By Edwin Cooney
I know, the oldest person in the world should be writing this, but even though I’m just a kid, kids know more about birthdays than anyone else—especially adults!
Okay! I’m 66 today. Do I mind admitting it? Well, sort of, for a small but nevertheless sufficiently nagging reason: I’d rather be telling you that I’m 35, 45 or even 55! After all, 66-year-old men don’t much encourage the romantic ardor of many ladies. Still, for the most part, I don’t mind owning up to it.
Birthdays can be humbling days. Three quarters of my first twenty years were spent away from home at a residential school for the blind. The major event of a good percentage of those birthdays was the “birthday spanking” all the guys were exceedingly anxious to administer. During gym class, 18 or 20 guys would line up with their legs spread apart and you were expected to crawl from front to back allowing each guy in line the opportunity to give you a hard whack on the bottom as you passed through. Inevitably, one or two guys would close their legs as you were halfway through and they got an extra whack at you. Believe me, there were more birthday whacks than birthday cakes where I went to school!
As one gets older, past the whacking and the “pin the tail on the donkey” birthday party era, birthday celebrations take on a little more dignity. Gone are the birthdays where your aunt or grandmother proclaimed with pride how tall and mature you’d become in such a short time. Birthday spankings are replaced by that inevitable needling -- even by your spouse and best friend -- as to how old you’re getting.
Of course, birthdays are a lot like any other day. The weather, as always, despite your most fervent birthday wishes, remains beyond your control. If you have a cold, as soon as you wake up on your birthday morning, you understand that colds are no respecters of “your special day.” Even on your birthday, the slacks that fit you when you were younger and thinner don’t magically fit you as the “birthday boy or girl!”
I feel especially sorry for two categories of birthday celebrants. First, there’s the situation twins must live with. Unless they’re especially close to one another, loneliness can be induced by the very act of inclusion. Their parents and friends invariably celebrate the birthday of “the twins” rather than the birthday of the individual twin. This can be especially painful for young twins. Then, there is the case of children born close to Christmas. There are several of those in my family. This is mostly difficult for kids. Parents can often soften this dilemma by seeing to it that special precautions are taken to maximize the specialness of that day, but it can be a problem. My birthday is almost a month before Christmas, but more than once as a kid, I’d receive a gift tagged “Merry Christmas, this is also for your birthday!”
The lives of two distinguished Americans demonstrate how fate can function on one’s birthday:
Warren Gamaliel Harding was born in Marion, Ohio on Thursday, November 2nd, 1865. Exactly 55 years later, on Tuesday, November 2nd, 1920, Harding was elected 29th President of the United States as he played golf in that small Ohio town.
Our 22nd Vice President, Levi Parsons Morton, who served from 1889 to 1893 under President Benjamin Harrison, was born in Shoreham, Vermont on Sunday, May 16th, 1824. He died at age 96 in Rhinebeck, New York. Guess when? You’ve got it: Sunday, May 16th, 1920. Yes, indeed! Birthdays can be both fateful and fatal!
As for my birthdays, I can’t complain. I’ve been rewarded more than I’ve been either hurt or ignored. It’s a tad embarrassing to be too much the center of attention. After all, too much attention can make you a” legend in your own mind,” as they say! Still, being the center of a special person’s love is a great thing. I should know: my best friend has made my birthday a special day of celebration for almost 40 years—and it’s been almost magical.
Birthdays measure age, but more importantly, they energize the giver and the receiver of birthday wishes. The recipient is energized by the expression of love offered by the giver and the giver is energized by the knowledge that those gifts of love are valued because the best that is in them is the source of the gift.
As for that annual reminder of impending old age, my guess is that it ends sometime around age…let’s see now…Ah, nuts!...Damned if I know!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 28, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
A PEEK AT PAST NOVEMBER 21STS
By Edwin Cooney
Just one of the reasons history means so much to me is that even when one runs out of ideas to write about, there’s history with all of its intrigues into which one may delve. So, let’s take a peek at a few past November twenty-firsts!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1654 -- Richard Johnson, the son of a freed black man and hence free himself, is granted 550 acres of land on the eastern shore of Virginia. At that time, chattel slavery was only thirty-five years old. Richard and his older brother John were the sons of Anthony and Mary Johnson who had earned their freedom in 1635. After five years of freedom, Anthony Johnson purchased his own black slaves and 200 acres of land along with some cattle and began raising tobacco. Yes, indeed, seventeenth century blacks could own land and other blacks, could sue white men in court, and could marry white women. Of course, that didn’t last long, although even into the 19th century there were a few black slave owners in America. Still, one November 21st long ago, a black Virginian acquired 550 acres of Old Dominion real estate. How about that!
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1787 -- Andrew Jackson is admitted to the North Carolina Bar. Although possessing a limited education, young Jackson had read and retained enough law to enable himself to become a Constable and Deputy Sheriff upon admission to the Guilford County Bar on that long ago Wednesday. The following year, he was transferred to the western district of North Carolina which today is the state of Tennessee. There he became a prosecuting attorney, then a district judge, a superior court judge, a congressman, a U.S. Senator (twice), and the 1812 War hero at the Battle of New Orleans. Finally, of course, he became our seventh President. Question: do you suppose “Old Hickory” was elected president because he was a good lawyer or because he was a hell-of-a good general and war hero?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1920 -- Stan “The Man” Musial is born in Donora, Pennsylvania. A great professional athlete and a stellar citizen, Stan has been in baseball’s Hall of Fame since 1969. Hardworking, dedicated, and sincere on and off the field, he never had the slightest bit of scandal or impropriety linked to his name. A three time National League MVP winner, a seven time NL batting champion and a participant in three St. Louis Cardinal Championships, Musial was both highly competitive and a gentleman. The most eloquent testimony to his character is the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him by President Barack Obama last February. My guess is that neither you nor I own one of those medals!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1941 -- Juanita Spinelli (aka “The Duchess”) became the first woman to be legally executed in California’s gas chamber. According to Clinton T. Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, Spinelli was the hardest, coldest, most repulsive looking, evil prisoner -- male or female -- he ever met. She was hard even to like a little bit according to Warden Duffy. Although scrawny and sharp-featured, the 52 year-old grandmother was a former wrestler as well as a ruthless and brutal gang leader. She and her common-law husband, Michael Simeon, and one other gang member, Gordon Hawkins, were executed for two northern California murders which took place between January and April 1940. (Simeon was executed on November 28th, 1941, just a week after Spinelli). I include this story because -- despising the death penalty as I do -- I am trying to convince myself that in the wake of this evil woman’s execution, a huge chunk of evil was eradicated from humankind. Oh, that’s right: Adolph Hitler was still thriving that justice-laden Friday. Whoops!
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1963 -- The Beatles appeared on American television for the first time as a feature on the CBS Evening News. The irony is that the Beatles represented a dazzling future while our dazzling and glamorous President, John F. Kennedy was spending his last night politicking in Texas.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1990—The Charter of Paris was signed on this date effectively ending the cold war. The charter established the organization which guaranteed international security in Europe. No one will ever forget Pearl Harbor Day, V.E. and V.J. day and certainly not 9/11, but how many of us even know about the Paris summit and subsequent treaty that ended the 45 year reign of international terror we called “The Cold War”? In fact, had I known of its existence, I could have bragged about the depth of my knowledge and my historical sophistication. Oh well!
November 21sts are a lot like every other day, I suppose. Still, every day is at least a little unique -- don’t you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just one of the reasons history means so much to me is that even when one runs out of ideas to write about, there’s history with all of its intrigues into which one may delve. So, let’s take a peek at a few past November twenty-firsts!
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1654 -- Richard Johnson, the son of a freed black man and hence free himself, is granted 550 acres of land on the eastern shore of Virginia. At that time, chattel slavery was only thirty-five years old. Richard and his older brother John were the sons of Anthony and Mary Johnson who had earned their freedom in 1635. After five years of freedom, Anthony Johnson purchased his own black slaves and 200 acres of land along with some cattle and began raising tobacco. Yes, indeed, seventeenth century blacks could own land and other blacks, could sue white men in court, and could marry white women. Of course, that didn’t last long, although even into the 19th century there were a few black slave owners in America. Still, one November 21st long ago, a black Virginian acquired 550 acres of Old Dominion real estate. How about that!
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1787 -- Andrew Jackson is admitted to the North Carolina Bar. Although possessing a limited education, young Jackson had read and retained enough law to enable himself to become a Constable and Deputy Sheriff upon admission to the Guilford County Bar on that long ago Wednesday. The following year, he was transferred to the western district of North Carolina which today is the state of Tennessee. There he became a prosecuting attorney, then a district judge, a superior court judge, a congressman, a U.S. Senator (twice), and the 1812 War hero at the Battle of New Orleans. Finally, of course, he became our seventh President. Question: do you suppose “Old Hickory” was elected president because he was a good lawyer or because he was a hell-of-a good general and war hero?
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1920 -- Stan “The Man” Musial is born in Donora, Pennsylvania. A great professional athlete and a stellar citizen, Stan has been in baseball’s Hall of Fame since 1969. Hardworking, dedicated, and sincere on and off the field, he never had the slightest bit of scandal or impropriety linked to his name. A three time National League MVP winner, a seven time NL batting champion and a participant in three St. Louis Cardinal Championships, Musial was both highly competitive and a gentleman. The most eloquent testimony to his character is the Presidential Medal of Freedom presented to him by President Barack Obama last February. My guess is that neither you nor I own one of those medals!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1941 -- Juanita Spinelli (aka “The Duchess”) became the first woman to be legally executed in California’s gas chamber. According to Clinton T. Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, Spinelli was the hardest, coldest, most repulsive looking, evil prisoner -- male or female -- he ever met. She was hard even to like a little bit according to Warden Duffy. Although scrawny and sharp-featured, the 52 year-old grandmother was a former wrestler as well as a ruthless and brutal gang leader. She and her common-law husband, Michael Simeon, and one other gang member, Gordon Hawkins, were executed for two northern California murders which took place between January and April 1940. (Simeon was executed on November 28th, 1941, just a week after Spinelli). I include this story because -- despising the death penalty as I do -- I am trying to convince myself that in the wake of this evil woman’s execution, a huge chunk of evil was eradicated from humankind. Oh, that’s right: Adolph Hitler was still thriving that justice-laden Friday. Whoops!
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1963 -- The Beatles appeared on American television for the first time as a feature on the CBS Evening News. The irony is that the Beatles represented a dazzling future while our dazzling and glamorous President, John F. Kennedy was spending his last night politicking in Texas.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1990—The Charter of Paris was signed on this date effectively ending the cold war. The charter established the organization which guaranteed international security in Europe. No one will ever forget Pearl Harbor Day, V.E. and V.J. day and certainly not 9/11, but how many of us even know about the Paris summit and subsequent treaty that ended the 45 year reign of international terror we called “The Cold War”? In fact, had I known of its existence, I could have bragged about the depth of my knowledge and my historical sophistication. Oh well!
November 21sts are a lot like every other day, I suppose. Still, every day is at least a little unique -- don’t you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 14, 2011
MY GOD! YOUR GOD! OUR GOD
By Edwin Cooney
No being or force has a greater effect on who you and I are than does that of God and what we perceive God to be. Our perception of God functions at the epicenter of our concepts of the significance of birth, morality, death and eternity. Hence, God plays some role in all of our lives, even in the lives of agnostics and atheists who are doubtful of God's existence or who insist that God doesn't exist at all. Therefore, God possesses the unique distinction of holding most people's attention, while at the same time remaining a mystery to virtually all of us.
I raise this subject because I am struggling, more than at any time in my life, to understand my relationship with God. I haven't any doubt as to the existence of a living God.
Like most of us, I was born and raised to believe in God, the Father Almighty, who sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for and thus cleanse our sins. Many times throughout my life I've felt blessed, comforted, guided and even protected by God. I've occasionally even believed that I understand God. What I've come increasingly to realize, however, is that I possess only a clue as to the essence of God.
The Reverend Leslie Weatherhead's little book called "The Will of God," which I read about a decade ago, offered me, and doubtless lots of other readers, a lovingly benign understanding that God wishes us well whatever turn life takes. Reverend Weatherhead, a World War II Era British clergyman, suggests that God's will is invariably to be the ruling factor once we enter eternity. Up until then, as I understand the good Reverend, God's work or will, here on earth, must be our work and, for better or worse, our will.
From as far back as I can remember, I've always believed in the Biblical perception of God the creator, God the protector, God the healer, and hopefully, God the forgiver. However, lately, I've become less sure not of the existence of God, but of the essence of God. Those of us who strive to be Christians have traditionally been imbued with the idea that God is our eternal King.
A king, by his nature, tends to be an absolute dictator. As many fundamentalist Christians remind the rest of us The Ten Commandments aren't the Ten Suggestions. Hence, as God is a King or if you prefer, a Heavenly King, God naturally takes it very, very personally when we're not in compliance with God's rules of conduct or worship. Preachers often warn us that God is a jealous God and that God is an angry and avenging God. On the other hand, preachers almost as often assure us God is a forgiving god, a healing God, a God of loving grace. (Some insist that the earmark of a good preacher is one who comforts the distressed and distresses the comfortable!)
It's been my experience that whenever I raise the question of the essence of God with my fellow Christians, steeped as they are in scripture, I'm urged to see what the Bible has to say about it. Invariably the Bible appears to tell me to get with the program or spend eternity in "you know where!," just as Britain's Henry the Eighth would have done.
Occasionally, I'm accused of trying to create my own God rather than accepting who God is. With that, I beg to differ. It's the other way around as I see it. The history of Godly perception is the history of fatherhood (God the Father), military warriors (God the Almighty General), and the King (hence God's kingdom). Accordingly, you and I are to understand that God Almighty is an earthly king with supernatural or Heavenly powers, who is ready to love us and preserve us if we praise and humble ourselves before God's all-consuming majesty. If we don't, well then, we've made another choice and can expect to be banished.
That's where, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "we shuck right down to the cob." The fact is that the Holy Bible was written by men whose character was established by the sin of Adam and Eve vividly described as "the good book's beginning." As humankind is thus imperfect, they're incapable of writing or doing anything perfectly. Hence, to me, the Bible is the inspired rather than the actual word of God. For me, Biblical truth lies in its wisdom more than in its story.
Currently, I'm reading retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." This book challenges many of our traditional Christian perceptions, while at the same time, acknowledging and even insisting that God is real.
I offer you a glimpse into my own struggle because I suspect many of you also, sometimes painfully, struggle to comprehend your relationship to and with God. I like to believe that ultimately, when you and I pass into eternity, the best that is within us will blend painlessly and peacefully with the loving energizing nature of God.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No being or force has a greater effect on who you and I are than does that of God and what we perceive God to be. Our perception of God functions at the epicenter of our concepts of the significance of birth, morality, death and eternity. Hence, God plays some role in all of our lives, even in the lives of agnostics and atheists who are doubtful of God's existence or who insist that God doesn't exist at all. Therefore, God possesses the unique distinction of holding most people's attention, while at the same time remaining a mystery to virtually all of us.
I raise this subject because I am struggling, more than at any time in my life, to understand my relationship with God. I haven't any doubt as to the existence of a living God.
Like most of us, I was born and raised to believe in God, the Father Almighty, who sent Jesus Christ to earth to die for and thus cleanse our sins. Many times throughout my life I've felt blessed, comforted, guided and even protected by God. I've occasionally even believed that I understand God. What I've come increasingly to realize, however, is that I possess only a clue as to the essence of God.
The Reverend Leslie Weatherhead's little book called "The Will of God," which I read about a decade ago, offered me, and doubtless lots of other readers, a lovingly benign understanding that God wishes us well whatever turn life takes. Reverend Weatherhead, a World War II Era British clergyman, suggests that God's will is invariably to be the ruling factor once we enter eternity. Up until then, as I understand the good Reverend, God's work or will, here on earth, must be our work and, for better or worse, our will.
From as far back as I can remember, I've always believed in the Biblical perception of God the creator, God the protector, God the healer, and hopefully, God the forgiver. However, lately, I've become less sure not of the existence of God, but of the essence of God. Those of us who strive to be Christians have traditionally been imbued with the idea that God is our eternal King.
A king, by his nature, tends to be an absolute dictator. As many fundamentalist Christians remind the rest of us The Ten Commandments aren't the Ten Suggestions. Hence, as God is a King or if you prefer, a Heavenly King, God naturally takes it very, very personally when we're not in compliance with God's rules of conduct or worship. Preachers often warn us that God is a jealous God and that God is an angry and avenging God. On the other hand, preachers almost as often assure us God is a forgiving god, a healing God, a God of loving grace. (Some insist that the earmark of a good preacher is one who comforts the distressed and distresses the comfortable!)
It's been my experience that whenever I raise the question of the essence of God with my fellow Christians, steeped as they are in scripture, I'm urged to see what the Bible has to say about it. Invariably the Bible appears to tell me to get with the program or spend eternity in "you know where!," just as Britain's Henry the Eighth would have done.
Occasionally, I'm accused of trying to create my own God rather than accepting who God is. With that, I beg to differ. It's the other way around as I see it. The history of Godly perception is the history of fatherhood (God the Father), military warriors (God the Almighty General), and the King (hence God's kingdom). Accordingly, you and I are to understand that God Almighty is an earthly king with supernatural or Heavenly powers, who is ready to love us and preserve us if we praise and humble ourselves before God's all-consuming majesty. If we don't, well then, we've made another choice and can expect to be banished.
That's where, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "we shuck right down to the cob." The fact is that the Holy Bible was written by men whose character was established by the sin of Adam and Eve vividly described as "the good book's beginning." As humankind is thus imperfect, they're incapable of writing or doing anything perfectly. Hence, to me, the Bible is the inspired rather than the actual word of God. For me, Biblical truth lies in its wisdom more than in its story.
Currently, I'm reading retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." This book challenges many of our traditional Christian perceptions, while at the same time, acknowledging and even insisting that God is real.
I offer you a glimpse into my own struggle because I suspect many of you also, sometimes painfully, struggle to comprehend your relationship to and with God. I like to believe that ultimately, when you and I pass into eternity, the best that is within us will blend painlessly and peacefully with the loving energizing nature of God.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 7, 2011
FROM WHENCE I CAME
By Edwin Cooney
About two weeks ago, a new reader of these weekly musings who proudly identifies himself as a “Conservative” asked me why I had abandoned my youthful Republican/Conservative roots in favor of 21st Century Liberalism. It’s a fair question. Hence, I offer to take you on my political journey: come along!
Growing up in the 1950s was both promising and perilous. The promise was our dedication to peace, prosperity and freedom. The perils were the threats of polio, Communism and nuclear annihilation. I became aware at an early age that “America the Beautiful” and I lived in a dangerous world. It was a world fast being dominated by a Communist monolith that was poised militarily and determinedly to conquer and communize America and the entire world. The 1950s was an era of air raid shelters, Sputnik, and a chronically angry Nikita Khrushchev whose hair trigger temper was backed up by huge nuclear rockets and a willingness to use them. Additionally, Premier Khrushchev seemed constantly to create a crisis that would justify nuclear warfare.
All this being the case, the best antidotes to these barbarian threats were bravery, patriotism, superior military hardware, and determined leadership. “Peace through strength” most called it.
Domestic concerns such as balanced budgets, civil rights, the minimum wage and teacher’s salaries, important as they were, ranked a distant second to national security. Even more, I came to believe that anyone willing to demonstrate for civil rights while the Russians were watching lacked a sense of both patriotism and national priorities.
My political heroes were -- like good boy scouts -- patriotic, tough, morally straight and decisive in their actions. Their names were Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and, above all, J. Edgar Hoover. Their brave and the land that I loved safe.
Essentially, my early political awareness had mostly to do with my fears. My heroes feared big government and, if they feared big government, I feared it, too. Big government was both a question of practicality and morality. Moral men believed in state’s rights and that limited government was the best government because it was controllable by the people rather than “bureaucrats.”
Then came the 1960s and 1970s. With the advent of Leonid Brezhnev and the passing of Nikita Khrushchev, Russian rockets may have grown in numbers and precision, but they rattled less. My heroes convinced themselves, as did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, that Communism was as dangerous in Vietnam as it was in either Russia or China. Therefore, any advancement of Communism -- no matter how localized -- was a threat to our security. Add to that the tragedy of Vietnam, the fate of John Kennedy and the political squalidness of Watergate and my political priorities began, ever so slowly, to shift.
Ebbing away was the immediacy of American Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Vietnam conflict with its legal, moral and legitimacy issues began to blur the once sharp distinctions in the cold war struggle. Did Marxists not have the same rights as democrats to unite their own country without the intervention of an ideologically opposing super power? Even more, does the fact that Communism prevails today in a united Vietnam cause us to sleep less securely at night? My old heroes insisted such would be the case. Do we gain if we cling to our fears, if our fears rather than our capacity for forward-looking government lie at the root of our political affiliation?
I’m not in the least ashamed of my once proud association with Conservatism. Nor did I think that I was joining the party of the angels that Saturday afternoon of October 30th, 1976 when I officially changed my party affiliation. Still, I was pleased to become a Jimmy Carter Democrat even though that had its own perils.
Today I’m a Barack Hussein Obama Democrat. Of course, our hopes and our fears dictate our political affiliation. I now worry about people’s right to healthcare regardless of previous condition or ability to pay. Money should never be the reason people live or die. I worry too about American joblessness. Of course, “free enterprise” requires that profits prevail over patriotism or else it would alleviate the situation. Its managers and benefactors would hire American just as they insist that consumers “buy American” and workers would be sufficiently -- rather than minimally -- paid. Today, the political descendants of my old ideological heroes would rather see an American president fail than cooperate with him in the passage of legislation that might be beneficial to the American people.
We live in a time when both Conservatives and Liberals are absolutely certain of their moral superiority. Liberals use their tradition of political independence to pressure their party leadership. Conservatives use their money-driven capacity for effective organization to keep their membership in line.
Of course, you and I affiliate with the political party we decide best meets our needs. However, what’s both sad and ultimately destructive is the following truth:
In 21st Century politics, issues matter much more than solutions!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
About two weeks ago, a new reader of these weekly musings who proudly identifies himself as a “Conservative” asked me why I had abandoned my youthful Republican/Conservative roots in favor of 21st Century Liberalism. It’s a fair question. Hence, I offer to take you on my political journey: come along!
Growing up in the 1950s was both promising and perilous. The promise was our dedication to peace, prosperity and freedom. The perils were the threats of polio, Communism and nuclear annihilation. I became aware at an early age that “America the Beautiful” and I lived in a dangerous world. It was a world fast being dominated by a Communist monolith that was poised militarily and determinedly to conquer and communize America and the entire world. The 1950s was an era of air raid shelters, Sputnik, and a chronically angry Nikita Khrushchev whose hair trigger temper was backed up by huge nuclear rockets and a willingness to use them. Additionally, Premier Khrushchev seemed constantly to create a crisis that would justify nuclear warfare.
All this being the case, the best antidotes to these barbarian threats were bravery, patriotism, superior military hardware, and determined leadership. “Peace through strength” most called it.
Domestic concerns such as balanced budgets, civil rights, the minimum wage and teacher’s salaries, important as they were, ranked a distant second to national security. Even more, I came to believe that anyone willing to demonstrate for civil rights while the Russians were watching lacked a sense of both patriotism and national priorities.
My political heroes were -- like good boy scouts -- patriotic, tough, morally straight and decisive in their actions. Their names were Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater and, above all, J. Edgar Hoover. Their brave and the land that I loved safe.
Essentially, my early political awareness had mostly to do with my fears. My heroes feared big government and, if they feared big government, I feared it, too. Big government was both a question of practicality and morality. Moral men believed in state’s rights and that limited government was the best government because it was controllable by the people rather than “bureaucrats.”
Then came the 1960s and 1970s. With the advent of Leonid Brezhnev and the passing of Nikita Khrushchev, Russian rockets may have grown in numbers and precision, but they rattled less. My heroes convinced themselves, as did John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, that Communism was as dangerous in Vietnam as it was in either Russia or China. Therefore, any advancement of Communism -- no matter how localized -- was a threat to our security. Add to that the tragedy of Vietnam, the fate of John Kennedy and the political squalidness of Watergate and my political priorities began, ever so slowly, to shift.
Ebbing away was the immediacy of American Soviet nuclear confrontation. The Vietnam conflict with its legal, moral and legitimacy issues began to blur the once sharp distinctions in the cold war struggle. Did Marxists not have the same rights as democrats to unite their own country without the intervention of an ideologically opposing super power? Even more, does the fact that Communism prevails today in a united Vietnam cause us to sleep less securely at night? My old heroes insisted such would be the case. Do we gain if we cling to our fears, if our fears rather than our capacity for forward-looking government lie at the root of our political affiliation?
I’m not in the least ashamed of my once proud association with Conservatism. Nor did I think that I was joining the party of the angels that Saturday afternoon of October 30th, 1976 when I officially changed my party affiliation. Still, I was pleased to become a Jimmy Carter Democrat even though that had its own perils.
Today I’m a Barack Hussein Obama Democrat. Of course, our hopes and our fears dictate our political affiliation. I now worry about people’s right to healthcare regardless of previous condition or ability to pay. Money should never be the reason people live or die. I worry too about American joblessness. Of course, “free enterprise” requires that profits prevail over patriotism or else it would alleviate the situation. Its managers and benefactors would hire American just as they insist that consumers “buy American” and workers would be sufficiently -- rather than minimally -- paid. Today, the political descendants of my old ideological heroes would rather see an American president fail than cooperate with him in the passage of legislation that might be beneficial to the American people.
We live in a time when both Conservatives and Liberals are absolutely certain of their moral superiority. Liberals use their tradition of political independence to pressure their party leadership. Conservatives use their money-driven capacity for effective organization to keep their membership in line.
Of course, you and I affiliate with the political party we decide best meets our needs. However, what’s both sad and ultimately destructive is the following truth:
In 21st Century politics, issues matter much more than solutions!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 31, 2011
DISCONCERTING — VERY DISCONCERTING!
By Edwin Cooney
As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!
Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.
There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.
Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.
Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.
Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”
Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.
The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?
Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As President Ford observed during his first address to Congress back on Monday, August 12th, 1974, “confession is good for the soul!” (Jerry, whose message to Congress was the necessity for budget cutting, publicly confessed to Speaker Carl Albert of Oklahoma that he — as a member of Congress — had often been willing to spend tax-payer money for worthy projects in Michigan while opposing wasteful spending in Oklahoma.) My confession is that some of my joy last May the 1st — as President Obama announced the capture, execution and burial at sea of Osama bin Laden — was partisan. The Republicans would be “green with envy,” as indeed they were, and still are! However, what it all means is far more important than political point scoring!
Back in 2004 when young Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention, much of the power of his appeal was due to his opposition to the Iraqi war. He’d come out against an invasion of Iraq as early as September 2002 — six months before its March 19th, 2003 “shock and awe” outset. Obama’s meteoric rise was due to his articulate and even dynamic opposition to the Iraqi war, and many progressives easily and conveniently believed he opposed all war. Hence, it appeared we had a potential President with anti-war sentiments equal to George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Jimmy Carter. During the campaign when he insisted that he’d vigorously pursue al-Qaeda, few took him seriously. I certainly didn’t.
There is a parallel in our political history to this shift in likely presidential leadership. Between the end of World War II and 1971 there was little the Republican Party considered a higher priority than the unleashing of Chang Kai-Shek against Red China and the return of democracy to the Chinese mainland. Yet, it was Richard Nixon — one of the GOP’s staunchest anti-Communists of the 1950s — who, as President, gleefully announced his impending 1972 visit to the People’s Republic of China. Even more amazing, Republicans proudly campaigned on RMN’s “historic breakthrough” during the succeeding presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, back to twenty-first century politics! In late 2009 came the news that the President was sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Next, came the shocking news of that Sunday night when news blared across the nation that a force of Navy Seals under the direction of President Barack Hussein Obama, had cornered and ruthlessly killed Osama bin Laden in his Pakistan housing compound. What was most disturbing to many Obama supporters was that the president was almost as gleeful as George Walker Bush and Rush Limbaugh would have been had this deed been carried out before January 20th, 2009 — even more preferably during October of 2004.
Throughout his subsequent Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, not once was the President at all reflective about either the legality or the possible consequences of his actions. Many Democrats, me included, were saddened and even embarrassed that President Obama didn’t do a bit of public reflecting about such concepts as: the sanctity of international borders, the sovereignty of nations, rights of the accused, and above all — the regretability of gun-barrel justice.
Still, if it was necessary that Osama bin Laden be eliminated by order of an American President — and I believe it was — I’m generally glad that it was President Obama who gave the order.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans of all parties are glad that bin Laden is gone. Still, with every action there is not only a reaction, but there is often created precedence for an increasingly deadlier reaction to events than was previously the case.
Might President Obama’s decision to eliminate bin Laden in the way he did set a dangerous precedent? Might a future sitting or former American President be more subject to capture or elimination once our opponents become sufficiently capable of carrying out such ventures? On the other hand, the possibility of world peace might be strengthened if world leaders were a little more vulnerable than they currently are to international “justice.”
Throughout the “watch” of President Barack Hussein Obama — and Presidents ultimately catch both praise and blame for what occurs on their “watches” — we’ve witnessed the elimination of more hostile leaders than any President since FDR, who was largely responsible for the elimination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.
Not even President Reagan’s record matches Barack Hussein Obama’s record of eliminating terrorist-oriented leaders. Specifically there are Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (the man behind the 2009 Christmas bomber and the quashed New York Times Square bombing.) Then, there’s Muammar Gaddafi — whom President Reagan sought to and barely missed destroying.
The scary part of all this is, what’s next? Just as: President Reagan didn'’t anticipate the future significance of the Taliban when he aided Afghanistan freedom fighters against the Soviets; just as President Reagan didn’t anticipate trouble with Saddam Hussein when he sold him lethal weapons to use on the outlaw state of Iran; just as Presidents Clinton and G. W. Bush didn’t anticipate the cost of an Iraqi war; what hasn’t President Obama anticipated that could be vital to our future security?
Disconcerting — very disconcerting isn’t it how often we think we’re being intelligent and patriotic when we’re really being partisan!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 24, 2011
IT’S THAT TIME AGAIN!
By Edwin Cooney
As this week’s musing comes tumbling head over heels -- or however it travels -- into your cyberspace mailbox, the 107th “World Series” is underway!
This year’s Fall Classic pits the new against the old, the Texas Rangers vs. the St. Louis Cardinals. The Texas Rangers were in the World Series in 2010 and were defeated by the San Francisco Giants. Thus, this is their second consecutive year playing for professional baseball’s “World” Championship. The franchise has been in existence since 1961 having spent its first eleven seasons in Washington, D.C. as the “new” Washington Senators. Then, in 1971, Senators’ owner Bob Short, a Minnesota Democrat who had managed Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 presidential campaign, moved the team to Arlington, Texas which is between Dallas and Fort Worth. Bob Short sold the Rangers in 1974. Since then, the Rangers have become very, very Republican. From 1989 until 1994, George Walker Bush was a co-owner. His Rangers presidency became almost as baffling as his United States presidency unless one believes that trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox for the aging Harold Baines was a good idea. Sammy would hit 66 home runs in 1998 to mention only one of his feats. (Note: it was the White Sox who moved Sosa on to the Cubs).
The St. Louis Cardinals are after their eleventh world championship which makes them second only to the Yankees in baseball championships: the Yankees have 27. The Cardinals’ first one came in 1926 when they defeated Babe Ruth’s New York Yankees in seven games. The Cardinals have a unique distinction over every national league team. They are the only team to hold a winning World Series record over the Yankees among teams who have played the Yankees in more than one fall classic. (The 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks and the 2003 Florida Marlins haven’t ever been defeated by the Yankees, but they’ve played the Bronx Bombers only once). The Cardinals defeated the Yankees in 1926, 1942 and 1964. The Yankees defeated the Cardinals in 1928 and 1943.
The Cardinals are rich in history. Many fans know about the Cardinal’s 1926 victory over Babe Ruth’s and Lou Gehrig’s mighty Yankee juggernaut, but time is dimming the memory of that mid-America triumph. Then, there’s the legendary Cardinal “Gas House Gang” consisting of such colorful characters as Dizzy and brother Daffy Dean. (Dizzy’s real name was Jay Hanna Dean and Daffy’s first name was Paul). There was also Pepper (Johnny) Martin, the “Wild Horse of the Osage” and Frankie Frisch, a graduate of Fordham University who nevertheless possessed a decidedly blue collar personality. Finally, there was Joe Medwick, who holds the distinction of being the only player in the history of baseball tossed from a World Series or any other game by order of the Commissioner of Baseball. He was ejected for his own personal security. (The occasion was the seventh and deciding game of the 1934 World Series, when Medwick and Tiger third baseman Marv Owen tangled in a collision at third base, the outcome of which favored Medwick and the Cardinals. The game was in Detroit and the fans grew sufficiently restless to—as Commissioner Landis saw it—to threaten Medwick’s safety. Hence, baseball’s dictatorial Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Medwick ejected from the game.)
The Texas Rangers, awesome in their power and formidable in their pitching prowess, are more than worthy opponents to the scrappy Cardinals. Lynn (Nolan) Ryan -- an enormous pitching legend -- is both team president and an on-the-field advisor to their manager, Louisiana-born Ron Washington. St. Louis manager Tony La Russa, a former journeyman infielder and a licensed attorney, and Ron Washington are an interesting combination of intellect and savvy reigning in opposing dugouts.
Who am I rooting for, you ask! For three good reasons and one personal prejudice, I’m for the Cardinals. First, the Cardinals have always been my favorite National League team -- until I moved to the Bay Area and became rather exposed to the Giants players, the broadcasters and the team’s folklore. Second, part of the Cardinals’ rich history is that they became the haven for my favorite ballplayer of all time after he left the Yankees in late 1966: Roger Maris. Third, another part of the Cardinal’s rich history is that they were the first major league team to have a woman owner. Her name was Helene Hathaway Robison Britton. She inherited the club from her Uncle Stanley Robison when he died in 1911. She owned the team through 1916 and, while the team didn’t go anywhere really, it was during her administration that they began to put together some of the pieces when they signed Rogers Hornsby, their great “second sacker” as Dizzy Deen would say. At the end of 1916, Mrs. Britton had divorced Mr. Schuler Britton (the team president) and had sold the team to Sam Breadon.
As to my prejudice, haven’t I already told you something about that? Didn’t I mention that the Texas Rangers -- and the whole state for that matter -- are very, very Republican these days? Anything that makes too many Republicans smile kind of makes me nervous!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
As this week’s musing comes tumbling head over heels -- or however it travels -- into your cyberspace mailbox, the 107th “World Series” is underway!
This year’s Fall Classic pits the new against the old, the Texas Rangers vs. the St. Louis Cardinals. The Texas Rangers were in the World Series in 2010 and were defeated by the San Francisco Giants. Thus, this is their second consecutive year playing for professional baseball’s “World” Championship. The franchise has been in existence since 1961 having spent its first eleven seasons in Washington, D.C. as the “new” Washington Senators. Then, in 1971, Senators’ owner Bob Short, a Minnesota Democrat who had managed Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 presidential campaign, moved the team to Arlington, Texas which is between Dallas and Fort Worth. Bob Short sold the Rangers in 1974. Since then, the Rangers have become very, very Republican. From 1989 until 1994, George Walker Bush was a co-owner. His Rangers presidency became almost as baffling as his United States presidency unless one believes that trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox for the aging Harold Baines was a good idea. Sammy would hit 66 home runs in 1998 to mention only one of his feats. (Note: it was the White Sox who moved Sosa on to the Cubs).
The St. Louis Cardinals are after their eleventh world championship which makes them second only to the Yankees in baseball championships: the Yankees have 27. The Cardinals’ first one came in 1926 when they defeated Babe Ruth’s New York Yankees in seven games. The Cardinals have a unique distinction over every national league team. They are the only team to hold a winning World Series record over the Yankees among teams who have played the Yankees in more than one fall classic. (The 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks and the 2003 Florida Marlins haven’t ever been defeated by the Yankees, but they’ve played the Bronx Bombers only once). The Cardinals defeated the Yankees in 1926, 1942 and 1964. The Yankees defeated the Cardinals in 1928 and 1943.
The Cardinals are rich in history. Many fans know about the Cardinal’s 1926 victory over Babe Ruth’s and Lou Gehrig’s mighty Yankee juggernaut, but time is dimming the memory of that mid-America triumph. Then, there’s the legendary Cardinal “Gas House Gang” consisting of such colorful characters as Dizzy and brother Daffy Dean. (Dizzy’s real name was Jay Hanna Dean and Daffy’s first name was Paul). There was also Pepper (Johnny) Martin, the “Wild Horse of the Osage” and Frankie Frisch, a graduate of Fordham University who nevertheless possessed a decidedly blue collar personality. Finally, there was Joe Medwick, who holds the distinction of being the only player in the history of baseball tossed from a World Series or any other game by order of the Commissioner of Baseball. He was ejected for his own personal security. (The occasion was the seventh and deciding game of the 1934 World Series, when Medwick and Tiger third baseman Marv Owen tangled in a collision at third base, the outcome of which favored Medwick and the Cardinals. The game was in Detroit and the fans grew sufficiently restless to—as Commissioner Landis saw it—to threaten Medwick’s safety. Hence, baseball’s dictatorial Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Medwick ejected from the game.)
The Texas Rangers, awesome in their power and formidable in their pitching prowess, are more than worthy opponents to the scrappy Cardinals. Lynn (Nolan) Ryan -- an enormous pitching legend -- is both team president and an on-the-field advisor to their manager, Louisiana-born Ron Washington. St. Louis manager Tony La Russa, a former journeyman infielder and a licensed attorney, and Ron Washington are an interesting combination of intellect and savvy reigning in opposing dugouts.
Who am I rooting for, you ask! For three good reasons and one personal prejudice, I’m for the Cardinals. First, the Cardinals have always been my favorite National League team -- until I moved to the Bay Area and became rather exposed to the Giants players, the broadcasters and the team’s folklore. Second, part of the Cardinals’ rich history is that they became the haven for my favorite ballplayer of all time after he left the Yankees in late 1966: Roger Maris. Third, another part of the Cardinal’s rich history is that they were the first major league team to have a woman owner. Her name was Helene Hathaway Robison Britton. She inherited the club from her Uncle Stanley Robison when he died in 1911. She owned the team through 1916 and, while the team didn’t go anywhere really, it was during her administration that they began to put together some of the pieces when they signed Rogers Hornsby, their great “second sacker” as Dizzy Deen would say. At the end of 1916, Mrs. Britton had divorced Mr. Schuler Britton (the team president) and had sold the team to Sam Breadon.
As to my prejudice, haven’t I already told you something about that? Didn’t I mention that the Texas Rangers -- and the whole state for that matter -- are very, very Republican these days? Anything that makes too many Republicans smile kind of makes me nervous!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 17, 2011
AMERICA’S NATIONAL AGENDA
By Edwin Cooney
During the 1960 presidential campaign, one of John F. Kennedy’s themes was “the unfinished public responsibility of our country” -- in other words, our National Agenda.
In last week’s commentary, which was largely designed to demonstrate that kept promises can be as dangerous as broken promises, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that political surprises would be preferable to promises. However, what we’re really talking about is America’s National Agenda which is renewable every four years with the election of a president.
Of course, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals all have their canned solutions to problems ranging from abortion to terrorism. Some of these solutions are legitimate and deserve bipartisan consideration -- if we can restore bipartisanism ever again to our national political dialog. Meantime, we’re faced today with Corporate Media America’s political agenda.
Through the establishment of the radio and television talk show, both the Right and the Left -- each representing fewer than 50% of the public -- seek to set the political agenda for the whole country. Since these idealists are morally and politically superior to you and me, they naturally have little time or inclination to listen -- let alone value -- what the rest of us have to say.
My biggest criticism of President Obama is that he’s allowed himself to be politically penned in and devalued by both the Left and the Right. Both regard themselves as his moral and political superiors, hence he’s worthy of neither. It’s obvious to any objective observer of his administration that he’s well to the right of the label “left-wing Islamic Socialist” that many on the right seek to stamp on his reputation. Apparently, to the shock of many Liberals and to the chagrin of even more Conservatives, he even shares Rush Limbaugh’s determination to wipe out both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet Liberals seem to have barely noticed that he clearly shares the Liberal’s job creation, healthcare, and environmental agendas.
As I’ve written numerous times, I was drawn to the then Senator Obama because of his interest in terminating the “culture war.” His political moderation is comparable to presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Ford in his leadership style. However, instead of setting his “anti-culture war” agenda, he has only let Congress and the people know what he wants to accomplish in piecemeal fashion. Hence, both his political opponents and his political friends (Liberals are every bit as petulantly dogmatic as Conservatives) appear to be out for his political hide.
The problem is that both the Right and the Left, good people who could be very helpful to any American president, have traded patriotism for dogmatism. How they see things is
vastly superior to the way nonpolitical people see them. After all, they are the political experts and the moral consciences of this free people. As such, they see themselves as having a legitimate license to cajole and manipulate voters and candidates expecting them to join them in their prejudices and to reinforce them in their self-interest driven solutions to problems both foreign and domestic.
I’ll ask this question once again as I’ve asked it before: why is it patriotic for a young person to give his or her well-being and perhaps life for his or her country when America is in trouble, but not equally patriotic to pay taxes and keep enterprises here in America for the benefit of those working men and women who face dire financial trouble?
America demands and indeed needs jobs, adequate protection against accidents and diseases, protection from international thuggery, and protection from internal fraud regardless of who’s behind it. America wants and deserves clean energy and educational opportunities for its youth and for those who need retraining in order to meet new job standards. The bottom line is that it is agenda-setting time and it is time for you and me to set America’s agenda. We can only effectively do that if our president takes the lead.
Speaking in Boston on the night of Monday, November 7th, the day before the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy put it this way:
“The great task of the president is to set before the American people the unfinished public responsibility of our country.”
There’ve been many historic and cultural changes in America in the last fifty-one years, but the idea that the president must take the lead in setting the National Agenda hasn’t changed.
I remain strongly and enthusiastically supportive of President Obama. Still I must assert that if President Obama won’t set a National Agenda, there are a mess of Republicans out there who’d be glad to try!
Goodness, that possibility is scarier than Halloween which is just around the corner!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
During the 1960 presidential campaign, one of John F. Kennedy’s themes was “the unfinished public responsibility of our country” -- in other words, our National Agenda.
In last week’s commentary, which was largely designed to demonstrate that kept promises can be as dangerous as broken promises, I suggested (tongue in cheek) that political surprises would be preferable to promises. However, what we’re really talking about is America’s National Agenda which is renewable every four years with the election of a president.
Of course, Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals all have their canned solutions to problems ranging from abortion to terrorism. Some of these solutions are legitimate and deserve bipartisan consideration -- if we can restore bipartisanism ever again to our national political dialog. Meantime, we’re faced today with Corporate Media America’s political agenda.
Through the establishment of the radio and television talk show, both the Right and the Left -- each representing fewer than 50% of the public -- seek to set the political agenda for the whole country. Since these idealists are morally and politically superior to you and me, they naturally have little time or inclination to listen -- let alone value -- what the rest of us have to say.
My biggest criticism of President Obama is that he’s allowed himself to be politically penned in and devalued by both the Left and the Right. Both regard themselves as his moral and political superiors, hence he’s worthy of neither. It’s obvious to any objective observer of his administration that he’s well to the right of the label “left-wing Islamic Socialist” that many on the right seek to stamp on his reputation. Apparently, to the shock of many Liberals and to the chagrin of even more Conservatives, he even shares Rush Limbaugh’s determination to wipe out both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Yet Liberals seem to have barely noticed that he clearly shares the Liberal’s job creation, healthcare, and environmental agendas.
As I’ve written numerous times, I was drawn to the then Senator Obama because of his interest in terminating the “culture war.” His political moderation is comparable to presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Ford in his leadership style. However, instead of setting his “anti-culture war” agenda, he has only let Congress and the people know what he wants to accomplish in piecemeal fashion. Hence, both his political opponents and his political friends (Liberals are every bit as petulantly dogmatic as Conservatives) appear to be out for his political hide.
The problem is that both the Right and the Left, good people who could be very helpful to any American president, have traded patriotism for dogmatism. How they see things is
vastly superior to the way nonpolitical people see them. After all, they are the political experts and the moral consciences of this free people. As such, they see themselves as having a legitimate license to cajole and manipulate voters and candidates expecting them to join them in their prejudices and to reinforce them in their self-interest driven solutions to problems both foreign and domestic.
I’ll ask this question once again as I’ve asked it before: why is it patriotic for a young person to give his or her well-being and perhaps life for his or her country when America is in trouble, but not equally patriotic to pay taxes and keep enterprises here in America for the benefit of those working men and women who face dire financial trouble?
America demands and indeed needs jobs, adequate protection against accidents and diseases, protection from international thuggery, and protection from internal fraud regardless of who’s behind it. America wants and deserves clean energy and educational opportunities for its youth and for those who need retraining in order to meet new job standards. The bottom line is that it is agenda-setting time and it is time for you and me to set America’s agenda. We can only effectively do that if our president takes the lead.
Speaking in Boston on the night of Monday, November 7th, the day before the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy put it this way:
“The great task of the president is to set before the American people the unfinished public responsibility of our country.”
There’ve been many historic and cultural changes in America in the last fifty-one years, but the idea that the president must take the lead in setting the National Agenda hasn’t changed.
I remain strongly and enthusiastically supportive of President Obama. Still I must assert that if President Obama won’t set a National Agenda, there are a mess of Republicans out there who’d be glad to try!
Goodness, that possibility is scarier than Halloween which is just around the corner!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)