VISITING THE ROOT OF AMERICAN MATTERS -- PART ONE: AS THINGS APPEAR

By Edwin Cooney

I can't recall a time in my nearly 77 years as an American, when the domestic outlook toward our future appeared so gloomy from so many socio, political and even scientific and spiritual aspects. No political leader, no husband, wife, child, teacher, preacher, whether man or woman, is confident of our existence in the absence of marked change in both outlook of practical political application.

As I see it, the above state of matters has multiple causes such as:

(1.) The near institutionalization of hatred for every form of social and political advocacy by everybody against everybody else throughout the socio/political spectrum.

(2.) The use of the mass media that spreads the above throughout "the land of the free and the home of the brave." It seems that today’s national anthem has changed from Francis Scott Key's "The Star Spangled Banner" to Frank Sinatra's "My Way." Note: We just celebrated the 208th anniversary of The Star Spangled Banner last Wednesday, September 14th. Also, "My Way" was written by Paul Anka in 1967.

(3.) Mistrust of all government by powerful people and organizations especially disdain of the federal government.

(4.) The ongoing struggle between religion and secularism.

(5.) The politicization of all sciences led by interest groups, especially those on the right of the political spectrum, although not entirely by them.

(6.) The loss of that vital cordiality and cooperativeness of our two major political parties throughout the halls of Congress.

(7.) The emphasis of state's rights over matters of national concern.

(8.) Our incapacity to effectively tackle ongoing domestic issues such as climate change and homelessness.

(9.) America's historic disdain for foreigners — especially immigrants.

(10.) We brag about our national unity while showing contempt for it.

It's vital to keep in mind that republicanism or democracy and our federal system, however you want to characterize it, is only 246 years old. Up until 1776 the entire world was tribal or monarchist. Back then, human beings for the most part surrendered to authoritarianism — whether social, legal or spiritual. From birth to the grave, much of humanity expected to be told what to do by strict parents, by teachers, and by the church.

Our inevitable change from simple agrarianism to industrialism and into the age of mass computerization has, I'm convinced, thrown all of us off balance. Two-hundred and forty-six years ago we dumped royalty for republicanism or democracy, we indulged ourselves in chattel slavery and profitable Indian genocide, civil war, and two world wars. Today, world wars have become cultural wars, with determined social and political generals and agendas as powerful as the agendas of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Douglas MacArthur, which ultimately ended a depression and won a world war within a single decade.

I'd characterize this age as the era of genuine chaos and confusion. Of course, we'll come out of this era of chaos and confusion. However, what it will cost us, how we'll accomplish this, and what that advancement will bring is everyone's guess because it encompasses everybody's fortune!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE MODERN BRITISH MONARCHY

By Edwin Cooney

British history begins for me in 1066, almost 1200 years ago this coming October, when William of Normandy won the Battle of Hastings over King Harold. This is referred to as the Norman Conquest. King William I was crowned King of England on Christmas Day 1066. There had been English kings before but they are exceedingly hard to easily follow since they lack continuity.

While visiting the US during our Bicentennial in 1976, Prince Charles asserted during an interview on National Public Television that going back before the Norman Conquest there had been only a total of 63 British Monarchies up until his mother's accession to the throne in 1953. Back in 1976, Americans were contemplating the election of merely our 39th president which turned out to be former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter. I remember trying to imagine how many presidents we might have if we lasted over 1100 years!

Only the year before that, in 1975, I had completed my history degree majoring in Modern American, Modern European and Medieval European histories. (Medieval history marks the time between the fall of the Roman Empire in about 500 AD to the time of the Renaissance around 1500. It was the time during which modern government and modern religious institutions struggled often against one another for the control of nations.)  While  studying British royal family history, one can see how monarchs slowly but invariably advanced from merely being the most powerful warriors in the land and gradually became royal politicians. Henry Tudor (Henry VII, 1485 - 1509) was the first royal administrative politician monarch. Henry VIII (Tudor's son) was not merely a politician but, following his clash with Pope Clement VII over his divorce from Queen Catherine, he came to regard himself as head of the newly established Church of England. His second eldest daughter, Elizabeth I who ruled from 1558 to 1603, was ultimately the first truly great head of state, head of church, and top administrator — and one hell of a politician!

Elizabeth II, whom we mourn today, will ultimately be celebrated for her temperament which was both stoic and tolerant. All fifteen Prime Ministers who served during her 70 year reign appear to have found her both cordial and cooperative whatever their political and policy differences were. In that way, Queen Elizabeth II was similar to Oliver Wendell Holmes' description of FDR as possessing a second class intellect but a first class temperament.

It's natural and reasonable to question both the value and necessity of all royalty today. It must be observed, however, that the British have a special ability of using modern expectations and traditional customs, both Medieval and Victorian imagery, to justify and ultimately dignify King Charles III’s reign which began in the afternoon Greenwich Mean Time last Thursday, September 8th, 2022.

I can't resist comparing the last two occasions or conditions of the birth of the past two reigns.

On the evening of February 6th and 7th, 1952, Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth were sleeping in a Kenyan jungle treehouse as King George VI slipped away at Buckingham Palace in London. Thus, it can be observed that Princess Elizabeth transitioned from the jungle to the palace. (Note: That jungle treehouse was burned down the following year during a political struggle within Kenya.) Last Thursday afternoon just as Queen Elizabeth passed from life into eternity, a double rainbow appeared over Balmoral Castle. Thus it could be said that the promise of "God's rainbow" augurs well for the future and fortune of King Charles III!

Here's an irony for you! If you only go back to William the Conqueror in 1066, King Charles is exactly the 40th monarch. That means that since then, the British have had only 40 monarchs while we now have had 46 presidents! How about that?!

Whatever you and I think of both royalty and religion, they are real and must be examined if we are to have an accurate consensus of human progress.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

FALL PRESENTS THE NEWLY NEW!

By Edwin Cooney

You could argue that midwinter rather than the fall, in both 2020 and 2021, brought on the most devastating new news — Covid in 2020 and the move on Congress in 2021 —  but I can name numerous instances such as the election of our first Roman Catholic president in November 1960, the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, the resignation of a vice president in October 1973, Gore vs. Bush in November 2000, Obama as our first Black president elected in November 2008, Trump over Clinton in November 2016, and, finally, Trump's charge of "the steal" vs. Biden's "Build Back Better" deal in November 2020.

There's so much to anticipate from so many social, political, and cultural entities during the fall that everyone inevitably has to adjust to a new situation almost every day. Remember October 1964 when suddenly the Communist Party of the USSR snatched the dynamic Nikita Khrushchev away from you and me? (They never bothered to ask us before they did it — those godless dastards!)

Immediately, we have lots to look forward to and to wonder about:

(1.) What kind of a regular football season will Tom Brady have after refusing to go to summer training camp and ducking off to the Bahamas?

(2.) Will those "nasty" Yankees prevail or are they likely to crash in the playoffs as most red-blooded Americans hope they will?

(3.) Who will be in the Super Bowl next February?

(4.) What effect will the overthrow of Roe v. Wade have on this fall's elections and who will be most surprised by the outcome?

(5.) Will former President Trump be indicted for his post election activities in Georgia? And what about the ultimate fate of Rudy Giuliani?

(6.) Who will win the the 2022 World Series? Everyone “knows” it won’t be those Yankees. After all, Aaron Judge — their greatest player — is vastly overrated! (It amazes me that anti-Yankee fans always seem to underrate our greatest present-day superstar.)

(7.) What's Elizabeth Cheney's political future and what effect might that have on the Republican Party?

(8.) Who will be the most depicted celebrity on 2022 Halloween costumes?

(9.) Which lucky turkey will President Biden pardon this Thanksgiving?

(10.) Might Vice President Kamala Harris get some favorable mention somewhere in the media sometime this fall? She could use it!

Will Aaron Judge re-sign with the Yankees or might he sign with a California team to satisfy his close-knit family? I hope that he will be a lifetime New York Yankee — That’s my 2022 birthday wish!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IS HE DONALD TRUMP OR DONALD TURMOIL?

By Edwin Cooney

More than anything else, Donald John Trump has demonstrated that he's a man steeped in turmoil. The bottom line question is how deeply has his turmoil seeped into the American body politic? How catching, how permanent, and how deadly might that turmoil ultimately be? 

Shockingly but fairly elected and inaugurated back on Friday, January 20th, 2017, Mr. Trump has sought to rule rather than govern this free society.

At the close of President Trump's Inaugural, it was reported that former President George W. Bush was overheard to ask: "What kind of shit was that?”

Hence, I'm convinced that political and social turmoil was the main weapon  behind his legitimate and legal authority. From the very outset of his administration, President Trump's rude and shabby treatment of staff and department heads and even foreign leaders had no equivalent in the annals of presidential history. Since 1972, residential candidates and their supporters from both parties have succeeded in confusing the legitimate distinction between the person and the office. When I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s, most people would proudly assert that they voted for the man rather than the party. After all, Ike wasn't a politician, he was a beloved war hero distinctly above politicians. Jack Kennedy was a youthful candidate whose "New Frontier" concepts and idealism melded with a distinctly younger electorate than had voted for Ike just four and eight years before.

With all their distinctive differences, LBJ, Nixon and Ford were pure politicians bred if not born in the ways of Washington D.C.  Ronald Reagan, although he'd been elected to a substantial political office, lacked a taint of the Beltway. As for both Carter and Clinton, Carter was judged too much of a Beltway outsider and Clinton was considered clever and even smart, but his behavior and his motives were deliberately misunderstood. Ultimately American by documentation (his birth certificate), Obama was an African-American with a background containing overtones of an Islamic heritage with which too many Americans were loathed to identify.

The question not a few Americans are beginning to ask themselves is whether any former president ought (and the key word here is ought) to go to jail if convicted of having committed a crime while holding office.

The  answer is both limited and conditional. Of course, a former president should go to jail if convicted of a crime during his or her tenure of office. It is vital to keep in mind however that at present Mr. Trump hasn't been indicted for any crime. At the time of Nixon's resignation, a number of frontline politicians such as Massachusetts Senator Edward Brook admitted they'd pass a resolution against a Nixon jail term so long as the former president acknowledged having made serious misjudgments during the Watergate era.

It will be remembered that Donald Trump not only insisted but bragged that if he shot somebody in New York he could easily avoid conviction of a crime.

History clearly teaches that the individual leader rather than the nation's reputation is affected by crime. This history lesson is deepest and most dramatic in the history of England.

In 1215, King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta denying the right of kings to act as absolute sovereigns.

In 1330, Edward II was deposed and painfully murdered as the price for his arrogant sexual activities that embarrassed his queen and parliament. Then his son Edward III followed and ruled brilliantly for 46 years.  

More recently, Soviet Russia, France, and especially Germany all have recovered from the foolish audacity of Stalin, Napoleon and even Adolf Hitler.

I'm convinced that while the election of certain presidents reflect the socio/political mood of America, that doesn't mean that such an election mirrors the character of this republic.

The character of 21st Century America will be reflected in how the nation responds to Donald "Turmoil" Trump's deeds. Of course, it's sad that any former president might go to jail, but "Jail to the Chief" must not be eliminated as a possibility as long as it reflects the abiding rule that no one is above the law. Eliminate that rule and the character of America would definitely be affected. 

It's important to keep in mind that as of now, “DJ Turmoil” has not been convicted of anything no matter how despicable he is. I'm convinced that his sanity is questionable. I'm also worried at the willingness, especially of GOP-oriented citizens, to minimize his faults. Had Presidents Clinton or Obama defied federal law by removing classified documents from the White House, the GOP elephant trumpeting that move would have kept the whole nation awake at night for months to come! 

Personally, I regard Mr. Trump as being beyond the pale when it comes to indecency. Donald Trump is for Donald Trump before and beyond anything else. Some of the "Never Trumpers" such as George Will, former President Bush and now Liz Cheney realize that Trump is no conservative. He merely uses conservatism's traditional social outrages against traditional liberalism as a shield to protect his psychic turmoil. 

Admittedly, it's unlikely that Mr. Turmoil will ever see the inside of a jail cell as much and as often as he proscribed such a fate for Hillary Clinton. Jail, even if it comes down to that, is not likely to ensure that Mr. Trump will mend his ways, and rarely — very rarely — is revenge palatable.

In this instance, however, revenge reflects the reality asserted in Ecclesiastes that there is a time for every purpose under Heaven. It is not only justifiable — it’s commendable!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

THE PHENOMENON THAT IS ALWAYS RELEVANT

By Edwin Cooney

It's a mystery to me as to why Olivia Newton-John's passing last Monday hit me as hard as it did. Perhaps it was because her persona reminded me of a college girlfriend. Perhaps it was because her voice came across so sweet yet strong and soft as it blended so passionately below the surface of the heavy electric guitars in songs like "Let Me Be There” and "If You Love Me (Let Me Know)." Maybe it was simply because of my mood or more likely due to my time of life both then — in my twenties — and now. 

My sorrow was somewhat alleviated when I learned that she had passed any point of emotional distress because she'd been allowed to do and accomplish more than she'd even hoped. Because she was at peace, even amidst her pain, I, and those who loved her most, were certainly freed by her sense of priority to be at ease.   

In one hundred and three days from now, I'll begin my 78th year upon becoming 77. That means I can equate the years I'm likely to live back to 1996 or even 1990 or, to put the most optimistic spin on it, back to 1986.

Looking ahead I'm of two almost contradictory minds about it all.

I love living and anticipating, but I insist even in the wake of medical disapproval to smoke my pipe, exercise little, and eat what I choose even in the face of scientific knowledge that I am hardly in a position to dispute.

On the other hand, because I love and depend heavily on the predictability of life, I wonder what the ending of that life will be like. There is inevitable discomfort from that which is unknown. After all, human beings have one thing in common: we know life but have never experienced death. Many are convinced, through logic, that the end of life brings about eternal oblivion. After all, they remind us, nothing was “real” before we were born; why should anything be real or relevant when our lives are over?

Others of us believe that life, once begun, like energy itself, enters a new dimension and is spent, as is energy, for the ongoing continuance of the universe. This is the real message of spirituality as I see it! (I'm more than comfortable to believe and have faith in The Apostles' Creed!) Too many brilliant minds have accepted the existence of spirituality or religious faith for me to merely assert that the only reason for the existence of religious faith is fear of death.

I'm convinced that death is so natural that we need not fear it. It's the unnatural that we ought to legitimately fear. Remember, most people neither steal from nor murder one another. Most people look to one another to learn from and to teach each other. Selling and buying from others, building and creating, living and hoping are all natural — as natural as birth and death.

Perhaps  the first cry you heard from your newborn was a cry of distress upon leaving the womb, but your baby's very next request was for comfort!

Our grief upon death is largely due to our natural feelings of loss and that grief is as natural as the joy the first time we met a loved one, be it a parent, a sibling, a spouse, a neighbor or a friend. I hope the end comes to me before it does to those I love and regard most. Loss is beyond death as it covers so many conditional and material matters that have to do with existence within life.

As to why the passing of some people affects us more than others, I'll leave that to you to explain to me! Not even Elvis Presley's August 16th, 1977 death, despite my twenty year identification with him, actually saddened me as much as Olivia Newton-John's last Monday! 

Of course, the phenomena we know as death is as natural as birth. However, although what's natural may occasionally be frightening, it may well be that death is ultimately as refreshing as your next breath or your most recent drink of water!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

WHAT MOST MAKES YOU YOU?

By Edwin Cooney

At the close of my first column dated Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, I closed by relating part of a conversation between reporter Arnold Michaelis and two-time Democratic Party presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson. Near the close of their conversation, Michaelis made the following observation to Governor Stevenson: "You may not be what you think you are, but what you think, YOU ARE.” The Governor responded to that observation by his more or less concurrence.

On a lighter note, back in November of 1969 as I was turning 24, I was riding in a car with a couple I’ll call Michael and Pamela when the following set of questions took place:

“What do you think, Ed?”

Then came "What?? Do you think, Ed?”

Next it was something like "Whaddaya think, Ed?”

"Try not to think, Ed!”

What I didn't realize was that Michael and Pamela were recording the whole thing on cassette which they presented to me for Christmas. I still have the tape and despite the rather rough ribbing tone of the above questions, I treasure that cassette!

More seriously, there is an ad on Audacy Radio where a woman relates how at one time in her life she was homeless and stole dresses from local department stores. Eventually, she realized that if she didn't change her life she would end up in jail or dead. Then she quotes a thought she attributes to Buddha: Happiness doesn't depend on what you possess or even who you are! Happiness depends on what you think! (Note that some may say that it depends on how you think!)

Of course, when we're young our thoughts are largely dependent on the emotional, spiritual, and overall environment of our family. However, as time goes on and we're buffeted by both the challenges of our achievements and failures, we experience an increasing need to re-evaluate everything from our own temperament to the temperament of family, friends, supporters, competitors and the world in general.

When  I was growing up, I developed an interest in, and a fierce patriotic loyalty to, our country which I defined as love. Back then, I believed that the only way to show how much I loved America was to endorse every aspect of our history from our "Manifest Destiny” first enunciated in 1845 by New York City publisher John O'Sullivan to the idea of "America! Right or wrong” as put forth by many conservative commentators during the controversial Vietnam War of the 1960s. The turmoil of that conflict along with the professional, personal and spiritual experiences I've had since then, has literally altered my concept of loving any person, any experience, or even my country.

Love of country is no longer fierce loyalty or partisanship. I’ve come to believe that you and I, when it comes to our children or even our nation, have an obligation to put our thoughts and feelings about their actions into perspective. Nations supposedly function on legal documents or constitutions but they’re governed by fallible people who can be very naughty at times. 

Perhaps the most challenging question we are forced to ask ourselves is: What do I think of my thinking process? Does it challenge past conclusions or merely confirm them? Do I grow via my own thinking or am I mostly reinforced and comforted by it? How much of my thinking is original and how much of it depends on doctrine?

As my thinking relates to others, do I consider most people to be well-intended or do I believe that they are mostly vain and selfish? Do I naturally like others or am I suspicious of their motives? Am I interested in others or do I care how people see me?

Finally, "shucking right down to the cob,” as the late Paul Harvey liked to put it, what do I think about the way I think? As old as I am, shouldn’t I continue to be open to new or revised thinking, even about myself?

As confusing and as frustratingly inconclusive as thinking can too often be, I'm grateful to Michael and Pamela’s set of inquiries back on Saturday, November 29th of nearly 53 years ago. I think this light-hearted ribbing has made me “me” — and has largely equipped me to write these weekly musings!

The bottom line question was: “What! Do you think, Ed?"

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

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