YOU’RE WELCOME, YOU’RE WELCOME, ALREADY! BUT PULL THE PLUG ON SOME OF THAT GRATITUDE, PLEASE!

By Edwin Cooney

I know you’re not going to believe this, but just three weeks after interviewing Uncle Sam, Father Time arranged an interview for me with “The Unknown Soldier.” I came away from that interview with a few pieces of advice and an interesting perspective. Here — I’ll share them with you this Memorial Day.

“So! You’re the real Unknown Soldier from World War I. Is that right?” I asked.

“Yah, that’s me,” he said, “but don’t ask me too many questions, because I like being unknown. If your readers get to thinking they actually know me, I’d lose my job.”

“Yes,” I said, “but people get real satisfaction remembering you because as an unknown, you could be anyone’s beloved ancestor. Isn’t there some glory in that?” 

I inquired.

“What makes you or anyone else think I get a special kick out of  being glorified? What worries me most is that by glorifying me, political leaders of all nationalities and types invariably give themselves permission to think about winning future wars thereby creating generations of new Unknown Soldiers!”

“Why would they do that?” I asked.

“I think there are several reasons for that,” he said, pulling out a tiny American flag from his jacket. 

“First, war is almost a tradition among the nations of the world. If you don’t believe me, consider this: much of the time, if a nation isn’t at war with another nation, leaders arrange quarrels among their own people. For example, take 21st Century America and its political and social divides.  Currently, you’re involved in a severe culture war. You have Conservative versus Liberal, the secular-minded versus the religious-oriented and, as always, the haves versus the have-nots. When I was growing up, there were also several unfortunate social divides: farmers versus railroads, labor versus management, and, of course, cowboys versus Indians, just to name three.

“Second, somehow humanity believes down where it lives that a punch in the nose is more powerful than a handshake or even a hug. Waging peace, as President Eisenhower reminded us in his 1964 book by that name, is much much more difficult than giving way to national and international anger thus creating war. Hasn’t one of the most popular slogans since World War II been ‘peace through strength’? I believe that myth comes through Mr. Churchill who, throughout much of his life, was as much a warrior as he was a politician. The idea is that two strong nations will avoid fighting each other. If one of two contesting nations is weak, war is more than likely to result. If that were true, I wouldn’t today be the Unknown Soldier! Europe had been at peace, well almost so, since the 1814 fall of Napoleon Bonaparte. By 1914, the leaders of Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungry, and Russia were all heavily armed. They literally smelled of gun smoke. They weren’t afraid of one another. I would have been better off if they had been at least a little leery of each other,” asserted the Unknown Soldier with a grim smile.

“When you went off to war during World War I, was it because President Woodrow Wilson urged you to make the world safe for democracy?” I wanted to know.

“Well, as President Reagan once said to President Jimmy Carter during their only 1980 presidential debate: there you go again!” said the Unknown Soldier, as he marched steadily along.

“I knew fellows who went to war for a lot of reasons such as to avoid pregnant girlfriends and outraged fathers. I knew some who joined the army to avoid a judge’s jail sentence. Of course, there were many guys who went to war because they wanted to protect America from the Kaiser’s Prussians and that pleased President Wilson,” said the Unknown Soldier.

“What becomes increasingly bothersome to me after all these years is that the message is always the same. They cry over our loss in one breath and in the next breath they speak so glowingly of military service that the very idea that one might not want to serve seems anti-American. I agree with Harry Truman who observed ‘…any fool can go out and start a war!’ Besides, where do they get the idea that dying in war is especially glorious?”

“Okay,” I said. “Does that mean you don’t appreciate our recognition of your sacrifice?”

“Oh, it’s an honor of sorts, but it’s more of an honor for you than it is for me. Remember, funerals aren’t really for the dead, they’re for the living. America is right to celebrate Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. In that spirit I think the world would be better off celebrating  Policeman’s Day, Teacher’s Day, Doctor’s Day, Children’s Day, Farmer’s Day, Family Day or, even better, Fireman’s Day. It’s my understanding that in modern America, policemen and teachers are no longer universally admired as they were when I was growing up. That’s really and truly sad!”

The Unknown Soldier suddenly stopped in mid-march and exclaimed, “I’ve been at peace for nearly a century now. My pain was terrible, but short. I think you need my blessing much more than I need yours!”

Thus, as he slowly but steadily faded off into the mist, he almost prayerfully proclaimed:

“If you’d only honor your living selves I’d understand. I don’t quite understand as of now that you’ve really and truly learned from my loss. If you’d first value life before physical or material gain, before national and political pride, my peace would be even sweeter, because I’d be reassured that never again would there be a need for an Unknown Soldier.”

Suddenly, he was gone and as I turned to go, the ever so faint sound of Taps came through the eternal ether.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY  

LET’S TALK ABOUT THE DEVIL’S DUE

I was absolutely fascinated by the responses I got to the general theme of last week’s musing. I was especially interested in learning what or who were the individual readers’ devil or devils. No one responded to that inquiry. Still, I loved the responses.

Sandy from Maryland rightly corrected me. She said:

“In your column on Devil’s Due, you said:

‘....I have a number of “Devils.” One is institutional racial and gender injustice. The thing I must remember, however, is that such injustice has yet to be the absolute goal of any society…’  Methinks you have misremembered, or simply not remembered.”

My mistake was the word injustice. I should have said that justice has never been the absolute goal of any society. Sandy pointed out the institutional injustice written into the laws and social structure of South Africa beginning in 1948. Thanks, Sandy!

Then there was the observation of Bruce from Philadelphia. Bruce said: 

“You wrote:  ‘In the case of President Trump, one of my current Devils.’  When I think of evil, I think of persons like Richard Speck, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gasy, and Gary Heidnik, to name a few.  Do you suggest that Donald Trump, with all of his faults, rises, or sinks as the case may be, to the level of these people?  I’m not even sure that Donald Trump sinks to the level of Adolf Hitler, at least not yet.  I suggest that time will tell if Trump is truly a devil.”

Ah, Bruce, you’re assuming that murder is the only deviled evil. Remember, the commission of murder is far from the only human act condemned by the Ten Commandments. Mr. Trump has clearly violated God’s Commandments regarding marriage, pride, treatment of one’s neighbors. No, he has yet to sink to Hitler’s evils and I don’t guess he will. Still, he is one of my devils. He shouldn’t be where he is and I hope we’ll remove him from “the high temple” of our government in 2020.

The most staggering set of objections came from Erie Pennsylvania’s adopted son, Chesterton. (That’s almost his real name but not quite.) He really takes me to task and I love it. He said:

“You wrote: ‘The unvarnished reality remains that the world is such that in order to keep our sanity, we must give the Devil his due in the form of a healthy tolerance.’

Why? Why should I tolerate a liar; one who exploits women; One who accused his opponent of being a criminal and riled up his supporters to a frenzy during which they would yell: "lock her up!"

One who engaged in at least two extra-marital affairs while his third wife was experiencing the birth of a baby;

One who is taking credit for a lousy tax plan;

One who claimed that Mexico would pay for his ridiculous wall, a wall which will never be built, of course!

No Ed, Donald Trump is someone I will never be able to tolerate; and were I to try to, I would lose my sanity not to mention any self respect I may possess.”

Well, my dear Chesterton, in the first place I didn’t say you should think, do, or feel anything. I’ve learned the hard way that “you shoulds” are seldom effective communication. My point is that if we join President Trump in what we regard as the destruction of the legitimacy and power of his office, there’ll be little institutional respectability left for his successors. A better question is: how is it to my advantage to tolerate and do what I can to support the institution of the presidency?

In the first place, President Trump is a reality and reality must always be handled rationally. Second, President Trump, like a broken clock (although he may not ever be right twice a day), possesses more gravity when he’s right, than you or I.

Remember the delightful story of the little boy who saw former president and, by then, Chief Justice William Howard Taft coming down the steps of the Supreme Court saying: “Oh, I know who you are. You used to be President Coolidge!”  

Next, here’s the short but reassuring response from Bob, a gentleman from South Jersey:

“Finally, a more tempered and objective view of DJT.”

Thanks, Bob! Unfortunately, too many of us prefer to read commentary that reinforces our views rather than commentary with tempered objectivity.

What’s interesting about most of the above responses (with the exception of Sandy’s) is how they reflect the defenses of the individual advocates or conclusions. Bruce, who wants at least to support President Trump, hears only the worst of all evils in a so-called devil. Chesterton, on the other hand, winces at the slightest call for tolerance or forbearance of the president.

Finally, I offer the reaction of a good clergyman from Florida, Reverend Paul:

“Edwin must be careful not to bite down too hard.  His tongue in cheek comments are, in my opinion, right on.  He skewered the feminist, the religious right, atheists, liberals, and the rest of us in general.  Is evil in the eyes of the beholder???   Thanks Ed for your very appropriate observations.”

My response to the good Reverend is, unfortunately and to our disadvantage, yes. All quoted here, myself included, to a large degree, find it exceedingly difficult to adjust to any truth but our own. Hence, the devil, like the innocent and beautiful princess, mostly resides in the eye of the beholder.

Therein, or should I say herein, we find the real devil. The devil is both you and me and each and every one of us devils have one thing in common: we always demand our due!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

WHAT IS “THE DEVIL’S DUE?”

By Edwin Cooney

Okay, perhaps there is no such personage or spirit named Satan or, more popularly, the “Devil.” Still, there’s a sense in most of us that evil is real and part of evil’s reality is the existence of its power. There are elements of truth in evil. If there weren’t, evil wouldn’t have the power to tempt humanity. So, this week I address “the Devil” and consider giving the Devil his (or even her) due. This just occurred to me: I’ve often heard modern feminists suggest that God might be a woman, but I’ve never heard a feminist insist that the “Devil” might be a woman, have you?

Even secularists who, for the most part, are agnostic or even atheists, contribute to the popular significance of the Devil. Of course, the Devil generally appears in human form. For millions of Americans, the Devil exists in the personage of President Donald John Trump — but wait a minute! There are a couple of discomforting flaws here! For some fundamentalist Christians, DJT is quite the opposite of a devil. He’s a moral savior, especially for the Right to Life Movement. In addition, the concept of devilry in the Bible casts confusion on the very nature of who the devil is.

In the book of Job, we read that God gives Satan permission to harass Job even to the extent that he may kill Job’s sons and all their cattle as long as Satan doesn’t kill Job himself. It is difficult for many of us, this observer included, not to wonder if God doesn’t find evil pretty useful now and then. There’s the distinct possibility, even the likelihood, that what God considers evil may dramatically differ from what humans consider evil. When one really presses knowledgable and thoughtful Christians, they seemingly wiggle out of any possibility that God participates in evil by declaring that if God does something, it just isn’t evil. God is incapable of evil. (Amazing! I’ve always been taught that God is capable of everything!)  Does even God, from time to time, give the Devil his due? If so, what constitutes “the Devil’s due?”

In the case of President Trump, one of my current Devils, his “due” is unwavering loyalty and personal approval. Even more, as far as he’s concerned, his re-election in 2020 is the very least his fellow Americans can do for him..

His decision last Tuesday to withdraw from the agreement with Iran could result in sufficient chaos to bring about the overthrow of Iran’s Islamic government. It could possibly be replaced by a “strong man” who might be more sympathetic to American foreign policy. As unlikely as that is, that would be a significant change in the status quo.

As for what’s likely to come out of the President’s meeting with Kim Jong Un on June 12th in Singapore, it could really be good for both North Korea and the rest of humanity and earn both Trump and Kim the Nobel Peace prize. (Wouldn’t the Republicans just love to see their hero recognized and legitimized along with Kim Jong Un with an honor issued by a bunch of “left wing” European intellectuals for whom Conservatives possess consistent contempt!) 

A successful negotiation with Kim would accomplish two things. It would stabilize a longtime international danger and force many reluctant Americans to give the Devil his due — broad approval.

As for the current economic circumstance, most Americans love their money so much that the Devil may well get another due: votes for re-election in 2020. Keep in mind, however, that even six months is a generation in American politics, so there’s lots of time for all kinds of domestic and foreign circumstances to go south!

As for we “nasty Democrats” who can’t bear to wish the “Trump Devil” well, we may well be disappointed even if Robert Mueller discovers that there was collusion between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Vladimir Putin’s gangster government. Even if he were impeached, President Trump wouldn’t be succeeded by a more enlightened leader such as Nancy Pelosi. Mike Pence is in the way!

The unvarnished reality remains that the world is such that in order to keep our sanity, we must give the Devil his due in the form of a healthy tolerance. As for why that should be, the fact is that we have lived in the world of denunciation for so long and practiced denunciation so readily that it has become a political and social expectation. If you don’t criticize someone, people wonder if you stand for anything. If it is only your friends who possess credibility or genuineness, be aware that you’re standing on sand rather than rock.

Here’s my question for the week: who is your Devil? What due — or even set of dues —do you owe him or her?

I have a number of “Devils.” One is institutional racial and gender injustice. The thing I must remember, however, is that such injustice has yet to be the absolute goal of any society. 

Another is the death penalty, especially when administered by the self-righteous. The factor I must keep in mind about that is the emotional jolt suffered by the victims of outrageous crime. Also, there is the instinctive desire to kill in order to survive.

A third is the increasing lack of political civility throughout Twenty-first Century America. What I must remember about that is that many Americans still follow the old Vince Lombardi creed that is especially popular in sports: “winning is everything.”

The fourth is the consistent lack of willingness to learn from history. (Of course, that “devil” invariably brings up the question: whose history?  Whose story is it to my best advantage to believe?)

I remain deeply concerned about the fate of the world and all humanity since President Trump took office. However, if he succeeds in calming our anxiety regarding North Korea, aren’t we at least obligated to thank him even as we look forward to his 2020 replacement?

Oh, there’s one more —  well, maybe 29 more — Devils to be conquered. There’s the Boston Red Sox. After all, the New York Yankees haven’t been World Champions since 2009!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

AN INTERVIEW WITH UNCLE SAM

By Edwin Cooney

Last week in response to my column urging people to vote, a reader sent me a chapter of a book called “The Killing of Uncle Sam.” According to the gentleman who sent me Chapter 38 of this book, Uncle Sam, a good guy, is being killed by all of the sins America has committed. The point of the book, as I understand it, is that America is no longer worthy of our good Uncle Sam. (Despite this gloomy analysis, I’m looking forward to reading the book.)

Well, it wasn’t easy getting an interview with Uncle Sam. First, I had to go to the  American Legends Union and agree to eventually interview such personages as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Rip Van Winkle, and Paul Bunyan along with Babe the Blue Ox. I told them I’d like to interview Donald Trump if I could, but they told me he’d been kicked out of the American Legends Union for being all too real! “We know he’s a real nightmare,” a spokesman for the Union said, “but unfortunately, nightmares can be real and he’s really real and so he’s outside our jurisdiction. We can’t help you with that. Sorry!”

When I finally caught up with Uncle Sam, he was sitting atop an old whiskey barrel in his butcher shop munching on onions, radishes and Brussels sprouts. He was dressed as usual: white top hat with a blue band and a white star, a white vest and blue swallowtail coat, and red and white striped trousers. His white hair and goatee were, as I expected, ever present. “I thought you were a butcher,” I said, “How is it that you’re eating vegetables rather than chawing on a piece of beef?”

“Things change,” Uncle Sam said, “This isn’t nineteenth century America anymore. I spent decades eating beef and pork and after two hundred plus years, beef gets a little boring. So, now I mostly eat fruits and vegetables. I also love fish and eggs.”

“You’ve been represented as Mr. America since the War of 1812 when you had to sign all the packages of victuals you provided to those gallant soldiers and sailors. Instead of signing your given name, Samuel Wilson, you signed yourself as “Uncle Sam.” Why did you do that?” I asked.

“At the time I was supplying a contractor named Elbert Anderson with beef for the American army. The label on the packages of meat had to read “E.A. - US.” Sam Wilson is such a common name and I wanted to be more than just Sam Wilson. Besides, it’s fun being an uncle. If you’re a dad or a grandfather, you’re expected to take responsibility for your children or grandchildren. If you’re an uncle, kids can come to you for whatever they need or for whatever advice you have for them. You can offer your advice and send them on their way. If they take your advice or choose to follow your example, that’s cool. If they don’t, well, they’re still your nieces and nephews. If the old advice wasn’t good, they can come to you for new advice at a different time.”

“So, since all of the people in America are your nieces and nephews, doesn’t that hold you to a higher moral standard? Shouldn’t you be a permanent role model or example of pristine American moral and legal standards?”

“Hell, no!” said Uncle Sam, “If my love for America was solely based on American morality, I’d never have loved her at all. Remember, when I was born we still had debtor’s prisons, women weren’t equal, we largely hated Catholics and Jews, we insisted that certain people were only three-fifths of a human being, and Native Americans were on our national hit list. What America possesses is the highest capacity of any society to overcome her sins. America was born expecting to change and that’s exactly what America has done.

“There is however one rather disturbing caveat to America’s nature: greed. Although the rich don’t have any monopoly on greed, because they are ambitious and have the funds, their greed is more powerful and detrimental than that of common folk.”

“Some people say your real name was Brother Jonathan and that you were actually born in the 1770’s.” I inquired. “Is that right?”

“Believe whatever you want to believe,” said Sam, lighting and tamping down the tobacco in the bowl of a large curved pipe now that his lunch was over. “My existence is loaded with legends. Some say I was born in Arlington, Massachusetts and that my boyhood home was in Mason, New Hampshire. Some say that I died on Monday, July 31st, 1854 in Troy, New York where I lived as an adult. The problem with all that is that that stuff fits the life of Sam Wilson. My name is Uncle Sam.”

“Does that mean your first name is Uncle and that your last name is Sam?”

“Believe what you want to, son,” said Uncle Sam.

“I’m told that Ulysses S. Grant patterned himself after you. What do you have to say about that?”

“Ulysses Grant was a good friend of mine, but the story really has little to do with me. Grant remained nameless for a month after his birth. His mother wanted to name him Albert, but she finally decided to name him Hiram after his maternal grandfather and Ulysses after the hero of the Greek legend. He hated the initials H.U.G. on his trunk when it arrived at West Point, so he insisted that his name was Ulysses S (for Simpson) Grant. Representative Thomas L. Hamer had mistakenly enrolled him as Ulysses S (for Sam) Grant. Of course, that became U. S. Grant. I called him Sam as did his other close friends as we sat at night around the whiskey barrel.”

“What did he call you?” I asked.

“Uncle Sam, of course. Sometimes he’d simply call me Unc!”

‘Do you consider yourself a symbol of patriotism?”

“Well, I love America like all good uncles love their nieces and nephews. That doesn’t mean that I approve of everything they do or stand for,” replied Uncle Sam.

“I have a good friend who says patriotism is silly. He insists he doesn’t love America. However, he appreciates its many benefits,” I told Uncle Sam.

“That’s good enough for me,” Sam said, “Appreciation can legitimately be considered a very close cousin of love. If patriotism is silly, there have been a lot of very brilliant silly national leaders throughout history.”

The last thing Uncle Sam said to me as I prepared to leave was this:

“If sentiments such as love and patriotism were absent from human awareness, not even logic would make any sense!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

“WHY SHOULD I VOTE IN 2018 OR 2020?” — WRONG QUESTION!

By Edwin Cooney

It has been my experience that, most of the time, someone who asks “why should I…” isn’t really much interested in hearing the answer. Besides, I have learned the hard way that whenever I tell someone what they “should” do, they seldom do it. Or, they do it resentfully! Thus, my challenge this week is exceedingly monumental, for I’m hoping you will vote in both 2018 and 2020.

At one time or another, all of us find ourselves in roles we have neither created nor requested. These roles include two especially demanding, if not always rewarding, situations. The roles are parenthood and citizenship. In some ways, parenthood is the more demanding life circumstance because it requires one to fulfill both social and legal obligations. Beyond that, parenthood is preventable whereas citizenship is a challenge from birth. Even more to the point, citizenship is a birthright and is ours whether we’ve earned it or even want it.

Many of us decide whether or not to vote depending on three general factors. These factors are the degree to which we favor or dislike one of the candidates, our individual assessment of the potential value of our vote, and our understanding of the significance  of how our votes have affected our past.

History is bedecked with instances which neither the voter nor the office holder anticipated during the political campaign. Since it is easier to follow (and requires less space), let’s look at a few presidential decisions that weren’t debated during the campaign that elected that particular president.

George Washington: No voter, in either 1788 nor 1792, anticipated that President Washington would lead a federal army into western Pennsylvania to collect taxes as a result of the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion. Nor did anyone conclude that President Washington would sign and advocate a treaty with the British (the Jay Treaty of 1795) that ceded trade and travel advantages to Great Britain.

Thomas Jefferson: An anti-Federalist, Jefferson ran on the idea of limited government. He emphasized that if a proposed act wasn’t in the Constitution, it shouldn’t be allowed. Nothing in the Constitution gives the president authority to purchase territory through negotiation. Yet, Jefferson’s greatest achievement was the 1803 Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon Bonaparte.

Andrew Jackson: During the 1828 campaign, Andrew Jackson didn’t take a position against the Second Bank of the United States. His quarrel with the bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, was largely personal. The result of our withdrawal from that bank was the severe economic depression of 1837.

Abraham Lincoln: Neither the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments to the Constitution were at issue during the 1860 campaign that sent “Honest Abe” to the White House. Neither was black emancipation.

Theodore Roosevelt: Most voters in 1904 who gave TR a full term in office hadn’t any idea that he considered human rights to be more significant than property rights.

Woodrow Wilson:  “He kept us out of war” was Wilson’s re-election slogan in 1916. That didn’t prevent our entry into World War I on April 6th, 1917.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: In 1932, FDR promised to balance the national budget by 1936. During the 1936 campaign, when FDR asked presidential advisor Sam Rosenman how he could get around that issue, Rosenman said, “Just deny you ever said it.”

Ronald Reagan: “Just watch me” was President Reagan’s response to those who wondered at the outset of his second term if he really intended to balance the federal budget. However, the fact is that he increased Jimmy Carter’s one trillion dollar deficit from one to three trillion dollars.

Barack Obama: He promised “change,” but change turned out to be more than his definition of change. Mr. Obama prescribed Liberal or Progressive change, but he failed to adequately recognize that conservatives also demanded a change which he could not provide.

Too many of us go to the polls expecting to be rewarded for our votes. Contrast this to parents who adjust to the many differences and even disappointments they experience because they possess unconditional love for their children.

Unconditional love doesn’t require of parents that they express or even feel unconditional approval of the way their children live their lives. Nor does unconditional love for one’s country require unconditional approval of where America is going.

However, the most effective way to express unconditional love for America is to vote. Of course, you don’t have to vote if you don’t want to, but acknowledge, if you choose to, that  the very freedom not to participate can be enough to enhance the value of your vote.

I will vote in both 2018 and 2020, because I believe my country unconditionally deserves my evaluation of what it is, what it stands for, and where it ought to go.

I hope you will let yourself feel the same way!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

“THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH” ABOUT 21ST CENTURY AMERICAN POLITICS

By Edwin Cooney

Have you ever wondered what makes an issue a conservative Republican issue rather than a liberal Democratic issue or vice versa? The answer is very simple.

After nearly a lifetime of fascination with the American political scene, I’m as absolutely sure as I can be that I’ve discovered the key to our national discontent. It consists of a key as simple as the old brass skeleton key. Before I reveal it, here’s a bit of history.

Between Thursday, April 30th 1789, the day George Washington took his first presidential oath, and Saturday, September 14th 1901, the day Theodore Roosevelt took his oath to become America’s 26th President upon the death of President William McKinley, the major differences between American political parties were generally broad in their scope. They consisted of issues such as slavery versus abolition, states’ rights versus federal domain, agriculture versus industry, bankers versus small farmers and small business, and so forth. The consequences resulting from the struggles between these conflicted interests were for the most part beyond anything that immediately affected the lives of most people. Sure, war, specifically civil war, and economic depression resulted in the loss of life for several hundred thousand Americans. However, immediately following these struggles and conflicts, the lives of the vast numbers of Americans weren’t much altered.

Suddenly, almost overnight, there came onto the American scene a a brilliant, energetic, and pugnacious little gentleman named Theodore Roosevelt. In less than eight years, he brought to the American people an expectation that the government was theirs as much as it was J. P. Morgan’s or John D. Rockefeller’s. It was the beginning of the Progressive Era with its program of initiative, referendum and recall. This era gave people at the state level the idea that they could be the masters of their political and social fate which, up until then, was mostly the prerogative of state legislatures and Congress, people who were largely elected with the backing of big bankers, big railroads, big coal and big oil. Within three months after taking office, T.R. was telling Congress that while free enterprise was owed much gratitude for all it had accomplished, it was in many ways practicing policies that were hurtful to the public. Thus, between 1902 and 1909, bills were passed by Congress to purify food and drugs, regulate and in some cases destroy corporate trusts, and preserve the national environment. Eventually, Teddy (a name he despised) Roosevelt would even challenge the idea that the right to own property was our most precious right. For T.R. and many future presidents, human rights rather than property rights should reign supreme.

Thus, the Progressive Era between 1901 and 1917 was the major factor in altering the nature and intensity of public issues and politics. Early 20th Century Progressivism opened the gates to FDR’s New Deal, Harry Truman’s Square Deal, and even to Ronald Reagan’s modern concept of conservatism.

The old idea advanced by Grover Cleveland at his 1893 Inaugural that the people owed loyalty to the government and not the government to the people died with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

As I see it, the key to this era of discontent resides in the political interests of every political party, major and minor, currently seeking the favor of the American people.

Even with the onset of the Progressive Era, the election of a president generally reflected the will of the people, even when it didn’t exactly represent the collective national preference. Hence, today political leaders seek to manipulate rather than to discern our national will thus increasing rather than dissipating our national anxieties. In short, our anxieties are essential to their efforts to keep the electorate small enough and thus sufficiently manipulable to their political and economic ends.

Additionally, I’m convinced that there’s less principle behind the political positions taken, especially by the two major parties, than there is pure political opportunism. Here’s an example:

The anti-abortion movement had its origin in the Democratic Party in 1976 as Ellen McCormack, a Massachusetts housewife, sought the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on that issue. Ronald Reagan, who sought the GOP nomination  that same year, had been “pro-choice” as Governor of California in the late 1960s and early 70s. The only thing the Republican platform in 1976 had to say about abortion was that it was a states’ rights issue rather than a federal issue. As I see it, “pro-life”  is hardly a conservative principle born of morality. Anti-abortion or pro-life sentiment was adopted by Conservatives rather than being a natural child of Conservatism. 

In my view, professional Liberalism and Conservatism must be defanged. They’re neither informative nor do they provide political or social unity. They primarily serve to divide. Worst of all, they stir and reinforce preconceived fearful opinions much more than they encourage critical thinking!

One of my readers, a gentleman who probably has forgotten more history than I’ve ever known, recently reminded me in an email of the fact that in 2000 just five Supreme Court justices decided that election rather than allowing the citizens of Florida a second opportunity to vote their consciences. That election in combination with the outcome of the 2016 election is enough for him to challenge me to convince him to vote in 2020. For openers, I don’t think he can afford not to vote. However, that’s merely my opening argument. There will be more coming soon. Stay tuned!

In case you are wondering who’s at fault for this era of national discontent, it’s not Donald Trump — it’s you and me! Only you and I can make matters even worse!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY