HEY, CONGRATULATIONS! YOU'RE A SOLDIER

By Edwin Cooney 

We may not realize it yet, but you and I are about to be called “soldiers.” That is, soldiers in the greatest war in all of American history. Our Commander-in-Chief, President Donald John Trump, will both command and guide you and me through this pandemic with determination, creative genius, vision and, above all, patriotism.

As of Monday, May 11th, 2020, there were a total of 1,347,936 cases of COVID-19 in the United States thus victimizing 0.4 per cent of the population. The death toll from this disease as of the same date was 80,684 or 0.02 percent of the population. With practically every state taking steps to reopen part of their economic and social structure, the debate between cautious and daring citizens grows more bitter and intense practically every day.

Last year, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of D-Day when, under Commander-in-Chief Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we invaded "fortress Europe” which was under the domination of Adolf Hitler. FDR led this "crusade" with the support of men named George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, George Patten and others who consulted and commanded us to victory.   

Today's enemy, the Coronavirus, is unlike a human opponent. As Columnist Tom Friedman put it in The New York Times, a disease, unlike a human, cannot be shamed, weakened by a strategically divided attack, or declared defeated by an angry, disgusted, worn-out society demanding normality.  

Meanwhile, the argument goes on. One writer to the Times insists that a less than cautious opening of the economy would be like taking your car to a dealer to have your braking system fixed only to be told that they have never seen a problem like yours and lack the parts to repair your brakes. They also tell you that they haven't even taken your car for a test drive. So, when they return the keys, you must decide: should I load the family into the car and drive it full speed down the hill or should I do something perhaps more costly or long term to ensure my family’s safety?

Another argument insists that you have no right to endanger the economy by your withdrawal from participating in it, either as a producer or a customer.

Still another argument says that while you have the right to work, you don't have the right as a worker to mingle amongst others, catch the disease, and pass it on to even more people. 

Meanwhile, at National Headquarters (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue), COVID-19 or Coronavirus (take your pick) is on the attack against the President's staff. Additionally, holes are rapidly appearing in the President's social and political defense barrier.

Back in early April, on several occasions, President Trump stated that he was about to make the most important decision of his political career. At first, he asserted that everyone ought to be packed into churches on Easter Sunday (April 12th). Then, the President was compelled to back off. Now, a month later, he's actively pressing most states to open up and take on the economic and medical fight against the disease. Hence, for better or worse, here's what I'm guessing will happen.

On Saturday, June 6th, 2020, the 76th anniversary of our invasion of Europe,  Commander-In-Chief Trump may well ask you and me to be soldiers much as our fathers and grandfathers were when they dared to invade Europe. President Trump may insist (as President Eisenhower did in his first Inaugural address) that "we must dare all for our country!" The D-Day invasion, which was a specific military operation, lasted from June to August of 1944 and cost us around 226,000 soldiers. That was about 0.1738 percent of our then population of about 130 million people. If we were to sacrifice only one percent of our 330,000,000 present-day population, would that be a justifiable number of people to sufficiently immunize America before we return to work? (One percent of 330,000,000 people is 3,300,000.)

The trouble with numbers and  percentages is that they totally lack essential depth to adequately put into perspective the severity of this disease. Unfortunately, too many people dismiss the gravity of COVID-19 by insisting that "it's just the flu!” Since they've never experienced the Coronavirus, they can't sufficiently grasp the sense of gasping, struggling strangulation, and constant pain of this disease. They can therefore easily suggest that since only 0.02  percent of the people have been fatally stricken, if they would simply open everything up, we would all soon be protected through national “herd immunity!”  

It's my guess that thinking like this will give President Trump the impetus to emphasize his legal status and cultural position as Commander-In-Chief of a people at war. Of course, real armies have yet to ever be victorious over a disease.  However, modern Americans have often been rather erroneously aroused by calls to war by the leadership of both political parties. Johnson asked for a war on poverty, Nixon asked for a war on crime, Ford asked for a war against inflation, and both President and Mrs. Reagan declared war on drugs. All of the above are manmade entities. Disease, on the other hand, is a child of nature and nature has always been, to this very day, immune to military hardware.

As misleading as such a call would be, I'm convinced that many Americans may be sufficiently flattered by our Commander-In-Chief's call to be an American soldier against this “Chinese-made” pandemic! President Trump might well reason that since Americans in 1944 dared to take an even higher risk, shouldn't we be at least half as dedicated to making America safe and “great again” for everyone's economic and patriotic fulfillment?

A call to war is, traditionally, a president’s call for support. For the period of time between now and the presidential election (which is just five months and fifteen days away), such a call might do nicely for Commander-in-Chief Trump.

Let's all hope I'm wrong about such an appeal, because I don't think America can safely afford my being right in this instance!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OUTLINE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, PART II

By Edwin Cooney

Amendment XIII simply and directly ended all involuntary slavery or servitude except for those under conviction and punishment for crime in the United States of America as well as in territories subject to its jurisdiction. The amendment added a section empowering Congress' right to enforce this directive by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV was ratified on Wednesday, July 9th, 1868. All persons born or naturalized in the United States or in the territories subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States as well as in the states in which they reside. No state may pass or enforce a law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens. No person, without due process of law, may be deprived of life, liberty or property.

Section two of Amendment XIV in slightly complicated language certifies the right of males (twenty-one years and older) to vote in federal or state elections and that these rights can't be either abridged or denied except for crimes or participation in rebellion. Section 3 of the14th Amendment denies the right of any military, judiciary, legislative member or executive who participated in the recent rebellion to hold public office. However, it authorized Congress with a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to remove "this disability."

Section four of the 14th Amendment invalidated any debts of the former confederacy. Finally, section five authorized the congress's right to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XV "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or by previous condition of servitude.” Congress also empowered itself to enforce via legislation this amendment as it had both amendments thirteen and fourteen.

Amendment XVI was ratified on Monday, February 3rd, 1913. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without any regard to any census or enumeration. (Note: you can decide if it is significant that Congress did not insist on empowering its right to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.)

Amendment XVII was ratified on Sunday, April 8th, 1913. It provided that members of the United States Senate be elected by the citizens of each state. In the event of vacancies it left it up to state legislatures whether or not to allow their governors to fill such vacancies throughout the time remaining in the individual vacancies.

Amendment XVIII was ratified on Thursday, January 16th, 1919 and would be repealed 14 years later by the 21st Amendment. Section one states: "One year after the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” (Note: Of course Congress had to and did empower itself to enforce this amendment through the Volstead Act! Interestingly, President Woodrow Wilson, no friend or imbiber of intoxicating liquor, vetoed the Volstead Act, but Congress promptly overrode Wilson's veto.)

Amendment XIX declares that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” This amendment was ratified by the Tennessee legislature (thus becoming the 34th state to ratify) on Wednesday, August 18th, 1920 - just in time for that Fall's election of the handsome Warren Harding to the presidency.

Amendment XX, which was passed on Monday, January 23rd, 1933, rather reflects the turmoil of the time. This was the time during which President Elect Franklin Roosevelt was ineligible to take office until March 4th despite the ever growing emergency of the national depression. This amendment adjusted the terms of office of the President and Congress. From here on Congress's term would begin on the 3rd of January every two years and the presidential term of office would move from March 4th to January 20th every four years. The amendment goes on to state what the House can do in the event of the death or qualification disability of the president-elect and what the Senate can do if the office of vice-president elect is vacant due to death or qualification disability. (Note: It doesn't identify what a non-qualification disability may be. It merely states the manner in which such a vacancy may be remedied.) Finally, the amendment states that sections one and two will take effect on the October 15th following the ratification of this article.

Amendment XXI ratified on Tuesday, December 5th, 1933 repealed the eighteenth “article of amendment" prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transport, import and export of intoxicating liquors. Section two, however, prohibits the manufacture sale, transportation, or exportation of intoxicating liquors within any state that prohibits their use.

Amendment XXII passed by Congress on Tuesday, February 27th, 1951 limits the term of a president to two full terms. (Note: for many Americans this was an anti-Franklin D. Roosevelt amendment, although the incumbent, President Harry S. Truman, was exempted from its limits. The article would become inoperative if it was not passed within seven years of its submission to the states.)

Amendment XXIII, ratified on Wednesday, March 29th, 1961, allows citizens of the District of Columbia to appoint presidential and vice-presidential electors to the Electoral College as though it were a state, but not more than the least populous state. (Note: The District of Columbia still has no voting members in either the House or the Senate.)

Amendment XXIV was ratified on Thursday, January 23rd, 1964 freeing all citizens from poll and other taxes which had been preventing them from voting for federal offices in some states.

Amendment XXV was ratified on Friday, February 10th, 1967. "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death, or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” Until then, it was unclear whether the Vice President became the President or merely the Acting President.

Section two says “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.” Until the adoption of this amendment, there was no provision for filling the office of Vice President when it became vacant.

Section three. “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

Section four states the procedures to be followed when there is a conflict between the President and Vice President regarding the continuing disability or subsequent ability of the President to once again assume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI ratified on Thursday, July 1st, 1971 gives all citizens of age eighteen and older the right to vote and gives Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation this amendment. Prior to the adoption of this amendment, it was disputed whether Congress or only the states could set the voting age and if Congress, whether it could set the voting age only for federal elections or for all elections.

Amendment XXVII was ratified on Thursday, May 7th 1992. This very amendment was originally offered as part of the Bill of Rights, but was turned down. It's a very straight forward amendment. There's only the amendment itself, no sections: "No law, varying the compensation for services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

Thus ends your sub numbers course outlining the Constitution of the United States. One of my favorite readers rather derisively wanted to know what I hoped to accomplish by offering these two essays. My only substantial response is that no one can really begin to appreciate anything, no matter what it may be, until he or she has some idea of its form and of its purpose. There are a lot of items in there that probably ought not to be there, such as the Electoral College, and there are other items that ought to be in there that have been both accidentally and purposely left out!

Some interpreters of the Constitution are "Strict Constructionists." They may be regarded as fundamentalists or as evangelistic types. I believe the Constitution is a living framework of government that both reflects and implies changing conditions and circumstances. The Constitution may be seen as the framework of American law and a child of the intellect with all of the intellect’s assets and liabilities.

As I see it, only the spirit outranks the majesty of the law because the law depends on the spirits of each of us to insure steady and continuous equitable justice.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AN OUTLINE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

By Edwin Cooney

As stated in the Preamble, our founders established the Constitution for the following purposes: to form a more perfect union; to establish justice; to insure domestic tranquility; to provide for the common defense; to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.

There are seven original Articles to the Constitution. Article I creates the Congress of the United States to be the Legislative branch of the government, dividing it into a House of Representatives and a Senate. It sets forth qualifications for Congress’s election and allows both Houses to set its own rules. Among other things, Congress is also empowered to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Congress may borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations, and establish a uniform rule of naturalization and bankruptcies throughout the states. Congress may coin money and regulate the value thereof, punish counterfeiters, and establish post offices and post roads. Congress shall also have the power to declare war.    

Article II establishes the Executive branch headed by the President as Chief Administrative Officer of the government as well as Commander-in-Chief of the military, who is elected by the states through an electoral college. With the advice and consent of the Senate, the president, among other things, may appoint members of the cabinet, judges of the supreme and inferior courts, appoint heads of departments and commissions, and propose and veto legislation.

Article III creates the judiciary branch of the government consisting of a Supreme Court and allows Congress to create a system of inferior federal courts. It grants lifetime tenure to members of the federal judiciary during good behavior. However, they are subject to impeachment if charged with high crimes or misdemeanors as are all federal officers. (Note: The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. That would occur later by law! Additionally, Article III does not establish a specific number of justices to serve on the court. That number changes from time to time.)

Article IV,  the full faith and credit article, validates the laws, records and judiciary proceedings of each state in relation to the other states. It also establishes domestic sovereignty of each state within the Union and denies the right of any state to subdivide into additional states.

Article V establishes the two major ways that the original Constitution may be amended. It also provides the method to be used in order to convene a future Constitutional Convention.

Article VI could be called the “all debts, contracts and engagements” article. It neither calls for a balanced budget, nor allows for deficit spending or a "line item veto."

Article VII describes  the ratification process of the Constitution by the states as signed in Convention on Monday, September 17th, 1787. 

Next come the first ten amendments otherwise known as the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I states that Congress shall pass no law establishing, prohibiting, or abridging the exercise of religion. It may not abridge the freedom of speech, of the press, or the right of the people to "peaceably assemble to petition the government for the redress of grievances.”

Amendment II:  A well regulated Militia is essential for the security of a free state. Congress shall ensure the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" for the purpose of participating in such militias.

Amendment III. Without the consent of the owner, no soldier, during a time of peace, may be quartered in any home. During a time of war, a soldier can be quartered in a private home, but only in a manner prescribed by law.

Amendment IV guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrants must be supported by probable cause.

Amendment V is mainly about the indictment and trial of any citizen under the due process of law. No citizen may be a witness against himself in court. Except in the military, any defendant has a right to indictment by a grand jury. 

Amendment VI: All criminal prosecutions must provide a defendant with the following: a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted by the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process of witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.

Amendment VII sets forth the proceedings under common, as opposed to criminal, law. Lawsuits must have a value greater than $20 and the right of trial by jury must be preserved. The facts in the preceding may not be examined or ruled upon by any other court in the United States.

Amendment VIII. Neither excessive bail, fines, nor cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted against criminal defendants.

Amendment IX: Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Amendment  X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

Amendment XI asserts that the judiciary power of the United States does not extend to the citizens of one State in suit against another State, nor may a foreign entity bring suit against any State.

Amendment XII, passed in 1804, separates the election of the President and the Vice-President in the electoral college. Additionally, it governs voting procedures for President in the House and for Vice President in the Senate.

Since I've likely exhausted your memory and your patience, I'll present the remaining 15 Amendments in part two of this presentation.

Feel free to stay tuned or take a holiday next week!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

2020 "NORMALCY!"

By Edwin Cooney

Exactly one hundred years ago, an articulate and handsome Republican United States Senator from Ohio, Warren Gamaliel Harding, ran for president promising to lead a war weary nation back to what he called "normalcy." Former President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who promised to keep us out of war during his 1916 re-election campaign, regretfully found it necessary to ask the Congress for a declaration of war just 29 days following his second inauguration on March 4th, 1917. It was estimated that 116,000 plus Americans lost their lives in that war to "make the world safe for democracy" and "the war to end all wars." What with the economic social unrest Americans experienced including the "Spanish flu,” times were simply not normal. Hence, it was time to return to candidate Harding's "normalcy!"

Now it is 2020, another presidential election year, and this time, thanks to a coronavirus which originated in "Communist China" (to many Americans a nation as foreign as any nation could possibly be), the siren call to return to "normalcy" wails with an urgency unknown to the most politicly astute and optimistic GOP leaders of the Roaring Twenties. Now, forty-one days have passed since President Trump and many state governors (led by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo) have closed both public and private places of learning and business and the bottom has — at least temporarily — dropped out of the president's version of prosperity. The question, therefore, is how soon should we throw away our fears and "reopen society" to the workplace and, of course, the marketplace. Every side of a really hot topic consists of legitimate elements. However, the prevailing side of any hot topic reflects the very heart of the matter at issue. As of this writing, seventy percent of Americans fear more for their safety than they fear for their prosperity.

Recently, I received a message from a reader I'll call “Becky” who, noticing a large gathering in a neighborhood yard, called the police. Subsequently, Becky proceeded to tell some online companions of her deed. One member of the group not only expressed her outrage at what Becky had done, but her level of outrage was downright vitriolic. Thus, while Becky understands and even sympathizes with "Madam Angry’s" outrage (my designation, not Becky’s), she finds the level of this individual's outrage stunning.

I've written to Becky congratulating her for her daring courage. To me, she's an amazing lady, thoughtful, conscientious and, as I see it, patriotic! 

Almost but not quite too many years ago to possibly imagine, when I was in the third grade, my teacher Mrs. Peruzzin labeled me "the little darer" because all you had to do was "dare me" and your wish was my command. Of course, to dare for the sake of daring is exceedingly juvenile and I grew out of it. However, the history of humankind  amply demonstrates that knowledge is to a high degree dependent on the willingness of intelligent and creative people to "dare to do." All vibrant societies are bedecked with third graders like little me who dare to dare. Societies possess brave soldiers, police and fire people, inventors, fliers, questioners, and challengers. They have crossed oceans to build free societies, populated two continents, dared to win and lose wars.  They save, they heal and they even prevent. They've even been to the moon. However, although most of them can't imagine it, they can occasionally endanger others unintentionally.

Becky's call to the police wasn't a call to arrest or place any person's freedom or reputation at risk. It was a community's call for caution. People often call the police to quell loud parties or to report someone's car blocking a driveway. Unfortunately, history is full of instances of panic during uncertain times.

Just as those who lived in 1920, almost all of us in 2020 are more than anxious to get back to normalcy. America resisted the new responsibility that our participation in both war and peacemaking thrust upon it. Thus, in 1920, normalcy prevailed, but the scourge of war, which was the "normal" way to settle international disputes, returned in 1939. It cost upward of sixty million people worldwide their freedom, then their safety, and finally their lives. By resisting that new responsibility and returning to "normalcy," we failed to take the advice of one of history's greatest historians, Edward Gibbon, the author of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” who suggested that he who asks for freedom from responsibility is not free!

Becky has no monopoly on courage, conscientiousness, or patriotism nor does she claim to. Since it's unlikely that she (as is the case with me) has only read observations by and quotes from Gibbon, she probably until this very day only instinctively knows the truth of Gibbon's wisdom. However, she's demonstrated to this observer a degree of courage, temperament, and intellect that more and more of us ought to emulate! She gets it that a twenty-first century return to “normalcy” may well be as deadly as it was a century ago!

As for that little darer of long, long ago, these days he mostly presumes!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

LET'S TALK ABOUT NATIONAL UNITY!

By Edwin Cooney

So what does this pandemic mean for our future — chaos or unity?

Last week, I asserted that we were united during the Revolutionary War era because we were determined to control our own destiny rather than be controlled by Britain. A new reader whom I'll call “Mr. Albany" points out that since there were elements of personal loyalty to Great Britain throughout the colonies, my assertion isn't so. I insist, however, that since all thirteen colonies signed the Declaration of Independence and had the wherewithal to form a federal union out of the chaos of the Articles of Confederation, I will stick to my conclusion that we were pretty well united. However, Mr. Albany's point is well taken since it causes me to be more specific with my conclusions at a time like this.

My original point was that following the attack on Pearl Harbor, both isolationists and interventionists united behind the Roosevelt administration’s war goals and efforts despite serious issue differences during the war. These issues covered everything from concentration camps for Japanese Americans, to the fate of Jews, to a coal miners' strike during the spring of 1943.

There is a difference between conflict and disunity. The threat of disunion has occurred more than once in our history. Everyone knows about the Civil War, but during the War of 1812, New England states, which had been suffering economically since the 1807 Jeffersonian trade embargo against both England and France, had had enough by 1814. That fall, as John Quincy Adams was negotiating the Treaty of Ghent in Belgium that would end the war, Federalists held a region-wide meeting in Hartford, Connecticut to pressure the Madison Administration to end the war. Historians disagree as to whether the Hartford conference meant to bring about a separation of New England from the Union, but there is general agreement that Thomas Jefferson's endorsement of the 1798 Kentucky-Virginia resolutions asserting that states had the right to leave the Union was the spirit of that conference. (Note that Jefferson was Vice President of the United States under John Adams when he endorsed that resolution.) 

Hence, there have been numerous occasions when states have threatened to leave the Union. Even today, Texas threatens to leave the Union. Texas has a clause within its original constitution that allows it to become a republic.

There has been an ongoing movement in Texas to separate from the Union as far back as the Clinton presidency in 1997. Daniel Miller is the current president of the Texas Nationalist Movement. According to Graham Wood in an article in the December 2019 Atlantic, Miller's movement is strictly nonviolent. Miller says "If the Catalonians, Scots and the Kurds....can demand independence, why can't Texans?”

However, as everyone knows, Texas has been in the Union long enough to elect two vice presidents (John Nance Garner and Lyndon Johnson) as well as give birth to two presidents, LBJ and Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Neither President Bush was born in Texas. George W. H. Bush was born in Milton, Massachusetts and George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut.)

It's my guess that despite political and social clashes over everything from when the economy should be reopened to whether the president or the states have the power to do so, most Americans are anxious to start functioning again even with their fear of possible consequences

There is a distinction between rebellion and change. Although I'm convinced that we're in for some radical changes, those changes will be for the strict purpose of insuring our comfort and, insofar as possible, our convenience, rather than for whatever grievances we may have with the president, his administration, or with Congress.

Who may deserve the blame for this pandemic will without doubt be reflected throughout the coming presidential campaign. As serious as is our panic and ultimate anger over this threat to our lives and some of the lives we love the best, that panic and even resentment isn't yet strong enough to interrupt those core beliefs most Americans share in representative government, the high purposes of most of our past and present policies toward humanity, or the values behind those genuinely good intentions.

Back in the late 1960s, in the wake of the Vietnam conflict and the ultimate election of Richard Nixon, there was widespread violence on college campuses that resulted in property damage, the temporary hostage-taking of college officials, and even deaths on campuses such as Jackson State and Kent State. At the same time, militant civil rights groups such as the Black Panthers and thugs like Charles Manson as well as the Weather Underground, the militant antiwar group, were terrorizing white middle class America. By 1972, the brunt of these threats to national security was spent. Hence, by 1974, commentators were calling the student rebels who had promised revolution until school was over "sunshine revolutionists,” which real revolutionaries —be they named Washington or Mao Tse Tung — would never recognize.

Yes, indeed, mighty changes are likely in the offing. Currently, we’re passing through a time of chaos or, if you prefer, disunity, but our “states of America united” will live long beyond you and me! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE ELEPHANT AMONG US!

By Edwin Cooney

In my pre 1941 column message last week, I wrote that once we were attacked by Japan, even the isolationists united behind Franklin Roosevelt throughout the war effort. It wasn't that everyone was happy with every priority or act of the Roosevelt administration — in fact, there were a number of very serious controversies during the war —  but over all, there was substantial unity compared to future crises. Then I asked if such a unity could happen in today's crisis. Next I said I'd leave it to you to decide for yourself. However, the topic is too delicious to leave alone. So, although I'll hold off from expressing my conclusion, I'll give you some ammunition to consider in reaching your own.

One of the biggest sins we students of history are guilty of when assessing our national history is that we judge our past using today's mores. Although this tendency is not only understandable and perhaps, to a degree, even necessary, it can distort the reality of the conditions of the past in which our ancestors lived. The fact of the matter is, however sad that may be, the world each generation lives through is new to them.

Painful as this may be to even consider let alone contemplate and even though we're still officially the United States of America, some will conclude that we are way less united than we once were. Okay, fair enough, but the next question is: what elements in a nation's body politic are the strongest unifiers?

Between 1776 and 1781, the Revolutionary War era, the country as a whole was united around the idea that it was time to get control of its own destiny rather than being controlled by Great Britain. (When I was in school, my teachers called Great Britain or England “the mother country.")  Just five years following independence, civic leaders from all former thirteen colonies came to realize that the continent was in danger of becoming like Europe if the separate states continued competing with one another. Britain, France, and Spain still had areas of heavy influence in such places as Canada, New England, Florida, and the Louisiana territories. Even after the nation was united under the federal union, Texas was largely developed by nearby Mexico and might have remained separate from us had the Catholic Church in Mexico not started banning slavery. (Note that slave owners had to remain free to enslave blacks, didn't they? Likewise, Indian fighters also had to be free to slaughter Indians!) Thus, the right to govern themselves (what Jefferson called "the disease of liberty”) ultimately united America. In order to do that, national and state leaders had to begin to make room for regional differences and create a governing body that could best allow for regional preferences. Invariably the “us" as opposed to “them” (that is, America compared to the rest of the world) tightened that national bond of unity.

The crisis through which we are passing could become either a great uniter or a permanent divider. There's evidence supporting both sets of possibilities. Before addressing some of the forces that may affect both positive and negative possibilities, here is just a word about what things were like in 1941 and throughout the rest of "World War Twice" as one comedian once called it.

Back in 1941, although comparatively few Americans had a college degree, their president was a graduate of Harvard and had a law degree from Columbia. Besides that, his cousin Teddy had also been president. Americans, for the most part, were as awed by the presidency as they were by teachers, preachers, policeman, doctors, singers, actors, sports stars, and practically everyone of achievement. In 1941, Americans were comparatively unsophisticated for the most part and even innocent in comparison to today's average citizen. FDR and almost every other would-be president was more privileged, better financed and educated than that day’s average citizen. Even more, America has experienced through a growing media what leadership is all about. The struggle over civil rights and Vietnam, Communism, Watergate, the savings and loan-gate, Bubba-gate, Iran and Iraq-gate, and a black man's presidency have all  altered the outlook of a much more independent-minded and suspicious national constituency.

Another factor, as I see it, is that we're constantly being pandered to not only as political constituencies, but as "valued customers" of manufacturers, service providers, and auto and insurance companies.  All these entities pander to our pride, our prejudices, our health and our hopes for the future. 

We expect to be taken care of more than those who were members of Tom Brokaw’s "greatest generation." Nor is it a question of government protection. Both liberals and conservatives expect their food to be inspected and thereby eatable and their homes to be prevented from burning by local taxpayer-funded government. Many of them also depend on Social Security payments. People expect these days to be protected from other people's loudness, crudeness and rudeness, religious prejudice, secondhand smoke, and even people's sexism and general insensitivity in the workplace.

As for politics, America is vastly different from what it was back on Sunday, December 7th, 1941. We used to elect presidents we thought would do something to improve our economic and social lives. Now, we'll settle for a president who simply identifies with our fears and resentments. All of this, of course, is conditional on our physical, psychological, and spiritual safety and sense of security which is dependent on how much control we believe we have over our lives. The rich usually feel more secure than the poor because money, at least on the surface, serves unconditionally — provided, of course, that money is both sound and reasonably managed. The less money you have, the more you need to depend on the good fortune and generosity of society. The crisis we are passing through is, without a doubt, going to bring about a massive attitudinal adjustment. Some of that will be more constructive than we can currently imagine while other aspects of that adjustments may well be negative for a generation or two.

Consider the following: will social distancing become a habit? If it does, what will that do to our restaurant, hotel, and travel businesses? How will that alter sports and recreation? Will the need for a national healthcare system become more or less apparent? If the virus ravages through the states that have resisted social distancing, might that alter people's expectations about government? Is this crisis more likely to bind us together or separate us? Are Americans likely to become more or less insular, more or less arrogant in comparison to the rest of the world?

The next question is, what causes a people to unite as opposed to divide? How might we become a more united people than we currently are?

Well, there is our empathy for the pain and loneliness of others. There's certainly a large market for the medicines or the treatments that may keep us from getting so sick again! Due largely to technology, there is the possibility of us once again becoming a nation of shopkeepers as "merry old England" once was before industrialization! Every shift in society has its growing pains. Before industrialization, no one ever thought of Marxism or even socialism.

In our lifetimes, we have lived reasonably content, reasonably prosperous, and reasonably happy in the United States of America. Most of us have studied American history, the story of our founding fathers, pioneers, civil war soldiers and citizens, current day husbands, wives, laborers, bankers, and merchants all under a constitution most of us have never bothered to read, let alone understand. Hence, now that we're undoubtedly in a national crisis, the question rears its ugly head: "What is it that unites us?"

If you're a conservative, there are too many liberals. If you're a liberal, it’s the other way around. If you're poor or black, there are too many rich whites! If you're a solid citizen, there are too many immigrants anxious to eat your tax money and crowd your schools, highways and city — to say nothing about your neighborhood! If there's too much of the world in America, can America reasonably escape the rest of the world?

Is it wise, or even right, that America united eighty years ago in the last really frightening crisis? Or was it merely inevitable? Was that unity a surface unity or a genuine one?

Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together again? Should it be put back together again just as it once was or should it be put together substantially differently than it was up until founder James Madison's 149th birthday on Monday, March 16th, 2020?

What say you?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY