PACKING THE COURT IS AS AMERICAN AS THE "FOUNDING FATHERS!"

By Edwin Cooney

As difficult as it may be to imagine, on Monday, September 17th, 1787, the day the Constitution was adopted for presentation to the thirteen states, there was no “liberalism” or “conservatism” in our body politic. Hence, neither Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, nor Republicans can legitimately deny their guilt in the historical observation that when it comes to the American judiciary and the application of constitutional law, political practicality has historically prevailed over either patriotism or objectivity.

First, the Federalist System consisting of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches was created before the thirteen colonies ratified the Constitution. There were no political parties in existence to apply their principles. Thus, you have the ideal of nonpartisans serving on all courts. This reality enables every Conservative's concept of "original intent” even as the new document described that judges would be appointed for a lifetime so that they might avoid outside pressures when it came to making judgments.

Within the next decade, however, Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were openly competing with their political opponents to influence decisions made by the United States Supreme Court and other courts both state and federal.

Additionally, millions of Americans believe that the Constitution specifies the number of judges on the Supreme Court when in fact it makes no such provision. This assumption enables too many people to believe that Roosevelt was violating the Constitution by adding judges to the court. By not even consulting his vice president, the cabinet or the congressional leadership before announcing his proposed judicial reform in 1937, FDR appeared devious and thus seemed guilty of "packing" the Supreme Court. Actually, he was very, very far from being the first president to do so.

When John Adams left office in 1801, he deliberately asked his outgoing Secretary of State John Marshall to accept appointment as a Federalist to the Supreme Court. Marshall, who often quarreled with his cousin, incoming president Thomas Jefferson, accepted the appointment and, since there was no way except through impeachment that Marshall could be removed by Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, he was able to serve for 34 years and establish the doctrine of Judicial Review thus empowering the Supreme Court to judge the legitimacy of law under the Constitution. Every fifth or sixth grade American history book referred to this act by John Adams, a Founding Father, as Adams' “Midnight Appointments.”

(Note: There’s an irony to the story that FDR sought to pack the Supreme Court since he is the only president to have appointed a justice who was not of his party to head the Supreme Court. In June of 1941 when Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes retired, President Roosevelt appointed Harlan Fisk Stone as Chief Justice of the United States. Calvin Coolidge originally nominated Stone as an Associate Justice in January 1925.)

The heart of the modern day quarrel between Conservatives and Liberals is whether the court ought to interpret laws as written by the Founders or whether the justices ought to interpret laws according to additional amendments existing in compliance with conditions since the Civil War. Liberals generally insist that the Constitution as a living document should reflect modern conditions and sensitivities. Conservatives insist that, in contrast to its original purpose, the Supreme Court has become a legislative body which creates rather than properly interprets laws.

Since our political leadership has never sought a way of getting around this conflict, everyone, from president to voter, is to a considerable extent a victim of legal and cultural gridlock.

Republicans and Conservatives, who since FDR's day have been so self-righteous about “court packing," have indulged in that very practice twice now in the last four years because they've possessed the political and circumstantial advantage to do so. Not until Barack Obama did the Congress deny a sitting president the right to have a nominee to the Supreme Court's career and credentials considered by the United States Senate under the constitution's advise and consent provision. This political season, because they possess the situational and political advantage, they have decided to forego the right of the people to influence the nomination of a new justice through a possible newly elected president. Thus, so much for the right of the people!

So, what must we do to untie this historical ideological and political knot?

First, we must recognize that neither Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, nor Liberals, or even the purely spiritual among us, are above politics.

Second, this being the case, we are in a transitional period between recognition of our dilemma and its legitimate alteration or correction.

Third, in the meantime, we must agree on the principles and conditions behind whatever constitutional amendment we invite the states to ratify. Among these should be the end of lifetime appointments to the entire judiciary. Also, the terms of justices should be set at nine years. That could conceivably allow every sitting president to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court during the first and third years of his or her presidential term. 

Another provision should probably assert the number of justices to serve at any time on the court.

 

Finally, since the only legitimate way of managing the court is the present system, we have no other alternative than to openly pack and expand the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that, under prevailing circumstances, packing the Supreme Court is perfectly lawful, practical, and necessary.

I'm convinced that we do the greatest damage to ourselves when we're in denial of what's real!

In the wake of recent GOP attitudes and actions, if I were Joe Biden, I would pack the court as full of Liberals as I possibly could!

So, go to it, Joe!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE WORLD SERIES - 1920 STYLE

By Edwin Cooney

I'm forever writing about the significance of years in history! The year 1920 was truly one of those transitional years marking significant change in politics: Woodrow Wilson, the scholarly president crippled by a stroke and embittered by he defeat of his League of Nations in the U.S. Senate, was leaving office; women with their first vote, were a big boost to Ohio Senator Warren Harding's political ambition; and baseball learned in September of that year that the 1919 White Sox had thrown the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. "Say it ain't so, Joe," one young fan is said to have shouted to Joe Jackson, the Sox's biggest star, outside of a Chicago courthouse. Unfortunately, it was so and the new baseball commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, would suspend Jackson and seven of his teammates from major league baseball for life. Then along came the 1920 World Series.  

Officially, the 1920 World Series was between the Cleveland Indians and the Brooklyn Dodgers. However, baseball back then was as personal as it was professional. In fact, although there certainly was both form and structure to baseball, there was minimal formality about it. Both teams were known to their fans as the Cleveland Indians and the Brooklyn Robbins. Sure, “the Indians” was in fact their official name, but they were called Indians in honor of a former major league player, Louis Sockalexis, who played for the old Cleveland Spiders of the 1890s. Louis Sockalexis was a Penobscot Indian from Old Town, Maine whose brilliant career was rapidly ruined by alcohol after only about 94 games between 1897 and 1899. Sockalexis, a five foot eight left-handed batter, in just 94 games had 115 hits including twelve doubles, eight triples, three home runs, 65 rbi’s, a .315 batting average, an on-base percentage of .366, and a slugging percentage of .414. He was reported to have hurled a baseball from a water tower on Oak Hill Island on the Indian reservation territory of Old Town, Maine that hit the smoke stack of the Jordan, Maine lumber mill which was three-quarters of a mile away. Sockalexis was released by the Cleveland Spiders after just seven games of the 1899 season, the last year the Spiders existed in the National League. Louis Sockalexis died an alcoholic on December 24th, 1914 at the age of 43. A year or so after that, the Cleveland Naps needed a new name. There was a contest and the winning name, "The Cleveland Indians,” was suggested by a fan who remembered the incredible rookie of 1897.

As for the Brooklyn Dodgers (now the Los Angeles Dodgers) who may be in this week's fall classic, they were then called "The Brooklyn Robins" after their "lovable" manager Wilbert Robinson.  He was known by his players and fans alike as "Uncle Robby.” Uncle Robby commanded respect, but he was also loved by his players. A former major league catcher, Uncle Robby had insisted over the years that he could catch a baseball dropped from an airplane. One day in 1917 during spring training, a newspaper man went up in an airplane as Uncle Robby circled with his catchers' mitt about 500 feet below. The only problem was that the newspaper man was armed with a grapefruit rather than a baseball. Other than knocking Uncle Robby on his bottom and spraying him with grapefruit juice there was no harm and little achieved except for a lot of laughs at Uncle Robby's expense. My guess is that you'll recognize the name of the ballplayer who is said to have arranged the prank on his manager. It was Charles Dillon (Casey) Stengel, a former dental student from Kansas City, Missouri. Uncle Robby later conceded that he might have been killed had it been a real baseball.

The year 1920 marked the Robins' second series and the first for the Indians. The two clubs were tied two games apiece on Sunday, October 10th at Cleveland's League Park. (Note: it was one of the last 5 out of 9 World Series that would ever be played.) Three extraordinary events happened that Sunday afternoon. First, Indian right-fielder Elmer Smith hit the first ever World Series grand slam home run in the first inning giving the Indians a four to nothing lead. In the fourth inning, starter Jim Bagby smacked a three run homer to make the score 7 zip. (Note that Bagby's homer was the first home run hit by a pitcher in World Series competition.)  

However, the really dramatic history was made that day in the top of the fifth inning when Robbins second baseman Pete Kilduff began the inning with a single. Then, catcher Otto Miller followed with another single. With two men on and no one out, Uncle Robby sent pitcher Clarence Mitchell to the plate and decided to maximize a possible run-scoring opportunity by a hit and run play. Thus, as the Indians' Jim Bagby delivered his pitch to Mitchell, Kilduff took off for third and Miller dashed for second. Next came the crack of Mitchell's bat and a screaming line drive headed for second base. Bill Wambsganss dove to his right grabbing the ball before it hit the ground which put the batter out. Scrambling to his feet, Wambsganss stepped on second which eliminated Kilduff who was nearing third base. Next, Bill Wambsganss cocked his arm to throw the ball back to first, but shortstop Joe Sewell yelled for Wambsganss to tag Otto Miller. Wambsganss did just that resulting in an unassisted triple play. The crowd of 24,884 was silent for about ten seconds followed by thunderous cheers and Bill Wambsganss, the son of a Lutheran minister, became almost God-like in Cleveland, Ohio. The series ended two days later on Columbus Day as player manager Tris Speaker (known during his playing career as the “Gray Eagle”) triumphed over Uncle Robby's Robins. Both managers would, in years to come, be elected to baseball's Hall of Fame — Uncle Robby as a manager and Tris Speaker as an excellent center fielder and 300 plus hitter.

World Series glory for the Cleveland Indians hopefully eased the pain for the players who all suffered when their shortstop Ray Chapman became the first player to be killed on a professional baseball diamond. It happened the previous August 16th against the Yankees at the Polo Grounds in New York in the fifth inning of the game. Chapman, who often crowded home plate to reach pitches that might have been too outside of the plate to reach easily, was facing Carl Mays. The pitch bounced off Chapman's left temple back to Mays who tossed it to first baseman Wally Pipp. Chapman lay on his back bleeding from his ears. After a few minutes, with the assistance of a doctor from the stands, Ray Chapman started for the Indians clubhouse. He collapsed at second base and was carried the rest of the way. There, he again regained consciousness. While awake, he absolved Karl Mays of any blame for the incident. (Ray Chapman may have been the only one to absolve Mays; players, writers and most certainly fans piled blame on the beleaguered pitcher.) Taken to St. Lawrence Hospital, Raymond Johnson  Chapman died some 12 hours later.

Hence, tragedy stalked the 1920 baseball season just as it does during this 2020 season. Fundamentally the same, this old and beloved game of ours serves the same need and gives the same gift as it gave a century ago.

Uncle Robby, Tris Speaker, Pete Kilduff, Otto Miller, Clarence Mitchell, Bill Wambsganss, and, of course, Ray Chapman and Louis Sockalexis are all an unforgettable part of our past just as time will make the stars of our day.

Baseball in 2020 will become an ancient but cherished memory sooner than most of us realize. That's why we must enjoy it while we may!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

“OKAY, MAC, MAKE YOUR CASE!"

By Edwin Cooney

Sixty years ago this November 8th, Jack Kennedy, by the thinnest of margins, satisfied the American people that the United States was significantly behind the Soviets in the space race and that there was a significant missile gap to the advantage of the Soviets. Both circumstances  required the application of young, vigorous, and progressive leadership that would  "get America moving again!" John Fitzgerald Kennedy prevailed in that election only by approximately 112,000 popular votes and 303 to 219 votes in the Electoral College. For the next 1,036 days, Americans lived in Jacqueline Kennedy's "Camelot."

In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson adequately demonstrated to a bereaved public that his version of national security and prosperity was superior to Barry Goldwater's risky adventures in international games of “stick 'em up” with the Soviets and the conservative brand of free market government hands-off advocated by right-wing Republicans. Hence, Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson were free to build their "Great Society."

By November 5th, 1968, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon had proved to a sufficient plurality of voters that he could and would follow the wishes of the “silent majority" to bring law and order here at home and "peace with honor" to the Vietnam conflict, thus paving his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Jimmy Carter in 1976 promised you and me that, as an outsider, he could bring about a sufficient amount of fresh air to blow off the stale atmosphere of corrupt politics pervading throughout Washington D.C.

Ronald Reagan proved by November 6th, 1984 that Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was a thing of the far distant past and that it was now "morning in America.” Thus, the genial president won every state but Walter Mondale's Minnesota even taking traditionally Democratic Massachusetts which had voted for Senator George McGovern in 1972.

George H. W. Bush, by November 8th, 1988, promised that from his lips there would be no new taxes, that school children would always be free to salute the flag in their classrooms, that Boston Harbor wouldn't be nearly as polluted under his leadership, that no furloughed black prisoner would invade their homes, and that with his experiences as an ambassador and as CIA Director, he could bargain more effectively with the Soviet Union than could Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis.

The next four presidential candidates, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, demonstrated that, as the outs, they were superior to the ins!

As for 2020, while it's still possible for President Trump to prevail, he appears to be interested in only one thing: his personal success. He shows little empathy for his fellow Republicans as they seek to retain their seats in the House, Senate, or other offices.

Additionally, how many voters, beyond those already committed to him, can he expect to draw to his rallies, be they at the White House or elsewhere? Even if the president is personally non-contagious, how many other people who largely share the president's recklessness toward the disease might be at a Trump rally? Also, what effect will President Trump's insistence on not engaging in a virtual debate affect the way he's perceived during the next three weeks?

As for the values or priorities the president offers, he has put himself in a position to favor the people’s economic security, rather than their personal safety in the wake of Covid-19. By questioning the integrity of the voting public, he is undermining that ever fragile link between a popular leader and his or her constituency. After all, as essential as the economy may be, people worry more about the health of their friends and their families as well as the legitimacy of their ballots.  

As for former Vice President Biden, I'm convinced he can sew up his case by clearly asserting both publicly and preferably in front of Mr. Trump: Mr. President, this election is not about me or about you! It's about the future welfare of the American people.

Somehow and in some way, President Trump needs to demonstrate to the public that our national welfare, as stated in the Preamble of our  Constitution, is as important to him as his personal political success. Finally, since the president has had four years to offer a counterproposal to "Obamacare" but has not done so, what proposed legislation will he offer that would cover pre-existing conditions and sufficiently lower the costs of drugs and other health-oriented services? 

Joe Biden, who also must explain his own set of policy inconsistencies and political vagaries, goes into the final three weeks with two decided advantages: he’s much more personally likable and his political success is truly about our own well-being rather than about his!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

EDWIN COONEY

DASTARDLY DON PLODS ON!

By Edwin Cooney

If you're happy (even though I'm not) with President Donald and the GOP Senate's plot, you may well triumph in your justification, but beware of the wrath of an angry nation!

It might as well be cheerfully acknowledged, President Trump has the legal right to nominate a Conservative judge even with the approval of an unprincipled Republican Senate. After all, our Constitution empowers the President to propose and the Senate the right to dispose the nominations of cabinet officers, treaties, and justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. It also empowers both bodies of Congress to establish their own rules governing the creation, passage and rejection of legislation that appoints men and women to high public office. What it doesn't do is require the Senate majority to vote on the president's choices for office. Thus, back in 2016, the Senate could legally ignore President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland on the grounds that it was sufficiently late in the president's second and final term, that it was only right that the next president should have the right to choose the successor to Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who had died in February 2016 while on a hunting vacation.

Now, especially in view of the possibility that the next president could be Democrat Joseph R. Biden, the 2016 GOP Senate principles are being abandoned by that Republican herd of pachyderms as swiftly and deadly as the herds of buffalos that once roamed the prairies of the Old West. "So," you may say, “what of it?"

During an election year where motives often rate above either principles or explanations, President Trump has just stirred the political pot full of young women throughout the country who believe firmly that they, and not the government, are the mistresses of their own bodies, social and spiritual fates. As the campaign rumbles on toward the first of three upcoming debates between Messrs. Biden and Trump, the president, so far, appears to believe that his base which left him nearly 3 million votes behind Hillary Clinton four years ago will carry him back into the White House.

What both Conservatives and President Trump don't seem to realize are two vital facts. First, the defeat of Roe v. Wade in a Conservative Supreme Court will not put this nation on a "moral path to salvation” since it will only limit the abortion rights to the poor. The well-off will meet their private needs without public notice or punishment. That would constitute no “moral story” that I've ever read or heard about. Second, once you solve the Roe v. Wade issue, the GOP will be that much politically weaker. 

There's a wonderful old story once told by Tommy (The Cork) Corcoran, one of FDR's aides. Tommy Corcoran was a young lawyer who originally worked for President Herbert Hoover in the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He was originally embittered by President-elect Roosevelt's coolness toward President Hoover and the RFC. Fortunately for both Tommy and FDR, the Cork, at Hoover's direction, was assigned to stay on and work with the new administration to solidify the RFC and, within just a few weeks, Tommy found himself completely overwhelmed by the new President's humor and charm. So "The Cork" stuck with FDR. One day around 1935, the president sent the Cork to Capital Hill to lobby a Senate committee on a political matter. A few hours later, Tommy came back to say: Boss, I got it. The committee will support you on this thing. FDR grinned and took a long drag through his ivory cigarette holder and said: “Oh, Tommy, of course! You did a grand job to get me the votes I sent you up there for, but after thinking the matter over, I sent some other fellows right up there after you and they undid your work. After all, Tommy, next year is an election year and I'd rather have the issue than the solution!"

Politics being what it is, I told two Pennsylvania friends of mine that I thought that the president would select Judge Barbara Lagoa from Florida, an Hispanic jurist, believing that by doing so, he would be well on the way to winning the Sunshine State's 24 electoral votes. (Note: I'll let them be right while I remain provocative!)

The unhappy fact for "Trumpites" is that while Dastardly Donnie can be both decisive and even totally legal and he may not be impeachable these days, he is definitely both deflatable and defeat-able!

President Trump, unlike four years ago, possesses more foibles than his opponent.

Beware Mr. President, "Sleepy Joe" has been hibernating and he's as hungry as the proverbial bear when he awakens!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE EQUALITY OF OPINIONS - WHAT A CONCEPT!

By Edwin Cooney

Opinions equal? Really? Perhaps valid would be better, but even an invalid opinion is still just an opinion or, if you prefer, a point of view! Opinions or points of view may be dangerous enough as cultural tendencies, but they become downright lethal when they become law. At the outset of your message you insist that the idea of getting along is hip nowadays. Hip, really? Then how do you account for the "culture  war" through which we've been passing as far back as 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade?

How are we supposed to just agree to disagree with somebody with opposing views? We are supposed to see one man's views as equal but different from the other man. This is easier said than done. You're right, Colorado Dennis, that not all views are equal in applicability, but as mere points of view, they invariably invite legitimate objective analysis. Furthermore, they reflect the depth of public reaction to a controversial issue by a national constituency. 

First, I suggest that few people, politicians included, are as ideological as even they represent themselves as being. Also, we too often refer to one another as “far left” and “far right.” We revel in radicalism with ideological references too few of us really understand. For instance, if there’s a radical left or right by definition there must be a near radical or moderate left and right. Thus, who’s on the moderate left, the moderate right, or even in the exact center needs to be defined. It’s my guess that most people try to be practical rather than ideological.

Let's tackle the increasingly popular view that Civil War statues should not  remain as valuable historic relics.

In order to have an informed comprehension of what this point of view is all about, it's necessary to understand the significance of the Civil War in American history. First, it’s important to put the Civil War in context. Remember that for 18th and 19th century citizens, what was realistic was local. Most people were born, lived, and died in locations approximately 15 square miles apart. Few Americans were nationally-oriented. Thus when General Robert E. Lee left the United States Army and accepted the leadership of the Army of Virginia at the outset of the Civil War, he did so because in his heart, Virginia was his home and country. To Northerners, General Lee was a traitor. To Southerners, he was a patriot. Both Northerners and Southerners have been more or less locked into these values for the last sixteen decades. Hence, southern heroes are largely military heroes connected to Civil War history and, yes, even to family. Historically, few Southern heroes are Black. Of course, an abundance of Black Americans have been and are heroic. Perhaps had Southern leaders begun actively celebrating their heroism, the recent backlash against Civil War veterans wouldn't be as strong as it is. It's important to keep in mind that the protectors Civil War heroes have historically been quick to call “social heroes” socialists.

One of the saddest aspects of American history is our ongoing suspicion of immigrants. Most immigrants come to America to earn a better living. You can't earn a decent living when you come to destroy the system you seek to join. The very idea back in 2018 that a bunch of homeless and unemployed immigrants were about to invade America seriously lacked substance.

As for the abortion issue, I have yet to read or hear of a solution to the availability of abortions. Overruling Roe v. Wade merely restricts the availability of abortions to the wealthy. Well-heeled Americans have the resources to go to Canada or Mexico to obtain an abortion which is "none of anyone's business!" and return healthy and happy to practice their favorite brand of politics. A ban on the accessibility to abortions for one class of people doesn't outlaw abortions. There's an irony here. Only a few years ago, both during and after Roe v. Wade, social conservatives complained that too many poor people were having babies to collect money from the government for the raising of children. They were called welfare queens. If abortion is a question of morality, isn't assistance to the poor likewise a question of morality? After all, what does "love thy neighbor as thyself” mean? What is "do unto others what you would have them do unto you” all about? Those admonitions go back as far as both Confucius and Christ!

Here's a fundamental question. How interested are you and I in doing all we collectively can when it comes to giving people the benefit of the doubt? All of us are in some ways inconsistent in our attitudes and outlooks. Too many of us are willing to dehumanize political leaders with whom we have a conflict, be it attitudinal, intellectual or personal.

In Colorado Dennis's letter, he asserts that a person's views on public questions are a reflection of their decency. Some issues, such as white or Black nationalism, tolerance for or against LGBTQ behavior and marriage,    may seem unhealthy or even anti-social to some, but it's reasonable to this observer to take the position that no behavior that doesn't interfere with who I am, who I admire, or who I love is in any way my personal business. LGBTQ people aren't thieves, killers, child molesters, or agents of any political or subversive party.  If you're interested in tolerating others, there's no law of which I'm aware that prevents you from being wise, just, smart, gentle, caring, sharing, practical, and patriotic in all things! All of us are free to be tolerant of one another. I maintain that some of the most disagreeable people are ultimately pretty harmless. 

I'm grateful to Colorado Dennis for his letter which invited me to write what's here. I hope I've been responsive!

The late, great showman, humorist, and columnist Will Rogers, who was known for his observation "I never met a man I didn't like,” once told of a congressman who became unhappy when one of Rogers' columns was read into the Congressional Record. "I object," said the congressman, "to the remarks of a professional joke maker being read into the Congressional Record." Rogers went on to point out that the unhappy congressman had it wrong. "If I make a joke, you can take it or leave it, but any time Congress makes a joke, it's a law.” Then, after a pause, Rogers said, “…and any time Congress makes a law, it's a joke!"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WORST/BESTS AND BEST/WORSTS OF YEARS AND TIMES

By Edwin Cooney

I don't do much that's very constructive or informative these days! I try and care for my wife, my two lads living in Northern California nearly 3,000 miles to my west, stay in touch with and care about my best friend who lives in New Jersey, write these musings once a week, attend church services every Sunday, and preside as President of the Syracuse Host Lions Club twice a month, as well as serve as President of the New York State School for the Blind Alumni Association. I don't have a lot of money and thus I don't spend a significant enough amount of it to add or detract from the national economy. However, I do observe, categorize and evaluate events in my head for the purpose of sharing and hopefully stimulating the thoughts of you, my readers.

On Thursday, November 25th, 1999, I sat over pre-Thanksgiving-Day dinner wine at my friend David's house and together we thrashed over the answer to my question: What year was the most historic of the 20th Century? Of course, David immediately asked: Whose history are you talking about? Well, of course, I immediately narrowed the question to focus on America and the western world in general.

As we talked, we narrowed the answer down to five possibilities. The first was 1901, the year the American presidency was modernized by Theodore Roosevelt. Then, there was 1919, the close of World War I, which saw the creation of the League of Nations and its rejection by the U.S. Senate. The year 1933 constituted a new relationship between the people and their government here in the United States. The year 1991 saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the "Cold War." The winner that day was the year I just skipped over chronologically, 1945. That was the year FDR died, the year the United Nations was founded in San Fransisco and, most significant of all, it was our use of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan which ended World War II. That event affected everyone's potential future for better or worse! The power of atomic energy was beyond most of our imaginations.

I offer this story not only because it’s a personal experience, but because it emphasizes the events that make the above five years significant. The years that David and I discussed 21 years ago we now say were years containing sea changes.

As for 2020, hopefully, we've been through the worst of times what with Covid-19 and wildfires in California and Hurricane Laura in Texas and Louisiana. However, the big question is whether these events are sea changes. Sea changes, as I understand them, are occurrences which markedly alter peoples values and behaviors despite previous inclinations or habits. One sea change a year is substantial enough to bring about political, economic and even social chaos. Two sea changes in a single year could be overwhelming to the body politic. After all, how many hurricanes around the Atlantic and through the Gulf of Mexico, how many wildfires throughout the west, does it take to demonstrate that climate change is far from a hoax? The same must be asked about the Covid-19 pandemic?

Because life must go on, we'll adjust to these sea changes. After all, the ability to adjust and thus normalize living conditions amounts to the stuff of which people are made!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY      

BALANCING THE FREE AND THE FAIR!

By Edwin Cooney

Despite what you're about to read, I still like both politics and politicians. However, everything in life must have its limits including political rhetoric!

Unfortunately, we've gotten ourselves into a national mindset that's anything but constructive or patriotic. When we view every political philosophy that's different from our own or any candidate we oppose as a criminal, we're setting ourselves up for a national nervous breakdown! If there is such a thing as a “National Nervous Breakdown” due to our national leadership's unwillingness to accept the result of the election this November, the ultimate fault will be our very own.

While I'm not sure that we have a "right"  to be protected from political annoyance, the fact of the matter is that we're suffering these days from political, emotional, and intellectual abuse. Even more, it's pretty easy to document that the public mind is being more than annoyed, it's being deliberately and systematically poisoned just as the climate in which we live is being polluted by carbons. Even worse, it too often seems that the word "united" (a vital word) is being slowly but surely obliterated from who we historically say we are.  

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that we're well on the way to destroying our own liberty. After all, if no two people of opposing points of view have sufficient legitimacy to be trusted in public office, how can we have any confidence in any political candidate’s capacity to govern once elected? What the United States of America needs most desperately today has less to do with "civil liberties" and more about "civilized liberty,” but how do we accomplish that while preserving freedom of speech?

Of course, the nature of politics is confrontational! Our British and European ancestors were invariably led by exceedingly rich and ambitious men and women who contested one another for the right to rule on battlefields. Even our right to self government was established by George Washington on battlefields between Massachusetts and South Carolina between 1775 and 1781. Not until the adoption of our own Constitution did party politics become the instrument for achieving executive, legislative and judicial power in the United States — and, as we all learned in school, George Washington warned in his "farewell message” in September 1796 of the potential evils of party politics. Note that since the retiring president suggested no substitution for political parties, all we’re left with are those parties.

Since the establishment of our federal system of elective government, we've taken pride in our capacity to peacefully transfer power from party to party as well as from president to president.

Of course, presidents have been exceedingly critical of one another from time to time. Both John Adams, our second president, and John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, refused to attend the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson in 1800 and 1828 respectively. Thomas Jefferson considered Andrew Jackson a dangerous man having observed Jackson from his vice presidential chair when Jackson was briefly in the Senate representing Tennessee in 1798. Andrew Jackson came to hate almost everything Quincy Adams stood for, especially after 1824 in the wake of that "corrupt bargain" between Adams and House Speaker Henry Clay that made Quincy Adams president and Clay secretary of state after the 1824 election. 

 

Herbert Hoover heartily disliked FDR following the 1932 election. Harry Truman considered Richard Nixon a "damned liar” who often "...lied just to keep his hand in." The 1952 presidential campaign made both Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, who were once friendly, into bitter political opponents from then on. Truman observed that “[Ike] doesn't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday!" Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy (once friends of a sort) came to dislike each other. Nixon was jealous of Kennedy's wealth and glamour and Kennedy often insisted that Nixon had "no class!" Finally, according to Thomas M. DeFrank's book "Write It When I'm gone,” Jerry Ford, who became reconciled with Jimmy Carter, did so out of their mutual contempt for Ronald Reagan. (Although he vigorously campaigned for Reagan in 1980, Ford never forgave Reagan for challenging him for the GOP nomination in 1976.)

The above instances of political and even personal animosities pale in significance to the cultural divide that is all too apparent between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Today our opponents aren't merely dishonest or incompetent, they are criminals, traitors, and terrorists. I assert this not from above the battle, for I, too, have little if any regard whatsoever for one of the candidates and, as justifiable as I regard my attitude as being, I hold it with considerable discomfort.

A few days ago, I read that Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook intends to block political ads on his site one week before the November 3rd election. I think that’s an excellent idea, as this need for rhetorical responsibility and accountability is an absolute must — considering where we’re all headed!

At the outset of this musing I observed that the "Sons of Liberty" who offered us their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honor" did something vitally important. Before they fought for freedom, they thought about freedom.

Now, that's our task!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY