SO LONG ONCE AGAIN, LOUIS — TOO FEW OF US WILL MISS YOU!

By Edwin Cooney

Last Friday, the Cleveland Indians of the American Baseball League announced that after much consideration, they will become the Cleveland Guardians at the close of the 2021 baseball season. Many will be pleased to know that Cleveland, Ohio is choosing a name that's inclusive and protective of the entire community that is symbolized in the structure of the bridge just across the street from their new stadium, Progressive Field.  Many are pleased that baseball will abandon the too long habit of sports teams naming themselves derisively after Native Americans when so many Americans of past eras have feared and loathed and even admired them for their bravery under great odds. 

It all began back in 1897 when the then Cleveland Spiders were in the National League. Suddenly there appeared, seemingly from out of the proverbial blue, an unbelievable rookie outfielder of amazing talent.  

His name was Louis Francis Sockalexis. Louis was a member of the Penobscot Tribe from Old Town, Maine. He was fast, often running the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds. Additionally, he was unusually strong. One story has it that Louis Sockalexis once hit a 600 foot home run during the dead ball era when baseballs were often squishy rather than hard and tightly wound as they are today. It was said that he once threw a baseball from the top of Oak Hill on the Old Town Indian Reservation that struck the smokestack of the Jordan Lumber Mill three quarters of a mile away. Louis Sockalexis was 5 feet 11 inches tall and weighed 185 pounds. He batted left-handed and threw right-handed. His baseball fame lasted almost four months between April 22nd, 1897 into the July Fourth weekend of that year. During that all too short time, "the Chief" (as he was naturally called), 

hit .338, 9 doubles, 8 triples and 3 home runs. It was eventually observed by some of his teammates that Louis simply became too popular too fast for, without warning, it was suddenly all over.

Sunday, July 4th, 1897, Louis, along with many teammates, began celebrating Independence Day accompanied by an old nemesis — the bottle. Three years earlier, he'd been expelled from Notre Dame for drunkenness despite being a star football player. After the weekend, he couldn't or wouldn't stop drinking even after hurting an ankle while trying to sneak out of a third story hotel window which was being guarded by teammates who were determined to protect him against himself.

Louis's injured ankle slowed him down and he began making fielding errors to the extent that he only played two or three more games in 1897. He would only play 21 games in 1898 and a mere 7 in 1899, finally being released by the Spiders. The Spiders would themselves be banished from the National League at the close of 1899 following a season of 20 wins and 134 losses.But there's more!

Also expelled by the National League along with the Spiders at the close of 1899 were the Washington Nationals. Both teams joined the new American League in 1901. The Washington Nationals or “Nats “became the Washington Senators who would be remembered as "first in war, first in peace, and last in the American League.” Meanwhile, the Cleveland Spiders originally became the “Cleveland Naps” after their newly acquired Hall of Fame star second baseman Napoleon Lajoie. By 1914, Nap Lajoie had retired and Cleveland needed a new name. Hence, a local newspaper ran a contest for  Cleveland fans to suggest a new name. The winning entry came from a fan who suggested that the new name be the “Cleveland Indians” after their wonderful 1897 Penobscot Indian star, Louis Francis Sockalexis. Therefore, for the last 106 years, the former Spiders and Naps have been known as the Cleveland Indians. Just five years after becoming the Indians in Louis's name, they won the 1920 World Series and the name “Bill Wambsganss” outshone the name Sockalexis when he made the first and only unassisted triple play in World Series history against the Dodgers. Thirty-three years after 1915, the names of two Black players, Larry Doby and Satchel Paige, became household words in Cleveland, Ohio and all over America as the Indians won the 1948 World Series over the Boston Braves. (Note: Is it significant or merely ironic that the Indians defeated the Braves in a World Series?) 

Things continued downhill for Sockalexis once he was back at home in Old Town, Maine following his 1899 release by the Spiders. His body inevitably thickened and his dress was continuously shabby. He was in and out of jail for vagrancy. He became a regular panhandler rather than a laborer. Finally and inevitably, his body wore out on Christmas Eve of 1913. Born on Tuesday, October 24th, 1871, he was 42 years and exactly two months old when he passed away on Wednesday, December 24th 1913.

Alcoholism, we've finally come to realize, is not a measurement of poor character but a physical reaction to alcohol. Louis's natural gift was brilliant  athletic ability. He is the only player I know of that, 14 or 15 years following his unconditional release, would have a team named after him, however ironically and indirectly!

As the Indians become the Guardians, the irony is that for the second and final time they are saying: Louis, for all eternity farewell!

It has already been observed that by becoming the Cleveland Guardians (inspired by giant Art Deco statues on the city's Hope Memorial Bridge), the final five letters of their new name continue to be “nians.”

Might the spirit of Louis Sockalexis have something to do with that?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

RAW RHUBARB —THAT'S TRUMPIAN THROUGH AND THROUGH!

By Edwin Cooney

Yes, indeed, raw rhubarb is an acquired taste and I've acquired it. However, unlike 73 million Americans, I refuse to pick my rhubarb from Donald Trump's rhubarb patch.

The beauty of rhubarb is that, in addition to being a fruit, it is often described as a quarrel: "I had a real rhubarb with my lady last night and she beat the hell out of me! POOR ME!”

It was essential that in 2017 I started out giving the newly minted president the benefit of some doubt. True, he was a different sort of man. First, he came from a business rather than from a political background. Second, he came from privilege thus having little taste or even regard for the less than privileged. Third, for millions of Americans he was an anathema to other politicians. Too many Americans, to suit this observer, were ready to "throw the baby out with the bath water!” Thus, as he entered the White House, President Trump, with majorities in both houses of Congress, had a pretty clean slate on which to write. So, the obvious question is: what did he write on that clean slate?

Not all of what he wrote was negative. After all, he had his party's conservative agenda to fulfill and he did that within months by introducing tax cuts to stimulate a rather sluggish economy. Even his proposal to do away with Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act was well within the domain of his presidential and political prerogative. The same was true of his proposal to build a wall that he swore Mexico would pay for. However, the tone of his administration was “rhubarbish” from the very outset. His insistence that foreigners, Muslims and, certainly, socialists and most communists (Vladimir Putin excepted) were an anathema to the future well being  of the American people.

President Trump's obvious enjoyment of confrontation came from his earliest experiences in business and finance. For too long, as the president and his closest advisors believed, government was too much about politics and, although he avoided Calvin Coolidge’s assertion that "the business of America is business," there was little doubt that he believed exactly that. (Note: many Americans since FDR's day had hoped and prayed for a strictly business oriented administration.) He demanded from Congress precisely what he wanted.

There was no such thing as there once was, the existence of a "loyal opposition.” It's true that some Democrats between election day of 2016 and 2017 Inauguration Day questioned the validity of Mr. Trump's election, but there was nothing new in that. After all, following the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes, the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, and most certainly the contested 2000 election of George W. Bush, there had been widely based wonderment of the legitimacy of those elections. It has even been speculated that had Hillary Clinton been elected over Mr. Trump, the Trump people were ready to proclaim the election results "a hoax" and immediately proceed with the help of Fox News and other sources to establish an election bid in 2020.

As uncomfortable as it is to assert, Mr. Trump's ongoing rhubarb (or, if you prefer, quarrelsomeness) prospers because we've become a quarrelsome people. We seek our own facts on topics we're barely educated enough to understand. People's religious or nonreligious orientations are dismissed as secular, socialist, and fundamentally both suspect and evil. This all became apparent even before the occurrence of January 6th.

Politicians, from FDR through Joe Biden, in one way or another, have used fear to advance their respective causes because a free peoples' hopes and dreams are inevitably the stuff of alternatives and choices at the ballot box. This natural reality, however, has always been accompanied by an expectation that the wishes of the voting majority ought to prevail until the next election.

As we approach 2022, what seems to matter to most Republicans is the ultimate return of Donald Trump to the White House. This seems to be taking place despite the legitimate ambitions of other possible Republican candidates named Pence, Pompeo, and, perhaps, even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. (When was the last time a former vice president and a former secretary of state were available for either party’s preference?)  This observation is by no means anti-conservative because Pence, Pompeo and DeSantis all regard themselves as rock-ribbed conservatives.

The reality, however, is that we're currently embedded in a national rhubarb which is flavoring our future — largely due to the courtesy of Donald Trump. It's hard not to worry that we're headed for a government of, by and for Donald Trump.

Taste for that outcome is in too many American mouths to suit me! The former president's rhetoric is clearly more divisive than uniting. Saddest of all, Mr. Trump's rhubarb sourness appears to be deliberately designed toward disunity and political domination, more than has anyone's rhetoric since that of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. No nation's peace and prosperity has ever thrived on disunity — and that includes the The United States of America! 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

PAST PRESIDENTIAL FLAVORS

By Edwin Cooney

The public watches every administration at least temporarily haunted by an impression of what I'm calling a “flavor.” (Someone somewhere might substitute the word “stink” for “flavor” but I'm too genteel to use a word like stink. I wonder if anyone will actually buy my gentility!)

Andrew Jackson left office on Saturday, March 4th, 1837 and for the better part of the next 25 years Old Hickory and what he would do or not do was anticipated by the Democratic Party. It helped to elect Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce and, finally, James Buchanan. When President Abraham Lincoln took his final breath at 7:22 a.m. on April 15th, 1865, the era during which almost anything really significant happened was in his name whether he would have approved of it or not. Following the dreadful term of Lincoln's vice president Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland would be the only Democrat to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue between 1869 and 1913, but even Cleveland had to run twice to get a second term. As for Woodrow Wilson who took office in 1913, although he was more highly polished and much better educated than Andrew Johnson, Wilson was every bit as racist and an unreconstructed southerner.

Teddy Roosevelt's flavor was one of expectation of progressive politics when he left the presidency and headed for Africa to do some big game hunting in 1909. William Howard Taft had some anti-trust success that was soured by a lack of anticipated progressivism. Woodrow Wilson left the presidency on March 4th, 1921 an internationalist rather than merely an unreconstructed racist southerner. It wasn't until that future war that Wilson had warned against that American voters realized that he was right and they were wrong. However, for twelve long years after "Woody Wilson,” everything from Democrats and progressive Republicans had the Wilson “odor” and was doomed for failure at the pens of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Warren Harding was simply incompetent by his own admission. Calvin Coolidge left office well regarded, but he was steeped in the government flavor which brought about the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover could never grasp the people's genuine need for government assistance. Thus his administration left a hungry and dry taste in most people's mouths.

When FDR, a sick, crippled and spent old man at age 63 who seemed to have been president forever died on Thursday, April 12th, 1945, the difference he'd made in so many lives flavored the Democratic Party and even the government as useful tools of and for the people. It lasted to the end of LBJ's turbulent administration on January 20th, 1969.

Truman's flavor was political cronyism and military stalemate in Korea. After all, America was used to winning its wars. Harry Truman's flavor changed only with the gradual realization of the stability of his foreign policy ventures.

Ike's flavor was government despite Republican dogma. Supported largely by Eastern progressives named Tom Dewey, Henry Cabot Lodge and Hugh  Scott, he spent billions of taxpayer dollars on his highway system and was open to limited civil rights proposals as passed in Congress by LBJ and supported by the up-and-coming Kennedys. JFK's flavor was "what could have been and seemingly nearly was” when he was assassinated on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. LBJ's intention was to leave a "Great Society" energized by liberty for all and regulated by a benevolent government in the FDR tradition, but failure in Vietnam and the turbulence of civil rights issues left his administration stale in taste and emotionally exhausted by its "credibility gap."

President Nixon's flavor, despite our arrival on the moon, the birth of the Environmental Protection Agency, the opening of Communist China, and the close of our involvement in Vietnam, was the flavor of Watergate and all it implied. Thus Gerald Ford's administration ended with a reputation of cronyism because Ford had pardoned his friend Richard Nixon.

Jimmy Carter's real flavor is just now coming into fashion. When he was defeated, his failure was flavored by an economy in full free-fall, a foreign policy seemingly indecisive and defeatist. Carter was a well-intentioned president above his head to the extent that, at least during the 1984 and 1988 Democratic conventions, delegates more than less muted their genuine affection for him. President George H. W. Bush's flavor, despite some solid achievements, was that he wasn't really “one of us” because he couldn't appreciate the significance of a grocery store barcode. Additionally, his vice president, Dan Quayle spelled the word “potato” with an “e” --so, back they went to the ranch and the golf course where they functioned better for all of us!

"Slick Willie" was William Jefferson Clinton’s ultimate flavor and it sticks to him this very day despite his obvious smarts and crowd appeal. George W. Bush hung on tight to the politically potent coattail of Evangelical Christianity, free market economic dogma, but his lies about Iraq's expanding weapons of mass destruction and the less than successful Iraq war caught up with him when the economy collapsed.

President Barack Obama was personally more popular than the performance of his administration when it constitutionally gave way to Donald Trump on Friday, January 20th, 2017. Warm and genuine, his rhetoric, like his Affordable Care Act, couldn’t quite overcome his lack of pure political skills. Thus, he was forced to rule more by executive order than by domination of Congress.

I've given you all of these presidential administration flavors and will present you with my taste of Donald Trump's flavor when we meet again next week.

Please stay tuned!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

HAPPY 245TH BIRTHDAY, UNCLE SAM!

By Edwin Cooney

Tell me, how many other people do you know who became 245 years old this weekend? Did you wish him a happy birthday, and if you did, was it a wish, or a thought? Now if you think this is mere trivia and therefore doesn't matter, I can take you back to a time when one of America's most powerful and  important men, J. Edgar Hoover, insisted that "a wish is a father to a thought.” 

It was March of 1972 and one of the raging issues aside from the Vietnam War and the bussing of school children, especially amongst hungry liberal Democrats, was how long J. Edgar Hoover would hold onto his mighty office of Director of the FBI. One day, a CBS news reporter actually was able to confront Director Hoover, microphone in hand. The conversation went something like this: "Mr. Hoover, is it possible that you'll soon retire as FBI Director?" Director Hoover: "The wish is father to the thought!” Reporter: “What's that again?” Mr. Hoover: "The wish is father to the thought!" Reporter: "What does that mean?" Mr. Hoover: "Just exactly what I just said!" The interview was over. A little less than two months later, on Tuesday, May 2nd, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, after 48 years as FBI Chief, was dead of a heart attack at age 77.

Ever since that March day, I've wondered if a wish really and truly is father to a thought! So, if I take time out of my day of beer swilling, hotdog munching, sweet corn gnawing, and baseball game absorbing to wish Uncle Sam a happy 245th birthday, is my wish a "father to a further thought” or can it stand on its own?

Even more to the point in this age of fading national unity, what do I have to think and believe in order for my "happy birthday" wish to Uncle Sam to ring true? Must I believe that Joe Biden was corruptly elected president last November? Must I be a conformist or am I free to be a dissident? 

Like individuals, nations have birthdays that range from so-so to happy to very memorable! America's birth on July 4th, 1776 which was a Thursday, actually occurred two days earlier on Tuesday, July 2nd in the wake of Delaware delegate Caesar Rodney’s frantic and dramatic ride from his farm in Delaware to cast Delaware's vote for independence. “Caesar Rodney's ride for freedom” became official the instant he cast his vote that Tuesday, July 2nd, 1776. However, the Declaration of Independence became official the day that historic document was published which was the fourth of July, two days later. Hence, one might label America's actual birthday as both struggling and happy. After all, during the years between 1776 and 1781 (when Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General George Washington at Yorktown, Maryland), its independence hung in the balance.

Metaphorically, most nations are given birth by the people who populate, nurture, defend and ultimately love them. Unlike those who give them birth, they only age when the generations who inherit their gifts fail to meet their ongoing needs or to the extent their people are unable to protect them from domination by their sister nations.

Just as individuals endure birthdays that are not always happy, the same is true of nations, even nations as great as the United States of America. Here are some examples: During the War of 1812, from Saturday, July 4th, 1812 through Monday, July, 4th, 1814, the United States saw much military humiliation. On Tuesday, July 2nd, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege of habeas corpus throughout the Union due to the immediate threat of Confederate sympathizers during the Civil War. (Note: Habeas corpus is the right of those imprisoned to appear for a speedy trial following their arrest.) July 4ths during World War II were certainly less than happy American birthdays. I'm guessing that in view of the successful Normandy Invasion, Tuesday, July 4th, 1944 was a hopeful American birthday celebration. As for a few happy American birthdays, perhaps Saturday, July 4th, 1801, America's 25th anniversary, was happy since Thomas Jefferson, one of our major founders, was president. It's possible that Wednesday, July 4th, 1804 was a happy birthday because the Louisiana Purchase which vastly increased American territory as far west as the Pacific had been finalized and was about to be explored by Lewis and Clark. I'd guess that Monday, July 4th, 1921 was happy because by then women had the right to vote and, on that very day, President Warren Harding signed our peace treaty with Germany — between two golf games. (Note: since the Senate had rejected Woodrow Wilson's peace treaty containing the League of Nations, State Secretary Charles Evans Hughes negotiated a brand new treaty with Germany to officially end World War I for the American people. According to one Harding biographer, Harding signed the new treaty at New Jersey Senator Tom Freilinghuysen's dining room table while putting on fresh golfing clothes.)

Just as you and I are ultimately responsible for our happy birthdays, so are nations! People inevitably age, but nations only age when they won't agree to suspend some of their preconceptions which are necessary to bring about national unity and that ultimately spell domestic peace and equity.

Hence, happy 245th birthday Uncle Sam! It may not be easy this year to be happy, but we ought to at least be working on our national happiness to honor your birthday this weekend!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

AN UNCHRISTIAN ACT BY CHRISTIANITY’S OLDEST INSTITUTION!

By Edwin Cooney

No, I'm far from being anti-Catholic although I've never been a member of that faith. There are elements and entities within that religion that the rest of us would do well to appreciate more than we do. A former sweetheart of mine who is a retired Methodist missionary used to say, "Every time you hear Ave Maria, don't you wish you were a Catholic?" I heartily share that sentiment! I'm also proud of the Catholic Churches anti-capital punishment stance, although I wouldn't do to pro-capital punishment parishioners what too many bishops are currently doing to President Biden!

As I understand it, a considerable number of American Catholic bishops propose to deny President Joseph R. Biden, only the second Roman Catholic ever elected President, the right to receive communion in view of his "pro choice" stance regarding abortion rights. They apparently have the right to do this despite the opposition of Pope Francis, the reigning vicar of Christ.

What bothers me, aside from my general support and sympathy for President Biden, is what I see as the pure cussedness and meanness behind it. Being a political entity, President Biden is naturally and even rightly subject to personal judgments, attacks, and criticisms, but it seems to me that to bar him from his right to the Holy Sacrament is downright medieval. It's my guess that in the wake of this decision, the next act the bishops will take is likely to be a declaration of  holy heresy against the president.

Before I offer my strongest objections to the bishops’ apparent attitudes, I must state my feelings regarding "pro life" and "pro choice."

I'm convinced that had I been conceived in 1975 rather than in 1945 I would likely have been aborted according to my legal illegitimacy. Hence, on the one occasion when I had a direct say about the use of abortion, I rejected it as an option and I would do it again. Nevertheless, I see the right of choice as an option of the individual according to his or her understanding of solemn moral judgment. I can and do respect men and women who insist on their right to have an abortion. I could easily love a woman despite her outlook on that subject. I simply would oppose the abortion of a child I had fathered! As I see it, a child is the responsibility of two parents, not just one!

I have three objections to the potential denial of President Biden's right to Holy Sacrament.

First, I'm convinced that this movement is not strictly about religious writ or doctrine. Conservative Protestants and Catholic officeholders continue the search for some aspect of Joe Biden's character that will put him on an equal standing regarding the moralities of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Hence we have the charge brought by Tara Reade a former Biden staffer that Biden had sexually abused her back in 1993. Apparently, that charge hasn't stuck. However, some folks are still trying to lower the president's level of decency in the public mind.

My second objection is to some degree doctrinaire. My understanding that Christianity is about such characteristics as charity, forgiveness and "Amazing Grace.” Thus my question is obvious: Where's either the charity or amazing grace in the consideration of these Holy Bishops?

Finally, one of my personal quarrels with my fellow Christians is: where is the hierarchy of sins? Ironically, the Catholic Church at one time categorized sins as venial and mortal and perhaps even as "cardinal sins.” and that's the closest understanding of the hierarchy of sins I've ever known about! It's my guess that there's little likelihood that Joe Biden has ever indulged in abortion except agreeing with the proposition that the right of abortion is personal rather than governmental and that the extent to which government should get involved in abortion activities solely reflects the right of the individual.

In closing, it's my understanding that one of the first twelve human beings to receive communion from Christ in that upper room was an Apostle named Judas Iscariot! If Judas Iscariot was eligible to receive communion from Jesus (whom he was apparently about to betray), certainly Joe Biden is worthy of Christ's grace, is he not?

Perhaps I just don't understand what I ought to grasp. If you like, you can straighten me out!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY 

THE INTUITIVE PSYCHOLOGIST? HEY, THAT'S BOTH YOU AND ME!

By Edwin Cooney

Hey there, don't try pulling the wool over my eyes, ‘cause I know you like I know me. Don't tell me you've never tried to understand who someone is by their behavior even though you have little or no psychological training! After all, I've done it thousands of times and even if you're only half the sinner I am, that's plenty of sinning!

That's why I paid attention to the obituary of Dr. Lee Ross by Alex Traub which I read last week in the New York Times. Back about 1977, young Dr. Ross wrote a piece he titled "The Intuitive Psychologist and His Short Comings." The substance of his book was what he termed "The Fundamental Attribution Error." So, you may well ask, what the hell is an “attribution error?"

The answer to that question is simple. Whenever or almost whatever and, especially, whoever we try and understand and assess, we ultimately attribute who they are by their personhood rather than by the circumstances that affect who they ultimately are.

Ross's work has increasingly been utilized by modern professors, psychologists and writers. The theory of fundamental attribution error compels one to take into account the social circumstances rather than the actions or personality under consideration.

We who attempt to understand the factors that have influenced historical movements and events too often focus on the personalities of individual leaders rather than on the factors that influenced those leaders who directed historical events. It's not enough to simply label the Kennedy Administration the “era of Camelot,” LBJ's time as "The Great Society," the Reagan Administration as "Morning in America,” or even the Trump Administration as “the era of damnation and disaster" which millions of Biden Democrats might be inclined to do — me included.

The question, as stated above, is to what might we profitably attribute historical events? The answer to that question broadly speaking is knowledge of and an understanding of the forces social, economic, political and spiritual that cause people to respond. It's all too easy to react to what happens in front of you (and sometimes it's absolutely necessary to respond to what's in front of you), but the truth might be that the cause of what you see is something you'll never know.

As Alex Traub writes in his obituary of Dr. Ross, you may be waiting in line when someone jumps ahead of you to obtain a product or benefit from a service. You're reaction to this "rudeness" is likely to consist of labeling this line-jumper as a jerk — the type who would snatch candy away from a baby or trip Santa Claus. The truth might be, however, that this line-jumper may be someone who's desperate to get to the airport to catch a flight to visit and comfort someone in his or her family who is dying.

Above, I listed and characterized the Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Trump administrations using judgmental terms by which they're generally recognized. The more truly informative and real question about these administrations is what forces, hopes, fears and ambitions brought them about thus causing them to function as they did?

Dr. Lee Ross's “fundamental attribution error” is applicable in relations personal and impersonal, conflicts local, state, regional, national as well as international.

I offer the following, although this is very personal, because it best illustrates the damage and even uncertainty that Fundamental Attribution Error brings about. I have never been able to learn what compelled my biological mother to keep me permanently separated from her and my two half sisters! To what was she subjected? What did she believe or not believe that led her to respond to my personal existence as she did? I've always wanted to know what she went through that caused her to "include me out" as one comic once put another dangerous circumstance! My life is permanently affected by mores and events I'll never know about!

If we could more readily employ Fundamental Attribution Integrity rather than Fundamental Attribution Error as we seek to understand our history and ourselves, the prospects for tomorrow would be as bright and shiny as a newly minted Abraham Lincoln penny!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE MAGNET THAT DRAWS AND DRAWS!

By Edwin Cooney

I can barely abide the 45th President of the United States. His persona, his name and even his voice are pretty hard for me to take at all comfortably!

I'll start from the beginning when I noticed him during the 2016 campaign. As it became pretty evident that not even disclosure of his tawdry outlook toward women was going to eliminate him from contention for the presidency, I interpreted his staying power to the weakness of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

His victory on November 8th, 2016 made it pretty clear to me that the failure of  the Clinton campaign, which was indeed pretty clumsy, had made Donald John Trump President-elect of the United States. After five and a half dreary and contentious years, I think I've finally hit upon the root of his appeal.

Before coming right out and telling you what I believe to be Mr. Trump's drawing power, I must begin by disillusioning two groups of Americans — Liberals and Conservatives.

Trump is not only neither of these two political and ideological entities, he's an entity all to himself as were some other willful international leaders in decades not too distant. Lenin and Castro rode Marx's ideology to the top of their bodies politic and Hitler manufactured his own party by linking socialism and Germanic nationalism together, but each of these three rose largely on the strength and dynamism of their personalities.

All of these men succeeded not because they were politically creative or clever, but rather, simply because they dared!

From as far back as I can remember, I've heard people wonder why we didn't more frontally challenge the Russians when we have always had the sufficiently superior technology to prevail. Why have we allowed racial minorities to threaten domestic tranquility when we've always had sufficient police power to say "no" and make it stick. Why have we not controlled large pharmacies when it comes to overpricing medical necessities when our government has the power to negotiate contracts with those who cooperate and deny companies who insist on overpricing medicines and other medical necessities.

Most Americans believe that success is about practicalities more than about ideology,. Besides, ideologies are invariably the playtoy of academicians who don't do “real” work and thus have a lot of time on their hands.   

If it itches, any Trumpite will simply tell you to scratch it. If someone pushes you, push them back. Never mind what their ethnicity, the color of their skin, or their political faith might be. Live on instinct! Don't explain — just do!

Mr. Trump has been pretty cagey when it comes to history and to politics. After all, according to his own evaluation, he was the “best president we’ve ever had” with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. Exactly where Ronald Reagan comes in is a matter Mr. Trump doesn't have to discuss with anyone. The Bushes, Reagans, Fords, and most certainly the McCains have nothing on Donald Trump.

The man's audacity is both his message and his promise. Donald Trump knows what makes a lot of people angry and therefore, on their behalf, he's sure his outrage, even more than any solution, will make them glad! Practicality will invariably bring outcomes not achievable by mere ideological politicians.

To sum it all up, Donald Trump succeeds for one reason and one reason alone.

More than any other politician since perhaps Huey Long who advocated redistributing the wealth during the 1930s, Donald Trump dares to dare.

Only a Donald Trump possesses the audacity to dominate the party of Ronald Reagan by insisting he's closer to Abraham Lincoln than even the"Great Communicator” himself! Only Donald Trump possesses the audacity to overthrow a constitutionally-elected president and insist that once he regains power he will faithfully "preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution which he recently violated! Donald John Trump doesn't explain, he just does!

The question remains, will his audacity ultimately pay off? I'm audacious enough to think I have the answer to that question! 

It's only my opinion, but I'll tell you what it is sometime!!!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY