THE BIG SHUT DOWN!

By Edwin Cooney

I think I know some of the fundamental causes as to why "the greatest nation in the world" is shutting down! Sadly, we of the land of the free and the home of the brave are just plain scared — due to a lack of national leadership. Even more, the well off among us are just as frightened as we “peasants!”

Even as our president, as late as last Wednesday, was minimizing our national plight, those among his most ardent followers, owners of sports franchises, of airlines, of hotels, were suspending almost every enterprise designed to bring them maximum profits. They were closing down "March Madness," suspending the remainder of the professional basketball and hockey seasons, and suspending baseball spring training as well as the scheduled March 26th baseball season opening. Airlines are now cancelling flights, foreign or domestic — which is as it should be. Schools and colleges are closing and sending students home.

This national tragedy extends beyond mere partisan politics. It reflects in some significant ways how we have become who we are today. The factors I've just cited are symptoms of a national crisis, not the cause of it!

There are oodles of good things about us that we forget at our peril including our creativity and our charitable organizations and institutions as well as our civil, spiritual, and political liberties.

Our fundamental flaw lies in our expectation that we ought to be able to control our individual lives and fates. Given our advancements in science and technology, this explanation is fairly understandable. This understandability only intensifies the panic, fear and anger when something like the Coronavirus confronts us.

Additionally, we Americans expect to be taken care of, not only by the government, but also by the private market. We expect private manufacturers and other businesses to guarantee safe working conditions. We expect merchants to protect us from secondhand smoke. We insist that the quality of a product be guaranteed to extend over a reasonable period of time after purchase. These constitute only a few social expectations we have of private enterprise. In fact, many public safety requirements were viciously resisted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by well-healed entrepreneurs.

The two most frightening aspects of this national crisis are that the symptoms at the outset are usually quite mild and up to now testing tools have been in short supply. (From what I've learned, a number of countries that have socialized medicine such as Australia have no shortage of testing materials.)

Secondly, uncertainty as to how to minimize the likelihood of coming down with the virus is what most affects the smooth operation of our society and the culture that drives what we dare to do.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this crisis is now it could even affect the outcome of the 2020 national election. Socio/political observers continuously point out that the three men in line to be president in January of 2021 are "old white males." The fact is that since "old white males" are the most vulnerable group to contract the disease, the Coronavirus could conceivably decide who might not be elected President of the United States of America next November.

Insofar as I'm aware, I have little or no fear of the virus for myself, although I am apprehensive about the health and well-being of people I highly regard and love. In fact, perhaps the real bottom line for most of us is fear for the health and well-being of those we love. Fear, as I often assert, is the father of anger — both personal and national. Additionally, we can identify a number of occasions throughout human history when pandemic diseases have had a direct effect on the state and even on the course of nations.

The Bubonic Plague (or the “Black Death” as it was better known) had a direct effect on the history of fourteenth and fifteenth century England to the extent that it dictated the royal succession and brought about the infamous Wars of the Roses between the Lancaster and the York families. (Had the Lancasters not ultimately prevailed, there would have been no Henry the Eighth and, perhaps more significantly, no break with the Catholic Church and thus none of the disasters and deaths that resulted from that historic event.)

The Spanish Flu of 1918 is said to have affected the health and mental stability of President Woodrow Wilson during the 1919 Paris Peace conference. A number of witnesses to that conference insist that following a bout with the flu, President Wilson's mood or temperament affected his willingness to compromise both during and after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. (While these two instances aren't conclusive causes of events, they demonstrate very significant speculative historic causes and effects of history.)

The cancellation of significant social, economic, and cultural events are more than likely to alter socio/political and cultural outcomes in the near future. One of the most likely outcomes is the degree to which we have a change in what we expect of our national political leadership. No reasonable person can blame President Trump for the outbreak of the Coronavirus, but he appears to have dismantled an important department, thereby cutting down the capacity of the government to protect us from the ravages of disease. For many, the president has been more interested in government efficiency than in addressing our safety and welfare. His characterization of the virus as a "foreign virus” is, of course nonsense, but it appeals to the fears and prejudices of his constituency. Viruses speak neither Chinese nor “American," but so long as they originate from abroad, they can be labeled as foreign as royalty or communism. President Trump's message of last Wednesday night was both political and self-congratulatory which is nothing new! Nor was it designed to calm an anxious America. Some wonder why President Trump was willing to declare a national emergency over the non-construction of his border wall, but until last Friday resisted declaring a national emergency for the Coronavirus.

You may not have imagined that you would be a witness, let alone a possible part of a dramatic historic event, but what we are about to experience may be more significant than even 9/11.

Writing in the New York Times on Saturday, March 14th, Dr. David A. Kessler welcomed President Trump's appointment of Brett Giroir as Assistant Secretary of Health to coordinate the speeding up and implementation of the use of badly needed test kits. According to Dr. Kessler, this process could be done in seven days. (Dr. Kessler, MD is a professor of epidemiology, biostatistics and pediatrics at the University of San Fransisco.) His article outlines the structure as well as the activities of organizations within that structure which he insists can install our badly needed Coronavirus testing capacity in a week's time. How long it will take for the testing system to take effect, Dr. Kessler does not address.

I think it's important to remember that "promoting the general welfare" of the nation was as important as the other four reasons to our Founding Fathers when they created the Constitution in 1787! Failure to lead when the path is uncertain is a failure of leadership! Assuming that you, I, and those closest to us survive the physical effects of the Coronavirus, our more sensitive outlooks, attitudes and expectations for each other's well-being may be its only positive, but most powerful, significant legacy.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WHICH BEST SERVES — PRINCIPLE OR PRACTICALITY?

By Edwin Cooney

The answer to that question is simple. Both principle and practicality are essential to every successful political campaign. Just two weeks ago, I observed the following regarding the present political climate: I don't like to write this, let alone think it, but I'm almost sure that Michael Bloomberg will be the Democratic candidate. He and President Trump will ultimately square off for the big prize. That was a statement of practicality more than it was a prediction of how this election should or will come out.

Although political junkies of all stripes and levels of sophistication insist that every presidential election is both reflective of our past as well as crucial to our future, not every presidential election is a matter of practicality versus principle. Occasionally, the question of principle versus practicality is different for each party during the same election.

Like the educator Christopher Hedges, some people would insist that the spontaneous and nearly simultaneous withdrawal from the Democratic "lists" indicates oligarchical type planning, since the departure of candidates Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are thought by many as indicative of oligarchical behavior. (An oligarchy exists when the rich are fully in control of a country's body politic.) I'm not convinced that we're there as yet because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the decisions by Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg were simultaneous rather than being the result of coercive political pressure. Elizabeth Warren's refusal to endorse Joe Biden is a further indication that there remains considerable viability in our free system of government.

As for Messrs Biden and Sanders, they will now be measured by their conduct and the choices they make.

I have considerable respect for the principles and even the person of Bernie Sanders. However, it is vital that his supporters keep two things in mind. Bernie Sanders is seeking the nomination of a party he has refused to join. Second, even if he were a lifelong Democrat, he would not be automatically entitled to the nomination any more than Joe Biden. There's nothing new about a party's rejection of a "Johnny come lately."

Back in the fall of 1973 when President Nixon was looking to replace the recently resigned Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, the president was warned by both Republicans and Democrats on Capital Hill not to send them the name of John B. Connally whom it was well known he favored for the vice presidency. Connally had only been a Republican since the January 22, 1973 death of former President Lyndon B. Johnson. You’ll perhaps recall that Connally was an old Lyndon B. Johnson Democratic crony who was sitting in front of President John F. Kennedy at that fateful moment on Friday, November 22nd, 1963. Connally was wounded, but survived to serve as Texas's governor through 1968. By 1970, he was Secretary of the Treasury in Richard Nixon's administration.  To 1973 Republicans, Connally was regarded as an opportunist: conservative in comparison to LBJ, but hardly a genuine Republican conservative. As for the Democrats, Mr. Connally was a "turncoat." Nor was former Republican New York City Mayor John V. Lindsay welcome a year earlier when he tried to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in the spring of 1972.

It's my understanding that in 2016, Senator Sanders insisted that a candidate with merely a plurality of the delegates was not entitled to party preferment. I'm told that in 2020, Senator Sanders has had a change of heart on that issue! However, that's just plain situational politics. Up to this point, Bernie hasn't demonstrated that he's much of a politician. That's not good news when one seeks a political office of the magnitude of the presidency.

Here's a very brief review of instances of principle verses practicality during an election year.

In 1964, the GOP was more principle than practical as the party sought to be more of a conservative western-oriented party by substituting the eastern establishment with Arizona's Senator Barry Goldwater. Their slogan was "a choice, not an echo.” Just four years later, 1968 Republicans leaned more toward the center after their 1964 drubbing by LBJ. By 1988, the Republicans again sought to move ever so slightly to the center from the Reagan right via George H. W. Bush's thousand points of enlightened conservative light. In 2008, Barack Obama's "yes we can" slogan was an appeal for principled change. As for 2016, a new era of GOP populism which was more practical than principle carried Donald Trump to an eyelash victory over the non issue-oriented Hillary Clinton candidacy. In 2016, identity politics had replaced principled public service-oriented Democratic leadership.

Due primarily to his advanced age, Joe Biden needs to clearly demonstrate that he's capable of handling the presidency. Perhaps too many voters aren't sure he can. That is a question of practicality rather than principle.

Finally, I'm convinced that the most powerful and principled Democratic tickets would be as follows: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders and Amy Klovuchar. These tickets would nicely balance political principles and the age factor as well as geographic balance and appeal.

Back in 1936, FDR rightly asserted that he was the major issue in that campaign. In 2020, President Donald John Trump is definitely the issue. The difference, as I see it, is that FDR's persona was more about national direction and purpose, where as President Trump's persona has more to do with his personal willfulness than it does with our national well-being!

Candidates Buttigieg, Klovuchar, Warren, and Bloomberg chose public service over ego this week. By so doing, they demonstrated principle, practicality, and, even more, just good old American citizenship! 

As for the question of practicality and principle, if a candidate is impractical enough not to define his or her principles, that candidate’s opponents along with the voters are likely to define them. Once that happens, there’s little light at the end of a long political tunnel for such a candidate!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

1940: FORTRESS AMERICA CONNECTS WITH THE WORLD!

By Edwin Cooney

Nineteen-forty was an absolutely amazing and historic year. Not only did we vote FDR (many reluctantly) to an unprecedented third term, but an American President dared to sign a national conscription bill nearing the close of the presidential campaign.

The first of January was a Monday in 1940. On Friday, the 5th, the Federal Communications Commission, for the first time, heard the clear static-free transmission of the FM broadcast signal. Two days later, on Sunday, January 7th, the world was shocked to learn that the Finnish army, despite inferior numbers, had defeated the Soviet army on the Raate-Suomussalmi Road. Winston Churchill would proclaim "Finland shows what free men can do!” However, the gallant Finnish army, which originally out-skied (more than out-gunned) the Soviets, wasn't strong enough to permanently hold off Stalin's forces.

Wednesday, January 24th saw the release of film director John Ford's "The Grapes of Wrath" starring Henry Fonda, based on author John Steinbeck's book by that name.

On Friday, February 2nd, Frank Sinatra made his singing debut in Indianapolis accompanied by Tommy Dorsey's orchestra. Walt Disney's "Pinocchio" was released on Friday, February 23rd. On Sunday, February 25th, W2XBS in New York televised an NHL hockey game for the first time which was won by the Rangers over the Montreal Canadians 6 to 2. Four days later, Thursday, February 29th, Hattie McDaniel became the first black woman granted an Oscar for her role as Mammy in "Gone With the Wind." Just the day before, Wednesday, February 28th, the Census Bureau announced the population to be 131,669,275. The black population was 12,865,518, constituting 9.8% of the total number.

On Thursday, March 12th, the Finns signed The Treaty of Moscow giving up 11 per cent of its territory to Stalin — thus saddening and disappointing the free world.  

By Thursday, April 16th, the day Cleveland Indians' pitcher Bob Feller opened the American League  season with a 1 to nothing no hitter over the Chicago White Sox, many Americans were beginning to wonder about the coming political season.

Before many Americans could begin analyzing our domestic political possibilities, there came Friday, May 10th in Great Britain.  On that day, as Germany began its blitzkrieg of four nations, Parliament lost patience with its leadership. It wrenched power from Neville Chamberlain. King George VI finally decided to offer power to Winston Churchill, a member of The House of Commons, rather than to Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of Halifax. The urgency and precariousness of Britain's lott, Churchill's naval background and the fact that he was half American were likely factors in the King's choice of Churchill over Halifax.

Meanwhile, FDR, whose stellar political reputation had been somewhat damaged in 1937 by his attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court, would still be a formidable candidate due to his personal charisma and experience if he sought a third term — an honor Ulysses S. Grant and FDR's fifth cousin Theodore Roosevelt had unsuccessfully tried to achieve. Indiana Governor Paul McNutt was said to be interested, but Postmaster General Jim Farley, who had successfully captained FDR's 1932 and 1936 campaign troops, clearly had decided that 1940 was his turn. Otherwise, the Democrats might try Vice President "Cactus Jack" Garner, also a former Speaker of the House and a rich pecan nut farmer from Uvalde, Texas. Garner, whose agreement to serve as Vice President under then Governor Franklin Roosevelt had cinched FDR's fourth ballot nomination back in 1932, also coveted the 1940 nomination. There was also Secretary of State Cordell Hull, an old Tennessee populist, whose value to the administration was that he kept old-line Southern Democrats wedded to the New Deal. However, he was old, rather tired and ill. Over on the GOP side, the newly elected Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft (son of former president William Howard Taft) was popular with traditionally conservative Republicans. Thomas E. Dewey, born in Michigan but now a popular prosecutor from New York, had a reputation for controlling crime, second only to that of J. Edgar Hoover. Dewey also wanted to become president. Finally, there was an interested corporation lawyer, a native of Elwood, Indiana. He was a Democrat whose only quarrel with FDR was the New Deal's over-regulation of public utilities and this drove him to the Republican Party.  His name was Wendell Lewis Willkie.

Republicans met in Philadelphia between Monday, June 24th and Friday, June 28th for their 22nd quadrennial convention. Wendell Willkie (one of three candidates from New York State) was nominated on the sixth ballot. Charles Linza McNary of Oregon was nominated for Vice President. The Willkie/McNary nominations constituted a move to the center of the political spectrum in an effort to capture the increasing number of progressive votes across the country. It was hoped that this would make them competitive with the New Deal dominated Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party which would meet in Chicago for its 28th quadrennial convention nominated FDR for that unprecedented third term on the first ballot. Although perhaps genuinely reluctant to run earlier in the year, by the time the convention opened on Monday, July 15th, FDR was clearly and cleverly planning his own "spontaneous" nomination. Former Commerce Secretary Harry L. Hopkins, who occupied three different headquarters during the convention, arranged through Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly for a voice to come from the cellar of the convention hall chanting "we want Roosevelt!” just after Kentucky Senator Alben W. Barkley had finished reading from the podium a letter from the President insisting that the delegates were perfectly free to nominate another candidate. Then there was the kerfuffle over FDR's insistence that Agriculture Secretary Henry Agard Wallace of Iowa become his vice presidential running mate. Eleanor Roosevelt went to the convention to speak for Wallace and FDR threatened to withdrawal his candidacy if Wallace was rejected. Many delegates resisted the Wallace nomination. However, by Friday night, July 19th, 1940, FDR was fully in command of the Democratic party and was seeking to master the British resistance to Adolf Hitler.

Although less apparent to contemporaries, FDR and Willkie had one outlook in common: they both rejected isolationism's "fortress America” as a necessary strategy for keeping America safe and free. Republicans charged that Roosevelt's brand of internationalism would be like his agricultural policy, that instead of plowing up one third of America's wheat, it would bury one third of all America's boys. It was one of the few Republican charges that deeply angered Roosevelt. By the close of the 1940 campaign, the drafting of American boys was the law and FDR participated in the ceremony where Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson drew the first draft number.

Births in 1940 included Eric Hilliard (Ricky) Nelson on Wednesday, May 8th, baseball Hall of Famers Willie Stargell on Wednesday March 6th, and Joe Torre on Thursday, July 18th. Perhaps most notably, the Beatles' John Lennon was born on Wednesday, October 9th during a German air raid over London.

As for the election on Tuesday, November 5th, Roosevelt received 27,213,945 votes to Willkie's 22,347,744. FDR earned 449 electoral votes, Willkie 82, with Roosevelt carrying 38 of the then 48 states.

A sad irony: Had Wendell Willkie and Charles McNary been elected over Roosevelt and Wallace in 1940, both men would have died in office. Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, whoever was Secretary of State, perhaps a younger John Foster Dulles, would have succeeded President Willkie! Charles McNary died on Thursday, February 25th, 1944 at the age of 69 and Mr. Willkie died on Sunday, October 8th, 1944 at age 52 following an unsuccessful attempt to regain the GOP presidential nomination. Even more ironic, this was exactly six months and four days before President Roosevelt's passing!

I think most historians would agree with this mere student of history that in 1940, America opened its eyes, conscience and awareness of the welfare of the world community to its own safety and even survival. By the end of the year (I believe it was Thursday, December 26th, 1940), FDR declared America a "good neighbor" to the world and asserted that America ought to be the world's “arsenal of Democracy.”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

LET'S TALK ABOUT SOCIALISM

By Edwin Cooney

My guess is that readers viewing the above title of this musing will have one of three reactions. The first might be: oh, no! Socialism is the gateway to Communism! Cooney is obviously in denial as to the threat of both. Second, some people might expect to be bored by political analysis, however brief. Third, others are likely to cheer: Ah! He finally gets it!

I'm convinced that half the people who insist they hate socialism neither understand it nor are even curious about it! The origin of it is foreign and therein lies the major block to its consideration and acceptance by the majority of Americans. The thumbnail definition of socialism is that the government owns the means of the production and distribution of goods and regulates the rules of commerce. From here on, as my guide through what I have to say, I'm going to follow one of my very favorite observations which was made by President John Kennedy before the 1962 Yale University graduating class. As some of you know, I've used this statement to make a political point several times before.

One of the major issue solutions being made by Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and, to some extent, Elizabeth Warren is what is called "single payer healthcare.” That is payment of everyone's healthcare by the government. The fact that it is "socialism" is the main argument against it. Hence the question, what is "socialism?" In order to begin answering the question, I now call on President Kennedy.

“As every past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes, so in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality.  For the great enemy of the truth is—very often—not the lie: deliberate; contrived; and dishonest; but the myth: persistent; persuasive; and unrealistic.”

The first step we must take to “disenthrall" ourselves from preconceived beliefs about socialism is to recognize that socialism is a foreign rather than an American political concept. One of the most constant threads running through American history is "nativism" which inevitably poisons our attitudes to most foreign born ideas. Note that industrialism also preceded full-fledged capitalism in this country by about sixty years, but money, which even more than religion inspires Americans, legitimized and thus Americanized industrialism. Capitalism is a commodity recognized because people can see its enrichment and value grow to meet their demands for increased purchasing power which benefits them personally.

JFK: ”Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears.  We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.”

 The "prefabricated myth” here which is persistent, persuasive and unrealistic, is that socialism is designed to destroy capitalism. However, there is another “ism” which originated in Europe that was designed to destroy everyone's liberty. That is fascism, a combination of government and corporatism.  Back in 1962, Richard Nixon complained about the attempt to marry socialism and liberty, which he said would fail because true liberty cannot be compromised. However, Mr. Nixon never condemned fascism with the same enthusiasm as he did socialism. 

Adopting single payer healthcare would mark the end of capitalism insist the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Ingraham’s, as well as President Trump. Yet they see only liberty emanating from the combination of corporatism and, yes, big government. Government must be big enough and strong enough to nurture and ensure the structure and benefits of ever-growing and expanding capitalism. Government that nurtures society is bad, but government that ensures capitalism is good, say the Conservatives!

Of course, there are risks in adopting single payer healthcare. To begin with, a lot of good, hardworking people rely on the health insurance business to make a living. Single payer may well destroy that healthcare insurance business. However, there are many other commodities available to those whose living depend on insuring against the misfortunes of their fellow citizens.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of prepaid healthcare is its political value. In recent days, both President Trump and Senator Sanders have been warned that the Russians are out to help Senator Sanders because he's the perfect opponent of President Trump's re-election. I haven't heard Senator Sanders' response, but President Trump is already hot about the issue. To President Trump, the "deep state" (his pet contrivance) is at it again.

JFK concludes that we enjoy the comfort of opinion rather than the discomfort of thought. Mythology distracts us everywhere. 

I like the open debate over socialism. It's good for the Democratic Party as well as for the Republican Party and we citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries of this debate. My quarrel with political conservatism is that it is naturally anti-social. Conservatism, as I see it, is about the conservation of capital. Its attempts at superior morality is absolutely nonsense. As for socialism, imperfect and not always applicable as it is, socialism is more about you and me than is conservatism and therein lies its value.

President Kennedy was right! Opinion is far more comfortable and far more easy than thought. Sadly, mythology distracts us everywhere.

Insofar as I'm concerned, most scary of all, mythology too often makes lies out of clearly unsubstantiated conclusions to our national detriment, thus almost invariably stultifying creative thinking!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

OKAY, HERE'S THE "SKINNY" AS I SEE IT!

By Edwin Cooney

I've always enjoyed politics, although the older I get, the more temperamental politics becomes, and the more I experience it as an observer, the more cynical it all seems.

First, a few truisms! Politics has always been just plain nasty. Like your children, politicians almost invariably have tried to get away with just about everything imaginable. Politics is invariably divisive as supporters of one candidate threaten not to support the winning candidate in the general election as a matter of principle. It's never politics. Not even ideologues who insist that they are above politics are honest enough to acknowledge their pettiness. (An example of that was Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy in Florida which cost Al Gore the White House in 2000. I'm told that Mr. Nader, who made a living telling his truth about GM and other corporations, denies his culpability in the 2000 Democratic disaster.) 

Vote-getting and vote-denying schemes are an American tradition. The slogan "vote early and vote often" was a way of life in that area of the country known today as the “honest Midwest.” Back in the “gilded age,” just after the Civil War, both parties, even Mr. Lincoln's Republicans, began practices that were eventually picked up by New Deal Democrats in the Twentieth Century. The states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, each bordering the Ohio River at their most southern point, used that vital waterway as an avenue on which to manipulate votes. Riverboats regularly traveled up and down the Ohio carrying conscientious and dedicated voters to riverfront polling places. You could vote early in the morning in Ohio, make some strategic stops in Indiana, vote in Illinois, and have time to vote your way back to your Ohio home. Senator Benjamin Harrison, who won the electoral vote in 1888 over President Grover Cleveland while losing the popular vote, once while president-elect, happily suggested to Matthew Quay, one of his campaign managers, that surely the Lord had granted him the election. However, Quay observed to a crony afterward, "he wouldn't have said that if he knew how many good men came that close to serving in the penitentiary on his political behalf last election day!"

Here's a final truism: the rich will always have an advantage in politics. You can't expect the rich to leave their money and prejudices at home, any more than you can expect the poor to try and vote in great numbers on election day — even if historically they've occasionally sought to register their dead!

This presidential election year seems especially loaded with scoundrels of all sorts. First, but hardly foremost, there's that socialist scoundrel from Vermont via Brooklyn, Bernie Sanders, who is a Democrat by caucus but a Socialist by name. Then, there's that Indian squaw ("Pocahontas") scoundrel via Oklahoma, Massachusetts and the United States Senate, Elizabeth Warren. Next there's Papa Joe Biden, whose biggest flaw was not controlling his adult son from joining a foreign country's energy corporation while Biden senior served as Vice President of the United States. And everyone knows, of course, how mean busy little Amy Klobuchar is to her staff — imagine how mean she must subsequently be to her dog who can't tell on her, although I'll just bet you that President Trump understands dog language and will soon tweet what Amy's dog has said about her to the whole nation! Then there's Mayor Pete Buttigieg who's so wet behind the ears that he thinks the presidency is a natural one step up from being Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, an office he may have handled well, but hardly flawlessly. As typical of the time, we have, not one or even two billionaires running for president, but three: Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and…one other guy who we would laugh ourselves silly at if only he weren't the incumbent president, Donald John Trump! As for the other two billionaires, many fear that their money and ambition is being spent to satisfy their egos more than for "we, the people." As for the candidates who have fallen by the wayside, the truth may well be (even though they would never admit it) that they are the lucky ones!

I don't like to write this, let alone think it, but I'm almost sure that Michael Bloomberg will be the Democratic candidate. He and President Trump will ultimately square off for the big prize. Even sadder, I'm slowly, but very reluctantly, coming to the conclusion that we are becoming an oligarchy. For years, conservatives have insisted that this country has been on a steady deadly drift to the left since Franklin Roosevelt who became the "root of all evil.” However, in the wake of the 2010 United Citizens triumph in the Supreme Court, it appears to me that my friend Tim and his lovely lady Deb (perhaps the only liberals in all of Alabama) are right about the oncoming of American fascism. Fascism occurs when government and business unite to control the socio/economic structure of a country for their mutual benefit. Fascists, like Communists, Nazis and theocracies, are invariably one-party states. Someone recently observed that if a nation has only one party, it really is a no-party state. Hopefully,  we haven't arrived at fascism, nazism or a theocracy yet, but Tim is looking more like a keen political prognosticator and that’s very, very scary!

As I wrote at the outset of this musing, I've always enjoyed politics with all its nastiness, inconsistencies, and even broken promises. Lately, however, politics has become downright squalid. Part of this has to do with the way politics has become integrated with religion. Religious leaders invariably insist that politicians must be not only moral, but moral according to their exacting religious standards.

We wouldn't be either free or human if we didn't expect our leaders to respond to our needs, but perhaps there's a requirement we need to insist on before we decide if a candidate is qualified to hold any public office, let alone the presidency.

Consider this question: How would either you or I be the loser if we were to ask every potential officeholder to demonstrate how he or she plans to work with members of the loyal opposition before we grant them our vote?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SO, WHAT'S NEXT??

Now that the Democrats have impeached and the Republicans have acquitted the president, two questions rear their ugly heads.

Question #1: What does it all mean?

Question #2: Where do we go from here?

The answer to Question #1 is fundamental. Having acquitted President Trump by asserting that the desire of a president to be re-elected widens his power to use the government on his personal behalf regardless of the civil rights of his opponents, this threatens the very checks and balance of power that's the cornerstone of our national liberty.

Not everyone who was offended by the outcome of the Senate vote on Wednesday, February 5th is on the left! One of the most common concerns throughout our 241 years of history under the Constitution is that delicate balance of federal authority mentioned above.

A California friend of mine sent me the following reaction to the Senate's decision not to call witnesses and he has given me permission to quote him here:

"After 232 years and four months, the US Constitution finally died today. One of its core points was the then revolutionary separation of powers. Today the Senate decided that that concept was obsolete and not longer functional."

My friend David is no liberal. In fact he's a libertarian who is jealous of our property rights and especially dedicated of our rights to gun ownership. He is one of the smartest men I know. We have many differences as to the legitimate role of the federal government and the risks therein of federal activism. 

This is what you'll find at the close of every email message you receive from David:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Olmstead v U.S., 277 U.S. 348 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting.”

In other words, men of liberty are naturally alert to the dangers of men to whom liberty is contemptible. The real danger comes from those well-meaning men who lack any understanding of what might destroy liberty. What makes David's assessments so powerful is that far more than being a man with an agenda, he is a man of principle. I've never heard David express any favor for a political candidate, especially any leftist-oriented or Democratic Party candidate I tend to support.

What's apparent just lately is that President Trump has dropped all pretense regarding his call to the Ukrainian president. No longer does he deny the "quid pro quo.” Furthermore, he actually crows over the “quo!"

In the wake of recent events, Republicans will seek to demonstrate that Democrats sought the president's impeachment out of personal resentment, hatred and denial of the legitimacy of the 2016 election. The  Democrats will seek to demonstrate that Republicans have surrendered their obligations as public servants to the authoritarian whims of a president totally devoid of knowledge or even of understanding of the office he holds under the Constitution of the United States.

A most dramatic incident occurred this week that must command our attention: Willard Mitt Romney's decision to hold President Trump responsible for what Senator Romney decided was the President's abuse of his office. Senator Romney's “guilty" vote was an act of both principle and courage. As I see it, after having received party preferment in 2012, Romney did have a special obligation to protest presidential abuse of power. Last Wednesday, with the whole nation watching, he did just that. By so doing, Mitt Romney became to me an historic national hero more worthy of becoming president than he was in 2012. It would be grand if a former president named Bush and a former candidate named Dole would support Mitt Romney! 

The crucial question, even more urgent than what I asked at the outset, is: how much do you and I care about President Trump's assumption of limitless presidential power and authority? As I see it, that's what this impeachment effort has been all about.

Does it matter if a president acknowledges the limitations of the office he holds? Is the presidency wholly about his or her personal agenda? Have other presidents been subject to constant criticism almost from the moment they took office?

Of course they have! On more than one occasion, President Carter asserted that criticism and ridicule go with the territory.

Last week, I asserted that the "slippery slope" concept of the likely result of any misdeed mostly reflects people's fears more than it validates their conclusions. I concluded by saying that politics will eventually prevail, but where do we go from here?

Twenty-twenty is a political year.  It's time to get political beyond your comfort zone. Your personal liberty may well depend upon activist politics. Don't depend on others to free you from the personal prejudices and personally glorifying demands of a president totally unworthy of his office.

Like the Minute Men of 1775, beware — those Red Coat Republicans are coming. You don't need bullets to get 'em, all you need are ballots.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SORRY LIBERALS, SORRY CONSERVATIVES, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME, THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WILL MEAN ZILCH!

By Edwin Cooney

When a politician, regardless of party, ideology, religious conviction, or anything else warns you that a particular law or action will set a permanently damaging social and political precedent (often identified as a "slippery slope”), he or she is only guessing. Thus, when Democrats insist that failure to convict President Trump amounts to a license for permanent presidential mischief, they're merely stressing their fears, the legitimacy of which they will enthusiastically try to sell to the public. When Republicans insist that the president is guilty of something, but that his behavior falls short of impeachable redress, they are conveniently denying the legitimacy of the impeachment process.

To borrow a phrase, when the "tumult and shouting" are over, the mainspring of this process, specifically politics, will remain pretty damned healthy, if you ask me! Since the Senate trial began, what has been fascinating is how the president's legal team has sought to blend legalisms into what is constitutionally a purely political proceeding while Democrats insist that "presidential obstruction" is against the law. (As I see it, the Democrats are more right than the Republicans, but the political and legal processes have been invariably at odds throughout American history.)

Forty-six years ago at this time, the House Judiciary Committee under Democratic Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, Democrat from New Jersey, was beginning to gather "impeachable evidence" against President Richard M. Nixon. Much of that evidence came from the trials of the Watergate defendants. By July, the committee had adopted three Articles of Impeachment against Mr. Nixon. In the wake of his resignation, many historians insisted that the idea that this is "a government of laws and not of men" had been established through the political process of impeachment. Now, nearly a half a century later, President Donald Trump's supporters find themselves arguing that the president can do anything he wants to do. Even more, so long as he believes that his re-election is in the "national interest," he can even hire a foreign country's government to investigate his political opponents since there is no specific law preventing such a transaction. Democrats, who use the mores of the Founding Fathers much less than conservatives, insist that using foreign governments to accomplish domestic political objectives is a gross violation of patriotic American tradition. The ultimate strategy appears to go something like this: when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the process. A friend of mine found a quote from Carl Sandberg where he says: "If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." So, when both the facts and the law are against you, argue the legitimacy of the process. However, in case you think this is "wild" (and I do), consider the first major impeachment proceeding, who was behind it and why, and you might see what I mean when I assert that what's going on in Congress this week means "zilch."

Two signers of the Declaration of Independence were antagonists in the spring of 1804. One was Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, an outspoken partisan and Federalist  (and some insist a drunkard) from the State of Maryland. Appointed by President George Washington, he'd been on the high court since 1796. He was an ardent Federalist opposed to the Republican-Democratic administration of President Thomas Jefferson who was the other antagonist. Justice Chase adamantly opposed the administration's repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the elimination of the circuit judgeships it had created. In November of 1803, the House Judiciary Committee chaired by John Randolph, a friend of President Jefferson, drafted eight Articles of Impeachment against Judge Chase’s partisan opposition to President Jefferson's anti-sedition laws. Frequently, from the bench, Justice Chase had vigorously admonished the administration's judiciary policies. Once the trial got underway in February of 1805, Chase, who testified before the Senate, insisted that he couldn't be impeached for his judiciary conduct, but only for violation of the law. On the surface at least, this dovetails with the argument being made by the Trump team. Jefferson has always been regarded as a strict constitutionalist, a defender against federal encroachment of any kind. However, nettled by Chase's cantankerousness, President Jefferson insisted Chase's temperament rather than the law was the important issue at hand. Just as interesting, Richard Nixon's last attorney general, a fairly conservative Republican gentleman named William Saxbe, insisted that the House could impeach any president "just because they dislike the color of his tie.”

Finally, there are those who insist that Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Schumer are arguing opposite to the way they argued during the Clinton impeachment Senate trial. (Of course, I'm not surprised and I invite you not to be surprised either!)

President Andrew Johnson did in fact break a law — The Tenure of Office Act. However, it was a law passed by an overwhelmingly partisan Republican Congress strictly for political advantage. The “Tenure of Office Act” required the president to get the permission of the United States Senate before dismissing a cabinet member. Johnson vetoed the law but the Congress overrode the veto. Thus when Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without the Senate’s permission, Congress passed Articles of Impeachment against him.  That law would be repealed in 1887 and, in 1926, the high court asserted that the 1867 Tenure of Office Act was likely unconstitutional. However, it's important to keep in mind that at the time President Andrew Johnson defied the act, it was regarded as the law of the land. President Johnson’s opposition to the law was an act of political defiance. Even more ironic, President Reagan violated the Boland Amendment (a law making it unlawful to aid the Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980s), but no one possessed the political gonads to even suggest impeaching him!

The major difference between the 1999 Clinton impeachment and the 2020 Trump impeachment is that all of the relevant evidence for judgment in Clinton’s case was a matter of public record through the legal process including the president's testimony in court, the president's conduct before and after court, and the circumstance that by the time of the trial, the president had lost any control of the evidence. Only the president’s motives and conduct were at issue. The law already had been enforced through a financial penalty of compensation to Paula Jones. Today, President Trump controls the evidence relevant to a substantial investigation of the charges against him. To sum it all up, the main difference between today’s impeachment situation is that Donald Trump, unlike Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton, controls the evidence. 

Another distinction that’s deliberately being fudged by the administration and its apologists is that impeachment is different from prosecution in a criminal court. The question in an impeachment isn’t whether or not there’s a reasonable doubt, the question is whether the defendant’s actions are politically injurious to our way of governing. 

I originally opposed impeaching the president due to the very political aspect of the act of impeachment. It seemed to me that to impeach President Trump this early would take too much of the necessary momentum out of the political process when the time comes for judgment by the people next November 3rd.

Under the law, no person may be a witness against himself. Under the rules of impeachment, due to the purely political nature of the process, officeholders must be compelled to be witnesses as defenders of their public office and responsibilities rather than as defenders of their personal individualism and liberty at stake under the law. As for the argument that the Democrats' impeachment attempt is against the results of the 2016 electoral outcome, that is pure nonsense. Insofar as I'm aware, if President Trump were convicted, a gentleman named Mike Pence would be available to carry on his old boss's agenda.

Of course it matters whether or not President Trump is impeached, but last Friday’s Senate decision to not bother with the evidence clearly demonstrates that it will only matter when a liberal president offends a Congress controlled by conservatives.

Remember, the President of the United States of America is the head of the most dangerous force that political, social and religious conservatives insist they fear and even loathe. If you doubt me, wait until President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez pays Puerto Rico to get the dirt on her Republican opponent as she seeks a second term administrating the Green New Deal!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY