TWO PARADIGMS — ONE PERSONAL, ONE PATRIOTIC

By Edwin Cooney

A paradigm constitutes a model of one's perception about almost any topic. When President George Washington criticized the political party paradigm during his 1796 farewell address, his lack of offering a good government paradigm minus political parties left the process of free elections without a structure or an ideal. Almost all of the evils he outlined about political parties have come true. However, what Father George couldn't offer his children was an alternative instrument free of the political party process to conduct, adjust, and evaluate the vicissitudes of free government.

I insist that Elizabeth Cheney's defiance of Mr. Trump's paradigm of approach is heroic especially in the face of her public voting record of backing the Trump administration's policies 93% of the time. Her defiance of Mr. Trump's authoritarianism makes her a hero. Since her condemnation leaves her seriously vulnerable politically, not only has she been stripped of her chairmanship of the Republican Conference in the House, but she's also been expelled as a legitimate Republican Party member back in her home state of Wyoming.

Former President Trump's paradigm or model of government appears to assert that no matter whose legal or policy assessment of any national situation he defies, he must be sustained in his defiance. It reminds me of former President Richard Nixon's assertion during one of his conversations with Journalist David Frost in 1977 that whatever the President does is lawful merely because the President authorized it.

There's almost nothing in Congresswoman Cheney's public record for which I have any sympathy other than her assertion that the Trump administration was "pro Putin." Believing what she believes and voting as she has, her defiance of Donald Trump's acts on January 6th, 2021 dramatically intensifies the power and significance of her courageous position.

Two things reflected in the reactions I've received to last week’s column are interesting. Most of the Democrats that have responded disagree with my assertion that Liz Cheney is a hero. Even more interesting is the assertion by one of my Republican friends that the party would be more interested in accepting the January 6th committee's conclusions were it willing to have Speaker Pelosi's lack of preparedness to resist the events on January 6th be a topic of inquiry. As I see it, that's like blaming the victim of a fire for suffering the fire. Another way to look at it is like blaming the victim of a robbery for being vulnerable to being robbed!

The root of our national distress lies in the reality that we've allowed both political parties, due to the nature of the political doctrines they've institutionalized, to virtually criminalize each other.

If you're pro-choice, you're a baby killer. If you're pro-gay marriage, whatever else you support, you're a pervert! If you're for national health insurance, you're a Communist — or at least a Socialist. Whatever position you take on any issue, you're either a saint or a sinner.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln used to pray that he was on God's side. These days too many of our leaders and opinion makers insist that God's on their side and everyone else is a sinner! Even worse, we too often use religion to dehumanize each other! Your religion is your and nobody else's business. Even as religion plays a vital part in who we are as a nation, no matter what Irving Berlin wrote back in the 1930s urging that God Bless America, whether or not you and I go to Heaven won't depend on how good an American we are! You personally may legitimately hope for Heaven, but God isn't going to take the whole country into His kingdom. (I have friends who are actually frightened that they may end up in Heaven!)

Perhaps the biggest reason we need a new paradigm is that we take ourselves too damned seriously! Salvation is not a matter of our national fate.

In closing, I offer the following elements of a new national paradigm:

(1.) Let's draw a distinction between religious belief and national morality. You may be Heaven-bound, but America's going nowhere when it dies. Your religious belief may legitimately reflect who you are and what you advocate, but religious values are strictly your, your deity’s and nobody else's business. The religious among us have no monopoly on morality.

(2.) Let's stop beating each other over the head with our interpretation of the sins of history. I believe that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were treasonous, but if you'll stop calling me a socialist (or worse) for advocating Obamacare or climate change, I'll not so vigorously insist that their treachery and bigotry was spiritually immoral or that you're a racist for heroizing them!

(3.) If the well-being of babies is the reason for denying women the freedom of choice, the least you can do is agree not to further mistreat women or let the newly born ethnic children either starve or be denied housing, medical care, education, and employment opportunities.

(4.) Let's make both of our political parties be accountable for tackling homelessness, infrastructure and climate change.

(5.) Let's stop using capital punishment to solve behavioral problems!

(6.) Let's draw a distinction between romance and love and always champion the latter!

(7.) While we must be cautious about national expenditures, remember your ultimate profit is limited to the exact extent that someone else is too poor to purchase your service or product!

(8.) If illegal immigration is a legitimate problem, consider what makes it so! Begin by asking yourself how much you enjoy moving! Imagine moving hundreds of miles, more or less on foot, to a country that doesn't want you for all you may bring!

(9.) It's time to do away with the Electoral College!

(10.) Absolutely above everything else, let's start investing in each other's well-being, everyday and all the time!

If we apply the above elements of paradigm change, before we know it we might actually become THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA once again!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A NEW POLITICAL HERO THUS A NEW POSSIBLE POLITICAL PARADIGM

By Edwin Cooney

A hero is someone who performs or undertakes to act when it is dangerous to one's well-being while preserving the well-being or safety of others.

Our national and individual histories are bedecked with instances in which both friends and acquaintances have been heroes!

Among my national heroes are: the Marines of Iwo Jima, Dr. Jonas Salk, the seven Mercury astronauts, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Carter, and Obama. My personal heroes are named Edith, Rhoda, Eric, Ryan, Olivia, Bailey Jane, Britney, and, of course, Marsha Cooney. There are still other personal heroes but these are at the very top of my list. All of them have been vital to preserving my social, emotional, spiritual, and personal well-being!

All of our heroes invariably re-enforce our values and expectations regarding everything that's important to us.

Like most conscientious voters, regardless of political ideology, the well-being of my country is of continuous importance to me. Like most of my fellow citizens, I'd prefer to have an administration in Washington that shares my personal political agenda. However, living in a free society as I do, I know that from time to time, my political opponents will prevail.

Accordingly, during the administrations of President Reagan, Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and initially during the Trump presidency, I looked for aspects of the opposition's person or administration that I could approve.

Last Thursday night after the latest public session of the January 6th Committee, I've had to conclude that there's absolutely nothing to admire about the person or presidency of Donald Trump! In the wake of that conclusion, I've had to acknowledge the existence of a new political hero.

Elizabeth Cheney in almost every aspect of her political being is an anathema to me. However, her willingness to draw the distinction between personal and national well-being and thus risk the enmity of her constituency and, subsequently, her seat in Congress, means that Elizabeth Cheney recognizes the distinction between governing and politicking. Second, she understands that the loss of office is ultimately a matter of national priority rather than a matter of personal preference. Election to public office is ultimately not about a candidate but the quality of what a candidate has to offer.

Elizabeth (Liz) Cheney is probably the greatest political hero since Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon back in 1974.  I didn't see President Ford's courage back then, I saw only what I regarded as his political cronyism, but I unconsciously drew some comfort from Jerry Ford's cronyism as it justified my anger with my former hero Richard Nixon. Although I'm not in the least sorry for my support of Jimmy Carter, my political and prejudicial cynicism stultified my capacity for quality judgment of an historical event!    

So, here it is! Were I living in Wyoming, a vote for Elizabeth Cheney on Tuesday, August 16th, 2022 would be one hell of a temptation. The truth is, however, that come the election in November, even if she unexpectedly prevailed this August, I'd probably vote for her Democratic opponent.

Remember a few lines ago I asserted election to public office is ultimately not about a candidate but about the quality of what a candidate has to offer. Thus, although I could never vote for Ms. Cheney, I still regard her as a hero. After all, I didn't vote for Jerry in 1976 and he was as significant a hero as Elizabeth Cheney.

Oh! Here's an irony for you! Do you recall who President Ford's Chief of Staff was back in 1976? His name was Richard Bruce Cheney.

You may reasonably conclude that throughout this musing I've demonstrated my incapacity to follow a new paradigm as has Elizabeth Cheney. Ah, but a paradigm isn't a belief; a paradigm is an approach or a way.

Next week, let's compare the Cheney paradigm and the Trump paradigm!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

HEY, SELF, WHEN IS A NATION REALLY AND TRULY GREAT?

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, I admit it. I am like little Jack Horner who sat in the corner pulling plumbs out of cherry pies! Just for this week, I'll take a break from plumb-pulling and pull greatness out of America and, believe it or not, out of other nations as well. Here I go:

Question 1: What makes a nation truly great?

Answer: Nations are often great long after their dominance has passed. Greece and Rome in their times established political, social, legal and religious institutions that future nations were anxious to adopt for their own benefit. These include languages, prose and poetry, educational institutions, philosophical concepts of learning, and government. (My favorite Greek philosopher was Plato who defined “justice” as rewarding someone for their accomplishments. He defined “injustice” as setting up someone for failure and punishing them for failure.) Britain's greatest accomplishment was the concept of legal and social fairness and, as imperfect as it was, it established a system of jurisprudence that remains a part of all just governments today. As for the British Empire, it spread its greatest institutions to its colonies widely throughout the world from the Americas to the Asian subcontinent and on to Africa and Australia. Great Britain spread the expectation that good government serves rather than rules the people.

Question 2: Which is higher, society or government?

Answer: Society constitutes the collective mores of its citizens. Medieval, monarchical, federalist, free market, socialistic, or oligarchical forms of government are established by societal hopes and expectations.

Question 3: What's the most vital element of a great society?

Answer: Social inclusion constitutes the greatest element of a great society.

Question 4: Is a great nation “great” in everything it does?

Answer: Of course not! From 1789 into the 1960’s, even as America became freer and freer for white property and business owners and, ultimately, white women, America enslaved Blacks, legally murdered Mormons in some states, committed genocide to native Americans, and established Jim Crow laws to hold down Blacks even in the face of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and in defiance of the 13th 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Question 5: Is America great enough as it is?

Answer: Certainly not! There's plenty of room for improvement. If it was up to “me, myself, and I,” I would do away with the electoral college, widen the wall separating church and state, regulate gun manufacturers by making them legally responsible for the damage guns do to people when they are in the hands of individuals who are nonmilitary and those who aren't part of law enforcement. I'd do away with capital punishment which I regard merely as government-sponsored legalized murder. I'd reject efforts by individual states to limit the voting rights of Blacks and other ethnic minorities out of fears that these minorities may become majority voters.

I believe as Abraham Lincoln believed that all of us were and are created equal, not according to our skills, but out of the value of our natural existence!

After talking long and hard to myself about it, I've decided that:

(1.) A great society creates a great government as LBJ tried to tell us in his often bumbling and even self-centered way.

(2.) As former New York State Governor Al Smith often put it: "The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy!"

(3.) Because government is a tool designed to be used by all aspects of society and not merely a political entity, it is empowered to both regulate and deregulate the manner in which people function in its domain.

About the time President Benjamin Harrison turned the government over to Grover Cleveland whom he'd defeated for re-election four years previously, the era of "manifest destiny" was complete and the frontier was considered closed. Since March 4th, 1893, we have experienced the era of political doctrine consisting of progressivism, old guard conservatism, and mid-twentieth century liberalism. Since 1969, modern conservatism has largely ruled.

Today, the states don't appear to be at all united! But as little Jack Horner sits in his corner eating George Washington's cherry pie, he discovers a bit of real greatness on the end of his thumb!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

A RESPONSIBLE CIVIL RIGHT! WHAT SAY ME?

By Edwin Cooney

My column last week asserting that the chickens have come home to roost and that now it's time for them to rule, brought two or three powerful responses worthy of consideration.

Becky from Minnesota writes: I thought most of your column was pretty balanced. That is until you said that abortion is "a responsible civil right.” Because I don't believe in killing anything human, I can't say that is what abortion is. Calling that a civil right of any kind is a slippery slope!

My immediate or mere defensive response to that would be to assert that all civil rights are subject to irresponsible exercise including freedom of speech, assembly and, of course, freedom of the press. Beyond that, let's remember that at the heart of Roe v. Wade (whatever the later change of heart by Roe) was a woman's right to counsel with her physician with a view to a medical procedure regarding her state of pregnancy. You’re right, Becky, abortion itself isn’t a civil right, but to have an abortion under safe and clinical conditions is something pretty close to a civil right. Remember, the Supreme Court didn’t end abortion on Friday, June 24th. It merely transferred it to the states. All they did was to make abortion harder and more expensive to obtain. 

Roe was neither a political quest nor was it, as one friend of mine charged: The decision in Roe was essentially a policy decision camouflaged in legal garb.  It was raw political power exercised by unelected justices, rather than by the political branches of our government.

That response on the part of my friend from Albany, New York appears to come straight out of a Conservative instructional handbook. The fact of the matter is that Supreme Court Justices become what they are straight from appointment by a president and confirmation by the United States Senate. Their job, as my friend, a lawyer, well knows, is adjudication. Justices, of course, have standards as to what cases they'll consider, but these cases aren't drawn up by the justices. They're considered as they might affect different aspects of  constitutional government. Even more ironic, the author of the majority in Roe v. Wade was Justice Harry Blackman, appointed as a "strict constructionist" by Richard M. Nixon, 37th President of the United States, a self-proclaimed "conservative." It has become standard rhetoric that the Warren and Berger courts were filled with radical socialists, otherwise called “judicial activists,” appointed by liberal Democratic presidents. Presidents who had appointed the 1973 justices included Franklin Roosevelt (Justice Douglas), Dwight Eisenhower (Justices Stewart and Brennan), John F. Kennedy (Justice White), Lyndon Johnson (Justice Marshall) and  Richard Nixon (Justices Powell, Rehnquist and Blackman). Even more, the Court in 1973 had a Republican majority: Stewart, Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Berger, Blackman, Rehnquist, and Powell. Justices Rehnquist and White dissented in the matter of Roe v. Wade.

I think it's fair to say that most of us regard both the approval of Roe v. Wade as well as its dismissal as being largely questions of morality. I have a friend in California, one of the smartest and most knowledgable men I know, who says it's not at all a question of morality. Here's my friend Oakland David:

“Who decides what is a moral issue and what the "moral" choice is? Five of the six justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade are Roman Catholic, as is one of the justices who voted to retain it. The Roman Catholic church believes that the soul attaches, and thus life begins, at conception, and almost every state which now will ban abortion follows that idea. However, not every religion believes that. Some believe that life begins when the fetus is "viable" or capable of surviving outside the womb. Some believe that life begins when the newly-born infant draws its first breath. Science cannot answer that question, which is essentially a religious issue. So, under our supposed separation of church and state, why is one church's belief forced on everyone? The conservative majority currently running the Supreme Court seems to consistently vote in favor of the litigant claiming freedom of religion over the rights of everyone else, whether it is the right to freely engage in commerce or the right not to have their tax money support religious instruction. The glaring exception is abortion, where they are quite willing to impose their religion on the entire country, and decide that governments, state governments in this case, can override the religious faith of their residents. They can't do this to require that adoption agencies which receive public funds don't discriminate. They can't require bakers offering their goods to the public not to discriminate. They can't refuse to fund religious schools if they fund non-sectarian schools. I see hypocrisy here.

"There have been 115 Justices on the Supreme Court, and only 15 have been Roman Catholic. That we currently have six of those 15 is astounding. The court certainly does not reflect America."

The obvious question to Oakland David and to everyone else is: what belief, behavioral expectation, political doctrine, human expectation does represent America?

I close with two ironic historical facts.

Oakland David points out that out of the 115 Supreme Court Justices only 15 have been Roman Catholic. In 1960, millions rightly celebrated the election of John F. Kennedy as the  first Roman Catholic President of the United States. Too few realized, then or today, that Roger Brooke Taney was the first Roman Catholic Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Andrew Jackson in 1835 and served until 1864. It was Roger Taney who ruled in 1857 that slaves were not human beings, but were rightfully the property of slave holders. Quite a decision for a morally upright gentleman of justice, wasn't it?

Finally, the “Wade" in Roe v. Wade was nationally prominent nearly a decade before he was linked to the case of Jane Roe. (Her name was Norma McCorvey.) Henry Wade was the Dallas County Prosecutor who would have prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of JFK. but wound up prosecuting Jack Ruby for Oswald's murder instead.

Comments are always welcome, but don't be too profound or I'll have to continue on this topic for a third week!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

CONGRATULATIONS, CHICKENS, YOU'VE FINALLY COME HOME TO ROOST — NOW, YOU MUST RULE!

By Edwin Cooney

I had intended to title this commentary “The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth,” but since there are many truths or, if you prefer, factors that shout out for recognition, I've decided to address the wings that have delivered the inevitable forces that finally triumphed last Friday, June 24th, 2022. Hence, here come the chicken wings in all their glory or inglorious forces!

Here are the forces or realities that drove the rejection of Roe v. Wade:

(1.) The United States of America remains largely a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant country and it is determined to be a home primarily for white Christians and brave white men.

(2.) Women are valued, but they are secondary citizens be they sweethearts, wives, professional women, or even soldiers.

(3.) Those who have opposed Roe v. Wade are determined to connect church and state! They regard the United States of America as a Christian nation despite a 1797 declaration to the contrary issued by the administration of President John Adams asserting that church and state are separate entities.

(4.) Social welfare is generally second to economic welfare by too many very influential Americans.

(5.) Finally, there is the force best described as illusion. I'm sure that conservatives are congratulating themselves today that the overthrow of Roe is a moral victory over "collectivist socialism.” After all, the “good guys” must naturally prevail over the “bad guys” when all they've done is to put a price on abortion. If you doubt that, all you have to do is ask the rich what they will do and where they'll go when they decide to get an abortion!

Likely results:

Approximately half of the states had adopted laws which would end legal abortions once Roe v. Wade was overthrown last Friday morning. Some states are even considering laws punishing those women who go out of state to get an abortion after they return home. Many states that allow abortions will establish charitable private organizations to allow citizens in states where abortions are illegal to obtain abortions in their jurisdictions. Even more devastating will be the effect that the overturning of Roe may have on stem cell research which is vital to fighting life-altering diseases.

In the minds and hearts of many people, we are once again coming face to face with a moral issue. What's ironic to this observer is that those who time after time oppose government authority are seeking to use the government to enforce their own "moral" ends. Even more ironic is how those very same people resist the use of government to confront another primarily “moral" issue which we all call civil rights.

Opposition to abortion as I see it is a legitimate and even compelling political and moral position. Thoughtful men and women ought to be capable of establishing a set of conditions which would both allow and limit abortions. Both government and the administration of abortions are powerful entities and must be handled as such. Civil rights, abortion issues, and the use of nuclear weapons affect government operations in eight nations worldwide: The United States, Russia, China, Israel, Great Britain, France, Pakistan and North Korea. I draw this parallel because powerful issues must, to the maximum degree, be effectively handled as high above the political process as possible.

Before Monday, January 22nd, 1973, abortion rights were a minor political issue. What occurred on January 22nd 1973 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of a legal issue, Roe v. Wade.  What became political was reaction to that legal decision. As early as 1976, the right to an abortion was an issue only in the Democratic Party where Ellen McCormack, a 49-year-old housewife, filed with the Federal Election Commission to become a presidential candidate in the Democratic party. She only received 22 votes at the Democratic convention in 1976, but she was the first political candidate to receive matching federal election funds and she participated in a debate witch included future president Jimmy Carter. In 1980, she was the Right to Life candidate for the presidency, but she never joined the Republican Party's “Moral Majority” movement initiated by the Reverend Jerry Falwall.

No free people ought to avoid moral issues. However, the manner of inevitable debate of moral issues can be conducted above the cackling crowing, personal finger-pointing milieu that brought about the death of a responsible civil right.

So it's back to the drawing board. Let's do all we can to keep whatever resolution or alteration of the present situation out of the chicken manure!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

SUMMER 2022: IT’S TAKING US SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN ON VACATION!

By Edwin Cooney

As I was considering writing about summer 2022, it occurred to me that back in the 1950s, a young man named Jerry Keller sang a song called "Here Comes Summer,” a happy song anticipating a summer with his girlfriend!

Summertime 2022 is likely to be a very heady time. The worries and woes that are likely to run through our heads could be overwhelming in thousands of instances.

Roe v. Wade will soon be decided by a conservative Supreme Court and the "pro life" people who anticipate victory just may very well be disappointed. It's possible that the court might modify its decision allowing some aspect of Roe to remain valid. Such a possibility is likely to make practically everyone unhappy. Add to that the debate about the Second Amendment which affects those who treasure their guns as much as they value their personal freedom to be who they want to be.

Next, there's the ongoing war between the political forces that pit former President Donald J. Trump against everyone else. It's amazing to me that a man who egged on his supporters to the degree that they were willing to kill the sitting Vice President of the United States is even close to being a serious presidential candidate in 2024. It’s absolutely stunning!

Then, there are the unceasing heat waves, wildfires, floods and tornados, and early hurricanes, all of which are due to our national insistence on using fossil fuels to run our economy when solar energy is clearly the path to a better and safer future.

It's our nature to be curious and to seek control of our social, economic, and spiritual destinies and those of our children and grandchildren.

As one gets older and has less responsibility, there is a tendency to believe that the whole world is going to hell —  largely out of a realization that someone else is about to be in control and that our personal existences are about to change forever.

I see our political system dissolving from the balanced federalist system designed by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton into an oligarchy dominated by the rich just as it was up until the dawn of the 19th Century. Then, young America's leaders began relying on the best thinkers of Ancient Greece and Rome, along with Renaissance France, Italy, and Britain, to shape government from the mere gratification of medieval royalty to the legitimate ambitions and dreams shared by you and me.

It was at that time that the thinkers mentioned above were joined by the young industrialists named Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton and, eventually, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell who invented the vital tools and processes that changed our agricultural society into an industrial giant. (Read our Constitution which was written just before the dawn of industrialism and you'll see no reference to a specific political doctrine such as capitalism or socialism. These doctrines were the children of the incoming industrial era and were designed to bring forth the hopes and dreams never before experienced by a whole population.)

As Summer 2022 drapes us within her folds, it appears that the political process designed to ensure everyone's freedom may well be modified by various state legislatures that are determined, as they've done for nearly two centuries now, to emphasize "States' Rights” so that the few can control the many when it comes to electing the next President of the United States. The world, they appear to believe, which has always been run by and for the wealthy, should never be guilty of institutionalizing hope and charity as too many “bleeding-heart” liberals and socialists would do if they weren't regulated by the government. Don't ever let a conservative tell you that he or she “hates government” when they actually control government, because it is easier to control others at the regional, state and local levels than at the federal level.

Summer's greatest gift has always been the freedom its weather brings humanity to work and play.

The future, whatever spirit it creates, kind or mean, spiritual or merely profitable, helpful or stultifying, begins at 4:14 EDT tomorrow, ready or not!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

ELIZABETH II: IS SHE HUMAN OR MERELY ROYAL?

If you were born in the month of April in 1926, if you were born on a Wednesday, if you were born in England, if you are female, if you have been a wife and mother, you have got a lot in common with a very extraordinary human being — Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor! Perhaps her very humanness is the most obscure factor about her. She's one of the most privileged people in the world. She's been given much, both in wealth and in social status. It has to be the rare individual to directly differ with her, let alone contradict or criticize her. It also has to be the rare person who has cried or cursed in front of her! Yet she has numerous social and royal obligations, a list of which may well overwhelm most of us commoners.

If she's clearly been granted extra protection in the area of everyday human foibles, imagine the discipline and control of many natural urges that are denied to "Her Royal Highness!” This observer has never heard or read of her loss of temper, expression of impatience or rudeness — not even during the stressful period in 1997 when Princess Diana was killed and many wondered what role "the Queen" played in Diana's discomfort with Prince Charles, Elizabeth's eldest son.

To many of us, bound to an ordinary existence, Queen Elizabeth is the head of a fairyland on whose imperial soil the sun never set. Note: If the sun once never set on British soil as proclaimed by the great prime minister and author Benjamin Disraeli, it could be observed that the sun never rose on British soil! Another version was as follows: "The sun never set on the British Empire because God did not trust the British in the dark!”

Princess Elizabeth and her husband Prince Phillip were reaping one of the many royal privileges of the British Empire at the very hour of King George's death. Their Royal Highnesses, as guests of the Kenyan government, were in a mighty treehouse overlooking a salt lick in the Kenyan jungle that was visited by just about every wild animal imaginable. Summoned from this wondrous kaleidoscope back to "civilization'" and informed of her father's passing, Elisabeth was immediately whisked back to England. She changed into a black dress during the flight and emerged from the plane to be greeted by a solemn Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who immediately granted his love and loyalty.

Queen Elizabeth's reign is invariably compared and contrasted with that of her great, great grandmother Queen Victoria whose reign lasted from Tuesday, June 20th, 1837 until Tuesday, January 22nd, 1901 — a total of 63 years, 216 days. The two women would be very different. Victoria  was both rigid and opinionated in temperament. She came to love Prime Ministers Robert Peel and Benjamin Disraeli, but she heartily disliked and distrusted Prime Minister Henry John Temple Palmerston--or Pam as he was known. Queen Victoria worked with eleven prime ministers to Elizabeth's fourteen. As head of state rather than head of government, Queen Elizabeth has stayed strictly away from political doctrine whether her prime minister was Margaret Thatcher or Harold Wilson, Winston Churchill or Boris Johnson.

As for the "times," things have changed much more radically during Elizabeth’s time. In 1953, Eddie Fisher, Perry Como and even Bing Crosby were entertainment stars in Great Britain. Less than ten years later, The Beatles came along and the Queen eventually knighted the two living members of the group. In 1953, television was in its infancy. No one even imagined that one day there would be a computer in the house. As the 1950s rolled along, colonies such as Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and numerous others obtained their independence although the British Commonwealth has remained as stabilizing as the queen's monarchy itself.

In Britain as here in America, many dismiss the significance of the very idea of royalty. Although no one can form a legitimate government without Queen Elizabeth's consent, she is solely empowered to legitimize a government leadership endorsed by Parliament. Note that on Friday, May 10th, 1940, King George VI, Elizabeth's father, would have preferred to invite Lord Halifax rather than Winston Churchill to succeed the beleaguered Neville Chamberlain, but as a member of the House of Lords, Halifax himself asserted that he couldn't be an effective prime minister during a time of war.

Perhaps the finest complement to Queen Elizabeth II on her Seventieth Anniversary is that her personal presence stabilizes British society in a more genuine way than the idea of “national unity" which is what reassures the “United” States in this hour of America's most severe period of turmoil since before the Civil War.

Obviously a grand lady, she's ultimately encased in a grand institution. Royalty has never quite lived up to its grand ideal. It can’t, because every human, Elizabeth included, is ultimately fallible!

The authority she inherited through her father's accession to the throne was brought about by her Uncle Edward's abdication. George VI gained his high royal office largely through the political power of the parliament rather than through personal ambition. This gentle and humble royal servant never failed to realize that nor has his eldest daughter.  

However, before you dismiss the ongoing significance of royalty, remember the personhood of one Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY