clear!"

Still, I knew that sooner than later, we’d all be back together at the old watering hole!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHAT'S AT THE HEART OF AMERICAN POLITICS — HOAX OR PRINCIPLE?

By Edwin Cooney

It's both right and traditional to say good things about George Washington, our "Founding Father," who was first so designated by President Warren Harding. However, like the rest of us, Papa George had a flaw or two. One, according to sources, was a monumental temper when provoked. The other, misjudgment, common to all of us, can be found in his "farewell address" which, rather than a speech,  was a letter in the Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser of Monday, September 19th, 1796. In that letter, Washington issued a warning to avoid party politics, but without the suggestion of a practical alternative.

His warning was to avoid involvement in political parties and to rely strictly on the passage of constitutional amendments rather than narrowly focused laws for the solution of ongoing conflicts. History demonstrates that as close as Washington was to both Thomas Jefferson, his original Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton, his personal friend, aide-de-camp during the revolution and Secretary of the Treasury during the first part of his presidency, he apparently couldn't convince either man to alter his desire to create political parties. Thus, by warning against the formation of political parties, Washington tainted them by reputation even before they could taint themselves through pettiness and self-serving statements of purposeful achievement and grandeur. As a result of a famous warning minus a creditable solution, we find ourselves 223 years after Washington's famous letter in a hell of an emotional and spiritual quagmire. Here's the fundamental problem.

Since political parties are traditionally tainted, only the most dedicated politically-oriented citizens consider them relevant and worthy of joining, let alone taking them seriously. The rest of us, to the extent we accept politics as a "necessary evil," identify with individual candidates. Saying "I vote for the man, not the party!” has become the most traditional and popular admonition of political principle throughout American history.  As I see it, that particular assertion misses the mark as to what voting is all about. After all, we're supposedly a government of laws and not of people.

The value of any political party is what it stands for. The Democratic Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stood for decentralized or state government providing for the people’s needs over the use of the federal or central government. Federalists — later Whigs and Republicans — stood for the central government over state government. The reason for that was because its constituency, the American system of business, had to cross state lines in order to function, let alone prosper. Business and commerce were simply too big and potentially profitable to be effectively regulated by any individual state government.

Today's Democratic Party stands for active service on behalf of a broad spectrum of a  socially oriented constituency, even with their differing and often conflicting social and political objectives. The purpose of government, Democrats insist, is that of improving the "general welfare" of the people as a whole. 

Today's Republican Party is about supporting and sustaining business and commerce which they regard as the two most vital engines of our economy. As Calvin Coolidge once put it: economy reaches everywhere.

So, you ask, when did central or "big government" become bad for business but a benefactor for the people? The answer is during the Depression when big business was championed by the central government, but ultimately defrauded and economically broke the American people. FDR's New Deal took over the central government and employed and increased the purchasing power of John and Suzie Q. Citizen. However, when Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, the old Dixie wing of the Democratic Party, fearing association with and (even worse) obligation to blacks, married the business wing of the Republican Party even though during pre Civil War days the South trumpeted the human “benefits” of its system of slavery over the profit-oriented motive of both the Whig and Republican parties. After all, slaves were taken care of from cradle to grave. Northern capitalism used people and, when it wasn't profitable to pay them, let them starve. Conservative southerners in 1964 swapped their traditional cradle to grave concern for blacks and signed on to the profit motivation of the old northern industrialism even though it had once defeated and humiliated their beloved confederacy.

As for today's parties, conservatism, nativism, and religious fundamentalism dominate the Republican Party. Liberalism, environmentalism and social welfare are on the agenda of today's Democratic Party. Today's Democratic Party is the direct managing tool of government. Today's Republican Party uses business and commerce as legitimate tools for managing the government. 

As for "the best candidate," although it's only natural to endorse the person who is simpatico with our general approach to things, we can be better served if at times we're a little uncomfortable with the direction of an individual. That's when an individual is providing leadership.

What separates Donald Trump from other legitimate activist presidents isn't his conservatism, but rather his overall adolescence. He thinks and acts like a rebellious adolescent. Even when he gives someone the benefit of the doubt, it is to bolster himself politically.

I wish we weren't impeaching President Trump, because I fear it's to his advantage. Still, since I believe he sought to bribe the President of Ukraine, and since bribery is clearly an impeachable offense according to Article II of the Constitution as well as almost a violation of historical rules that conduct our relations with other countries, I'd vote to convict. No, this impeachment effort may not be practical, but it is far from a “hoax.”

As I read American history of the four presidential impeachments, only President Andrew Johnson's was actually a hoax! Andrew Johnson's sin was defiance of the “Tenure of Office Act.” It was passed by Congress, vetoed by Johnson, passed over Johnson's veto, and eventually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. No president, not even President Donald Trump, should be impeached for merely defying Congress. After all, Harry Truman gave Congress “hell” all the time!

Whether the American political system is principle or hoax, as sad as it is to say this, sometimes it is both!

As for President Washington's "flaw" referred to above, all must be forgiven. After all, not even George Washington was as flawless as President Trump, was he?! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A SPECIAL THRILL!

By Edwin Cooney

I experienced an unexpected and special thrill just today and I'm anxious to share it with you because of what it means to me!

As many of you are aware, for the past six years I've been president of the Alumni Association of my alma mater, the New York State School for the Blind, a residential school in Batavia, New York. Batavia is situated on the New York State Thruway between Rochester which is 31 miles to its east and Buffalo which is 36 miles to its southwest. When I was young, Batavia was a city of about 18,000 people, pretty convenient for both working and shopping for its citizens.

A residential school, there were about 200 students who attended NYSSB from all parts of Upstate New York. One of the attendees during the mid 1950s was a boy named Karl, who was also known as Mickey. Michael was his middle name Karl told me. Karl was born in Schenectady and lived in Scotia, a suburb of Schenectady.

Karl and I weren't particularly close which means we really didn't play together much and when I chatted with him early today, I could tell that his memory of me was vague. However, he was very pleasant as he confirmed the reality of the memories I have of him. For instance, I remember he had a sister Marilyn, I recalled that his nickname was Mickey, that he had a lot of sight for one of our students, and that he used to stand up on a playground swing and swing as high as he could and, just before bailing, cry out "happy landing!"

As of this writing, Karl's presence takes me back across the decades of friends and experiences to a time, although bedecked with its own worries, that was comparatively a time of innocence.

In a vivid way, he is a most pleasant part of my history. I've always been impressed with his childhood daring and even more with the fact that he got away with it unscathed!

Hence my question is obvious. Has anyone suddenly and unexpectedly appeared in your life thus taking you back to a time so very different from today? If so, I hope there's a gift in it for you as there was for me.

Like our families, neighborhoods, country and even the world in which we dwell, each of us possesses a multi-faceted history filled with sunny rooms and dark places each of which leaves a subtle but nevertheless permanent impression on much of what follows in our lives. I've spent probably less than a total of five minutes recalling Karl since I last knew him some 63 years ago. However, my memory of him is both happy and even wondrous.

During our short chat, I didn't inquire and he didn't offer anything about his life experience. I haven't a clue (well, only a faint clue!) as to whether he went to college (although I highly suspect he did!) Nor do I know anything about his politics or his marital experience — if he even had one. I share this with you for two reasons both practical and substantive.

First, I hope this enables you to recall a time and event that energizes your memory and your sense of well-being.

Second, if you're so inclined, remember that everything, great and small, is the result of someone else's hopes, fears, ambitions and accomplishments.

We all, more often than we realize, have an effect on someone else's life experience in some small way.

I hope there's a day in your future that gratifies you just as this day does for me.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY