Elective Despotism

There can be no doubt regarding the outcome of this election; nor can there be any excuses for it.  All knew what had been said, and promised, by the victor.  All knew what he had done.  It can't be claimed we didn't know what would happen.  It simply didn't matter to the majority of us let alone in the strange world of the electoral college.

The pundits speculate regarding the reasons for the outcome.  It's what they and the media in general do--speculate, endlessly.  Also, now, they assess blame for the outcome.  

The simple fact is that the electorate has elevated to the presidency someone who said he will govern or attempt to govern as a despot, and those who support him are intent on using the power of government to make people behave as they deem appropriate, contrary to the principles of traditional conservatism.  This is the will of the majority.

An elective despotism, in other words.  Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, thought that this is not the form of government the Founding Fathers fought for, and I think he knew what he was saying.  Regardless, it seems to be the form of government the majority of us want.

Perhaps Mencken was right when he wrote that the people don't want liberty, but instead want security.  So, they want a president who is the kind of "Big Daddy" the Abrahamic religions worship as God--someone strong who will put down those who are different, and take care of us if we obey.  Judging from the political ads which were issued by the president elect and his supporters, it was believed that a win by the Democratic candidate would mean that gays and transexuals would multiply, and indeed be created through surgery.  Burly transgenders would dominate girls and women sports.  Fentanyl distributing immigrants would lurk in the streets, living on money diverted to them by the government, eating pets when not killing Americans.

People don't want to be told what to do.  Most of all it seems to me that they don't want to be told that ways of living they dislike are appropriate and that their dislike is a sign of ignorance and bigotry. This seems to be what I've called in this blog the Missionary Media is eager to communicate, though, and I can't help but wonder if that insistence on the part of media and entertainment writers of making traditional morals seem antiquated and immoral played a part in the outcome of the election and the intent to use government to repress non-traditional lifestyles.

Unfortunately, if I'm right and many of those who voted for the president-elect are people who don't want to be told what to do, those people now want to tell other people what they should not do.  And they want a president who will make sure they don't do what they shouldn't do.

The creation of the American Republic was a kind of experiment.  This will be an experiment of another sort.                                            

"Let's to it pell-mell..."

 

According to dictionaries I've seen, to do something pell-mell is to do it in a confused, disorderly manner.  Pictured above is a copy of a painting by William Trego called The Pell-Mell Charge.  I'm uncertain whether it's intended to portray the charge depicted as being confused and disorderly, or to indicate that the result of the charge is a confused, disorderly fight.  One would think an effort would be made to avoid a confused, disorderly charge.

The title of this post is a portion of a sentence appearing in Shakespeare's Richard III.  It's from a speech given by the character Richard to his troops prior to the final battle of his kingship.  The full quote is: "Let's to it pell-mell; if not to heaven, then hand in hand in hell."  In this context I think going to battle "pell-mell" means rushing to it defiantly and recklessly, without care but with wild fury.

On a silly note before indulging in grim reflection, I note that "pell-mell" is not to be confused with Pall Malls cigarettes, renowned by ad writers in days past for their "natural mildness."  Pall Mall cigarette packs were emblazoned, inexplicably I think, with the motto In hoc signo vinces (in this sign, conquer) which is said to have appeared along with a cross in a vision granted to Constantine the Great before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.  It's a kind of curse to be saddled with a memory which recalls such trivia.

I find myself thinking that voting in the forthcoming election for president is something best done pell-mell.  If we don't find ourselves in heaven after it takes place, then at least we should be hand in hand in hell.  Voting in this case is a kind of expression of defiance; defiance of the misinformation, deceit, venality, malice, pomposity, dithering, group-thinking and ignorance which has typified the campaigning and media coverage of this freak show, 24/7 as we like to say.  It's clear to me that one of the candidates is despicable, a horror inflicted on the nation, but how to explain or even understand the fact that a significant number of people favor him without condemning them as dupes or evil actors, something which should be avoided in characterizing one's countrymen or countrywomen (or whatever they think themselves to be)?

But in these times, is it possible or prudent to believe what we hear, read or see regarding the election or, indeed, anything else transpiring as related in the media or in social media?  So much of what is communicated can be manipulated now.  Lying is ubiquitous, unsurprisingly as most of us are exceedingly gullible--why bother learning or speaking what is true in this climate, where so many are compelled to believe whatever they think satisfying, or whatever is repeated endlessly?  We must vote our conscience no matter how confused and disorderly our politics has become.

Ultimately, it may be that now all we can rely on in making a judgment is the character of the candidates as presented.  Not that character cannot be faked; it can.  But one of the candidates hasn't tried to hide his nature and his plans.  He may be incapable of doing so, being so perfect in his self-regard, so convinced of his own superiority and the homage of his followers, and the craven nature of those who are members of the political party he has corrupted.  And the character displayed is that of someone who shouldn't be trusted with power over others.

So, let's to it pell-mell.  We'll get the president we deserve; and let's hope we're not undeserving of a good one.

Reflections on the Glass Ceiling

It's been some time since I posted here.  Much has happened worthy of comment, but I've felt no real desire to do so.  Call it a kind of disgust at worst, resignation at best.  Despite the fact that the presidential contest has become more interesting, I remain baffled by the fact that the Republican candidate remains popular with many of the voters here in God's Favorite Country.  It's a testament to the fact that a liar--not just any liar but a kind of titan or demi-god of lying, though the argument can be made that he's simply vastly deluded--can capture the hearts and minds of people who are citizens of our Great Republic. It doesn't speak well for us.

But I feel inclined to comment on the metaphor of the "Glass Ceiling" normally used to refer to a sort of invisible barrier which, wrongly, prevents certain people from achieving a higher place in the hierarchy in question.  More specifically, it refers to that barrier which will, presumably, be demolished if a woman is elected president of our Glorious Union.

The fabled Glass Ceiling figured in an earlier presidential election, as we all recall.  If I remember correctly a representation of it was on display, ready to be broken, at the campaign headquarters of Hilary Clinton on election night in 2016.  But while it seems her victory was anticipated, it remained unbroken.  Too much was taken for granted.

We males have historically been confused in our understanding of women generally, but especially in particular where politics and positions or events of importance are concerned.  It's interesting to consider whether our conception of them is most unrealistic and inaccurate when we become consumed by the belief that they are either inferior or superior to men; either better or worse than men.

If a Glass Ceiling exists preventing them from obtaining positions of power or importance, one would think it does because they're considered inferior in certain respects; or at least lacking in certain respects or by nature unable to be adequately concerned with certain matters.  But a Glass Ceiling also may be a barrier even when they're considered superior to men.

They have been considered superior to or better than men throughout our history in specific ways.  Most obviously they've been so thought of with respect to raising children and minding a home.  For a very long time that was considered to be their place in life, an obvious inference some thought from the fact that women, not men, bear children.  That view in itself would be sufficient to create a Glass Ceiling.

They've also been considered superior throughout our history, again in specific ways.

Sometimes, this conception of superiority is expressed by implication, sometimes expressly.  Boethius, for example, portrayed Philosophy (capital "p") as a woman, come to chide him for his weakness when a captive of Theodoric the Great.  She recalled him to Philosophy, and the knowledge that success, fame, fortune, persecution and death were trivial things, like life on Earth in general.  She was the incarnation of Philosophy, the best of us, in his Consolation of Philosophy which he wrote while imprisoned.  It's to be hoped she provided him some consolation while he was bludgeoned to death by his captors.

Dante in his Divine Comedy was guided by the pagan Virgil through Hell and Purgatory, but of course a pagan could not enter the kingdom of heaven and so the woman, or spirit of a woman, named Beatrice was his guide in Paradise.  Beatrice may or may not have been based on the woman, also named Beatrice, Dante loved in a courtly fashion--which is to say not physically.  In any event she served to represent religious faith, grace, enlightenment and love as portrayed in this work, a higher being than Dante himself, and men in general.

Then there is Goethe, who ended his Faust with an idealized woman redeeming the protagonist, and the words "Eternal Woman (or the Eternal Feminine) draws us upward." (Das Ewig-Weibliche ziet uns hinan).  Woman is in a sense nobler, more attuned to God, wiser, more spiritual than man; a kind of goddess.  This is Goethe's Faust; Christopher Marlow in his Doctor Faustus ended his play by having him dragged down to Hell where he damn well belonged.

But this perception of women as better...sometimes much better...then men also serves to bar her from earthly affairs such as politics and business and the professions because she's JUST TOO GOOD.  A woman cannot bear with or make decisions regarding the matters and people which and who must be dealt with, let alone serve as a commander in war.  Hence women are precious, to be protected, put on the proverbial pedestal.

So the Glass Ceiling where women are concerned is the result of conceiving of them as both superior and inferior to men.  Kipling of course took a different approach.  He famously wrote that the female of the species is more deadly than the male.  This interesting view seems to be based on a portrayal of women as reckless and even fanatic in some respects and in some manner, related primarily to the protection of the family.  But again, this would disqualify women from reasonably making decisions that must be made in the world of affairs.

Perhaps we're just too enamored with categorizing in our thinking.  Perhaps this tendency is a kind of bequest to posterity by Aristotle, that Relentless Categorizer.  That hinders us in our acceptance of possibilities.  The Glass Ceiling may be broken if we can recognize each other as humans, far more alike than different.

Let's Kill all the Pundits

Shakespeare's line "Let's kill all the lawyers" has attained a certain popularity, due to the fact that lawyers are, surprisingly, unpopular.  So many things and people are these days, of course, so perhaps this is a suggestion applicable to others as well.  

In fact, Shakespeare was writing of a plan to establish an autocracy.  It was recommended that the lawyers be killed as a first step of the plan.  Perhaps lawyers were actually being praised, then, as protectors of the freedom and rights of the people.  If so, I doubt whether that conception is very widespread now, though the recommendation still is.

I propose that this sentiment is more properly applicable to political pundits.  They infest the media.  They're omnipresent, and I can't understand why.

If news consists of the reporting of events of importance, it no longer exists, if indeed it ever did.  It would be refreshing if that actually took place.  More significantly, it would be useful without being merely the expression of opinions and speculation.  Imagine if what was reported in the media were merely events and actions.  For example, it would be noted that so-and-so gave a speech somewhere, at some time.  The content of the speech wouldn't be described.  In most cases, the content may be inferred in any event, as political speeches are largely repetitive.  The speech itself wouldn't be broadcasted.  What joy!

We would no longer be subjected to the ponderings and speculations of those deemed experts.  Several of them are now produced whenever anything happens.  Questions are asked of them by whomever it is that's supposedly reporting the news, and they respond.  Sometimes those selected disagree, but in most cases they agree.  We're told they know what they're talking about.

For me, the inherent fault of this manner of reporting the news is that for the most part, the news itself isn't reported, or is at best merely noted as fodder for an extended discussion.  Instead, what some person or other thinks about the news and their interpretation of it and its consequences is reported, and in detail.

My difficulty is that I don't particularly care what that person thinks.  They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but if I wanted to know them, I'd seek them out in some fashion.  That they're foisted on me by media lackeys is something I resent.

Then one must recognize that these experts may be stupid, ignorant, in someone's pocket or prejudiced.  They may not in fact be experts. In simple words, their opinions and statements may be wrong.  Why, then, are they presented as news?  Why dignify them?  Why give them influence?  Why foster the belief that what they say is factual...is in fact news?

It may be too late now to stop the ascension of punditry.  It must have become a kind of trade or industry by now.  People no doubt hold themselves out as experts willing to squawk obligingly and winningly on the various "news" networks and make a good deal of money for doing so.  It's no longer the news that's important; it's what a select group of people think about the news.

 

The State of Gracelessness

As shown above, "gracelessness" has two meanings, one being secular, the other religious.  Our state, I propose, is one of gracelessness in both senses.

According to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, grace in its religious sense is of two different kinds.  It's first a kind of favor or boon of the Almighty, encouraging us to seek and obtain what's needed to become Children of God; it's then what the soul has as a result.  Note the favor--we're not worthy of being God's children to begin with, presumably because of Original Sin.  So God in his goodness must provide the opportunity.  If we accept the gift given, then we may enter heaven, though most of us must burn, though full of hope, in Purgatory before we have access to it.  If we don't, then to Hell with us.  We're irretrievably nasty.  We are as is noted above, depraved, corrupt.

A person is graceless in the secular sense if lacking elegance.  A graceless person is clumsy, has no sense of propriety, and is lacking in wit and socially awkward; in a word, is unattractive.  An oaf.

That we're graceless in a secular sense is established by many things and in many ways.  Most publically perhaps it's apparent from the popularity of the personage I'll call for purposes of this post "Agent Orange" (or should that be Aging Orange?).  Now matched with a baby-faced clone or Mini-Me, he is to all appearances gracelessness incarnate.  His demeanor and speech may also be described as ugly.  His efforts at wit are mere insults; so for that matter are his efforts at argument.  He's boastful and crude.  His followers are equally crass when they're not simply moral cowards who lack the courage to defy him or denounce him publicly.  

It's unsurprising that his followers treat education as something secondary, and seek to regulate it.  It's also unsurprising that their attacks on the person who is now Agent Orange's opponent involve fearmongering related to education.  Education may expose people to grace in the secular sense.  If there is one thing they fear in particular, it's that their children may be different than they are.  Because of the American fascination with sex, their primary concern is that their children will be different from them sexually, but they fear also that through education they'll become less ignorant of the world than they think they should be, and be exposed to people and ideas different from them as well.

That we're graceless in a more religious, less secular sense is apparent given the examples, or perhaps more properly the exemplars, of depravity and corruption littering our social culture.  It's significant that the most prominent exemplars are Justices of our Supreme Court.  One of them complains he's not being paid enough though the Court is in session for only nine months of a year, perhaps seeking to explain his propensity to accept handouts.  But perhaps the most prominent of the examples of our depravity and corruption are, I think, the amounts being spent in connection with out elections.  One can't help but wonder how such money should be spent.  Imagine if it was devoted to remedying poverty or repairing infrastructure, instead of assuring the election of compliant and complicit servants, and those who promise to benefit those donating funds.

Of course that won't happen.  

I won't dwell on whether were offered grace by God, though I think it clear that any God who is what we claim God should be would have tired by now of trying to encourage us to make our souls full of sanctifying grace as it's called, and that any God of the kind I would find worthy of reverence isn't one who would make our salvation dependent on whether we accept his favors rather than, for example, being virtuous in our lives.

But it seems clear enough to me that we live in a state of gracelessness here in our Great Republic (for now).

 

On A Carousel

Oswald Spengler, a kind of historian and philosopher of the early to mid-20th century, wrote a book called The Decline of the West.  Being German, he was unable to keep himself from using words like "being" and "becoming" as he wrote what he called, modestly, his complete explanation of world history--the only true one, others being counterfeit.   It strikes me that his initially interesting insight that human history was organic thereby degenerated into a kind of mysticism.  He opined that we pass through inevitable and successive phases of time he described as "culture" and "civilization."  The latter is an aspect of decline.  In antiquity, Greece was a "culture" and Rome a "civilization."  The modern West he thought had entered into the "civilization" phase which he predicted would be governed by "Caesarism" much as Rome was after the Republic, for the next couple of hundred years.

I'm leery of efforts at constructing grand, all-encompassing explanations of complicated phenomena, but think there is an element of truth in the claim that our history is in some sense cyclical, which is to say that we repeat ourselves, swinging pendulum-like from one extreme of social consciousness to another.  I'm inclined to attribute this to an inability to learn and to think, however.  This isn't to our credit, but it generates optimism of a sort--we can at least imagine that the current fad for autocracy and sameness, and the repression of contrasting views and lifestyles, will dissipate in time, as we ride the carousel of our history.

Thus, the prospect of an aging, scatter-brained and astonishingly self-centered snake-oil salesman becoming president once more need not terrify us, and it may be hoped that no permanent harm will be done to the nation.  The recent, relentlessly clownish, convention might merely be a tawdry circus rather than a horrifying glimpse of things to come.  

But assuming we survive the upcoming election as something resembling a Republic, what kind of a nation will we be?  We already are an oligarchy, or more properly a plutocracy.  Our legislators are for sale; the justices of our high court look for handouts and appear more and more like panhandlers wearing black robes.  What do we call a nation governed by gluttons and hoarders?  I don't think Aristotle came up with a term for a land of Trimalchios.  

We must emulate Montaigne, who wrote: "Not being able to govern events, I govern myself, and if they will not adapt to me, I adapt to them."  We must become nations in ourselves.  Not like the silly so-called "sovereign citizens" who live in a fantasy world much like a roleplay game, but rather as individuals mindful of their own interests and seeking peaceful co-existence with others but taking intelligent steps and making intelligent decisions for their own protection.

It'll Never Stop Being '68

My apologies to the Anderson Council, but the year 1968 comes to mind easily now, given the circumstances in our Glorious Union.  Another assassination attempt, a Democratic Party in chaos, lines drawn along with guns throughout the nation, a convention coming up in Chicago...surely it must be time again for whatever it may be called that we do when we stop thinking and start shouting about good and evil.

We know how things turned out in 1968.  It's hard not to think things will be worse this time around as to all appearances we're even more gullible than we were then.  Not surprisingly, the media seems to participate and even delight in stirring the pot.  It's promulgation of horror stories and blame is incessant.  It's as if a Conspiracy Theory of Everything is being sought by everyone.  The shooter in the most recent example of American assassination culture would in other circumstances be called crazy, and his possession of the mass murderers' weapon of choice explained away as unavoidable, but in these circumstances given his target will no doubt be blamed on his target's opponent or the Dark State at work to remove him.

The gluttons and hoarders who dominate our society thrive on chaos, as chaos breeds fear and when we fear we spend money, generally on things they sell.  The legal climate is such that the regulation of what they sell will be more and more unrestricted.  The power of the presidency is being increased by a remarkably detached Supreme Court, wrapped in scented cotton wool, members of which now spend too much of their time seeking handouts.

Stoicism provides some comfort, as it teaches us that a world increasingly outside of our control shouldn't disturb us unreasonably.  But the bulk of us will be disturbed by what is to come, and being disturbed will want to disturb others if they can.

Age, Infirmity and the Presidency

This isn't the first time questions regarding the competence of a president have been raised, but it hasn't happened very often.  In 1919, Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke.  It was a serious one, and left him partially paralyzed, physically disabled in other respects as well, and it seems impacted his personality if not his intelligence.  His condition was kept secret, or as much so as it could be.  All communication with him passed through his wife and his doctor.  He died five years later at age 67.

I'm older now than he was when he died, so I'd rather not attribute his incapacity to his age.  In fact, it seems it was not, and may be more accurately thought of as the result of his general health, the pressure of the presidency and war, the failure of his hopes at Versailles and on his return to Washington, the disapproval of the treaty and the League of Nations.

The current president is older than Wilson was and older than I am.  I'm inclined to think he has suffered impairment due to age, though the extent of the impairment is unknown to me.  Unfortunately, it seems his impairment was kept hidden as well.  I didn't see the notorious debate, but from what I'm told his performance was shocking.  It's shocking as well that he was permitted to participate if those who know him well were aware of the problem.  If there is in fact such a problem, it would be irresponsible to ignore it.

It must be obvious that a president should be competent, if not proficient.  Neither of the present candidates appear to be, however.  Chances are better that the incumbent would be surrounded with competent people; competent people who served the former president during his administration fled from it after a time, and it isn't likely any will flock to a new one if he's elected.  He prefers willing, unquestioning followers in any case. 

The difficulty we face, though, is that while it is irresponsible to ignore significant cognitive decline, it may be even more irresponsible to improve the chances of someone who is irresponsibility incarnate; someone without scruples or principles.  If, then, a replacement is appropriate, that replacement should be one capable of winning the election.  The Democratic Party isn't teeming with stars.  Nor is the Republican Party, of course, but it doesn't want stars, having opted to submit to one person only.

Even so, under the circumstances I think that someone younger and aggressive would be preferable.  It pains me to say it, but old white men have had their day.  Age effects people differently, of course, but the presidency is taxing and our physical and mental fitness when it comes to the abilities required to lead a country by conduct rather than by the example of wisdom and virtue decline.

In our times, however, we must wonder whether the media, professional and social, has created this crisis of leadership.  The significance of the debate was hyped incessantly, nearly every moment leading up to the event.  Having treated it with such importance, the media has no choice but to tout its result, and make that of the greatest importance as well.  A good argument can be made that we are where we are due to the machinations of the media.

The Disesteemed Court

They saved their worst for last.  Though it seems hard to believe given the quality of some of their earlier decisions this term, the majority of the Justices left to the end three of the more stunning opinions issued by an increasingly demeaned institution--those regarding presidential immunity, federal administrative law and what are called "bump stocks."

The majority opinions in these cases seem to be contrived.  That is to say, they appear to have been prepared not through a process of reasoning, but instead in support of a desired result.  The rationales employed strike me as examples of special pleading.  The Justices making up the majority agree on an end to be achieved, and direct their clerks (who do the bulk of the research and writing) to find caselaw and, where necessary, other authority supporting that end.  This is something lawyers do all the time, of course, in the service of clients.  But while one is justified in expecting that the Justices, or at least their clerks, are familiar with the law and what lawyers do (which may be wishful thinking in some cases), there's also an expectation that they will transcend special pleading and make an impartial decision, not one that is consistent with their belief of what is appropriate.  

But more and more we see a court filled with unabashed ideologues and toadies of the wealthy and special interests which appeal to their vanity and, it's sad to say, their expectation of rewards. They feel entitled to reward for having been placed in a position which promises to them perpetual employment in an exalted position which many of the well-to-do see as rendering them very useful to their quest to become even more well-to-do and powerful.

Immunity from criminal prosecution isn't something to be easily and broadly granted to public servants.  Even in the time of the Roman Republic, officials and magistrates were immune only during their term of office.  Once that term expired or was otherwise terminated, they could be prosecuted for their actions taken while, e.g. consul or governor.  During the Republic, private citizens could bring prosecutions.  A Roman magistrate was thus much more exposed to prosecution than any official could be now.  

The fact that no former president has been subject to prosecution until now indicates that this isn't something that is likely to occur, so it's difficult to understand why the need for immunity is pressing or why it should be of such a concern.  Just what is it that a president could do which requires the protection of absolute immunity from prosecution?  In what way would the possibility of prosecution hinder a president?  A case in which a former president is prosecuted for electoral fraud, or for mishandling classified documents doesn't raise concerns that prosecutions for the performance of official or significant acts will be forthcoming.  A prosecution for encouraging a riot or insurrection is similarly one which we may expect not to arise often.

It's true that presidents are not protected in the case of unofficial duties by reason of the recent decision, but there is nothing in our history or in the law which indicates absolute immunity for "official" action was ever contemplated by the Founders or anyone else.  That is characteristic protection of a monarch or autocrat, something those who established this nation sought to avoid.  And if, as must be acknowledged, the president has an obligation to enforce the laws of the United States, and preserve, protect and defend its Constitution, how would it be possible for a president to be immune from conduct contrary to those laws or the Constitution?  Such conduct could easily be described as "official" however according to the majority opinion, if it involved making use of the authority of the office of the president.

Requiring lower courts to determine what is or is not official assures that the law in this respect will be uncertain and confused until such time as the Supreme Court itself takes on the burden it refuses to take on now, but instead foists on others.  It is a recipe for chaos.  Having created such a standard, it seems cowardly to leave it to others to determine its meaning and consequences.

The majority's opinion in the Chevron case, considered in combination with the Trump case, suggests that it has little regard for the lower courts which must now cope with the problems which will result.  District Courts will now have to grapple with cases which normally would be handled by the agencies themselves or administrative tribunals.  District Courts are overwhelmed by litigation already; what will happen to them now is anyone's guess.  It would be interesting to determine whether the current Justices have any experience in the actual litigation of cases in court, or any appreciation of the time and expense required to obtain a decision.

The bump stock case represents a kind of exaltation of minutia, a focus on definition over all else which is an expression of the Court's increasing detachment from the reality of life in the United States.  The Justices have become monks of sorts.  They sit secure and isolated in the Court, which has become a kind of monastery in which they and their clerks and staff peruse scriptures and commentaries, issuing bans and proclamations which rule our lives, without concern for the consequences. 

 

Ideology, Morality and the Law

I've been a lawyer for many years.  A practicing lawyer has little time to devote to a review of the status of the law in general, being concerned with its application to certain circumstances.  So, my focus on the law and the legal system has usually been narrow--what law applies to a given matter, what does it say, how is it to the advantage or disadvantage of the client, is the judge experienced with such cases?

In order for the status of the law or legal system in general to rouse the concern of the practicing lawyer, some significant event must take place which "shocks the conscience" of an attorney.  That's a legal phrase used for the most part to refer to something egregious which provokes someone or something, usually a court, to call for or provide a remedy.  

It may be that the technology of our times, which allows for the communication of information and opinions instantly and in a ubiquitous fashion, brings such events to our attention more frequently than in the past, but I think that there are more and more instances of conduct on the part of lawyers and judges that shock the conscience than there have been in the past.

Consider the many lawyers who pursued baseless claims of fraud related to the 2020 election.  Consider the conduct of Justices of the Supreme Court which have been mentioned in this blog, news of which seems to appear on almost a daily basis, which raise questions of ethics and impartiality.  Consider the actions of a novice Federal District Court Judge ignoring the recommendations of senior judges that she should recuse herself from a matter in which the defendant appointed her to the federal bench, and the eagerness with which she delays the trial of the matter to the benefit of the defendant.  

Unfortunately, it's likely that corruption based on financial inducement has always been a feature of the legal system.  The extent of that corruption varies with time and place, but it would be foolish to think it has never been a factor.  It's also likely that the legal system benefits the rich and powerful more than it does others, and has always done so.

But I don't recall ideology (including religious ideology) playing so large and obvious a part in the law while I've been a lawyer, until lately.  There were complaints aplenty by conservatives regarding liberal judges, particularly during the 1960s, but ideology then wasn't broadcast, and indeed flaunted, like it is now. I suspect this is the case because the law is being treated by some of us more and more as enforcing and imposing a religious code of conduct, or at least one which purports to impose moral standards by law.  When that isn't expressly stated to be the motivation behind laws and legal decisions, those political agents perceived to favor particular moral standards are favored by them.

More and more we see reference made by legislators and judges to religion, and most especially the Christian religion.  Most recently, the State of Louisiana, admittedly never known for its tolerance or respect of minorities or their opinions in most instances, required by law that the Ten Commandments be displayed (if not brandished) in every public school room.  As noted elsewhere in this blog, a Supreme Court Justice has said he considers the function of the law to return the nation to godliness.  The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court justified a 19th century law banning abortion on the fact that the people of that State justly feared the wrath of God.  

H.L. Mencken, the legendary Sage of Baltimore, noted in the quote appearing atop this post that whoever attempts to impose moral conduct on others through the law is most likely a scoundrel.  I think this is true.  Those who claim that the law should be used to impose morality, I would maintain, don't do so because they wish to promote morality, but because they seek to impose rules which favor them, their beliefs, their property, their power, and control the conduct of others who may threaten them--including that of their children.  

History is full of moral hypocrisy; the self-proclaimed holy and self-righteous who are found to violate the code of conduct they claim should apply to humanity in general are common.  But the corrupt won't hesitate to question the morality of those who stand in their way or disagree with them.  

So the statements made by legislators and judges are more and more essentially a shrill condemnation of conduct they oppose on moral grounds, rather than a reasoned consideration of the rules of law and the circumstances, and the civil rights of others.  

 

When Judges are Pharisees

A Pharisee is defined by Google's Dictionary source identified as Oxford Languages as "a member of an ancient Jewish sect distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity."  The words "a self-righteous person" and "hypocrite" are also used in the definition.

When thinking of a Pharisee as so defined, I can't help but think of certain judges who at least purport to strictly observe traditional and written law and are sanctimonious.  Certain Justices of the Supreme Court as well, I blush to admit.

Recently. two of the Justices, and the spouse of one of them, made some remarks at a gathering of some kind of something called "the Supreme Court Historical Society" which were surreptitiously recorded by someone "posing as a conservative."  I'm not sure what's involved in posing as a conservative, but in this case it seems making statements against abortion and supportive of (Christian, presumably) religion sufficed for that purpose.  

The statements sufficed, at least, to elicit remarks from the Justice to the effect that the nation should be restored to "godliness" and was doomed to be ruled by the left or the right, no compromise being possible.  The Justice's spouse was more voluble, bemoaning the controversy over flags flown at the Alito properties, which she seems to find incomprehensible if not maliciously intended, and expressing condemnation of the LGBT community and Pride month.  She expressed the hope of flying a flag featuring the Sacred Heart of Jesus, evidently in response to those in the LGBT community or those who support them.

I don't know why anyone would consider the emblem of the Sacred Heart an expression of condemnation of the LGBT community or of anyone, for that matter.  By my understanding, it's used to represent Christ's love and compassion.  It takes a peculiar kind of person to believe it represents intolerance and exclusion.

But Pharisees are peculiar.  At least, the Gospels indicate Christ thought them to be.  The picture at the top of this post shows the Pharisee and the tax collector, who figure in a parable from the Gospel of Luke.  In that parable, the Pharisee thanks God for making him a good man, unlike the tax collector and other mean and sinful folk.  The tax collector confesses his sins to God, and begs for his mercy.  The Pharisee is full of pride and is self-righteous, and is condemned by Christ as a result.

Like Pharisees, there are judges (and others) who believe they know what godliness is, and think themselves uniquely qualified to know what it is and impose it on others.  They ascribe their own limitations of intelligence and character to God.  Their vision is a narrow one, their sympathies are congested; there are no questions that are open to inquiry; all has been answered.  Oddly, such judges abhor judging.  What's to be judged?  It's merely a question of knowing what's already been decided (though not if it was decided anew--what's been decided was decided long ago and cannot be improved upon.

The other Justice was intelligent enough to resist the temptation to be pharisaical, and it may be hoped even that he isn't a Pharisee.  Pharisees, as we see from the parable, like to expound on their own godliness.  Pharisees like some judges and others, are exhibitionists of a sort.  They are shamelessly good.  They're so convinced of their righteousness they think it should be displayed, exposed to all.

Poor, Poor Pitiful US(A)

Demagogues have been the subjects of contempt since ancient times.  But as worthy as they are of disdain, and as able as they may be in persuading those who follow them, we shouldn't neglect to note that those that do are themselves pitiful creatures at best, and despicable at their worst.

Consider the reaction of the myrmidons and lackeys of the most prominent demagogue of our times to his recent conviction after a long jury trial.  His own reaction is predictably self-pitying, whiny and hyperbolic, so dully repetitive in its wild and baseless claims that it can't even qualify as outrageous, and is more rightly considered monotonous.  Their reaction, though is staggeringly craven, imbecilic, malicious and irresponsible.

Base self-interest may motivate the miserable politicians and media personalities who "assume the position" whenever he's near them and repeat his claims slavishly.  They're shameless in their pandering, even to the point of dressing as he does as we've seen--blue suits, white shirts, red ties (and of course brown noses).  They resemble the small duplicates Snow Miser and Heat Miser from The Year Without a Santa Claus. One would think that if they had any responsibility and intelligence they'd recognize their condemnation of the entire justice system can undermine our system of government, or even if they're entirely self-interested they'd at least know that in other circumstances such a view could endanger themselves.  Those whose worship of him isn't founded on self-interest and greed combined with cowardice, though, are more disturbing and alarming.

It's difficult to understand their fascination with someone who is so completely a fraud and lacking in charisma (unless a caricature of a used car salesman can be said to be charismatic).  How is it that they believe whatever he says, regardless of the fact that he never provides evidence in support of his claims?  How can they have become so invested in someone who is so self-absorbed, who considers only his own interests to the exclusion of others, as to call those who oppose him traitors?  Are they so gullible...so stupid...as to associate him with the good of the country?

It's been noted already by many that his followers resemble cult members.  I'm unfamiliar with the psychology of such people.  I would think they must be fearful, ignorant, needy, angry, irrational, easily led and dread the need to think, but beyond that I can't guess what manner of phobias or neuroses plague them.  But like the followers of such as the Reverend Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson and the fellow who was the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult (I can't remember his name) they present a danger to themselves and others.  

I don't know whether a cult in that sense exists in this case, but unthinking adherence to a sociopathic individual is perilous.  

We get the president we deserve, I think.  We get the government we deserve.  If we now think an autocracy of sorts is desirable, we're going to get it.  It would be a sad end to a remarkable nation created by remarkable men and women, though; a truly experimental effort to create a government that would secure most civil liberties and yet function in a manner as to dominate the world in many respects for many years.  Now it appears that most of us want to be dominated by someone else.  Not another nation, of course, but to be dominated by someone we're eager to worship.

Supremely Inappropriate

Not content with blaming his wife for one instance of dubious use of a flag associated with an insurrection at an Alito residence, the resourceful Justice has blamed her for another at a different Alito property.  That would be the second time he's thrown her under the bus in response to requests that he recuse himself from cases involving this incident, but not content with this misdirection he's done it yet again in his curious written response to those requests, solemnly (and unsurprisingly) declaring he need not--and indeed cannot--do so.

The notion of a judge having a duty not to recuse is one I find quite odd.  The duties a judge would have in response to a request would, I think, be to the parties involved in the case.  Justice Alito seems to think he has a duty apart from them--a duty to decide, although he's accused of bias or at least he appearance of it; indeed, perhaps because he has been so accused, and has decided himself (as he's allowed to do under the Supreme Court's unenforceable "code of ethics") that he cannot be accused of bias and is (and presumably--hopefully?-will be) impartial.

The truisms he employs in explaining he won't recuse himself are so off point it's difficult to believe he resorts to them.  Nobody has claimed his wife isn't a person, or an individual.  No one doubts she has her own opinions.  The fact she has flown other flags is neither relevant nor interesting.  The concept of joint ownership of property is well known.  No one thinks she has no right to fly a flag.  No one thinks she has no First Amendment rights.  No one doubts she was called bad things by others, nor is it maintained that neighbors did not exercise their own right to place signage on their property she found objectionable.

We may take Alito at his word that he wasn't involved in raising/flying the flags.

None of this is pertinent, and one would like to think that a Justice of the Supreme Court has the wits needed to know that's the case.  None of this is pertinent because the issue is whether, even under the toothless code which "applies," his impartiality may reasonably questioned.  Impartiality may reasonably be questioned regardless of whether it is or can be established.

Everyday people governed by codes of ethics must grapple with the question whether what they do creates the appearance of impropriety.  There's nothing unusual about this.  In most cases, honorable people feel, rightly, that when called upon to decide or participate in a decision involving their spouses professed beliefs and claims and whether they are valid or invalid, an appearance of impropriety exists.  This is because a spousal relationship is normally considered an unusually close one, in which spouses profoundly influence one another and share common interests and concerns.

Perhaps Justice Alito and his wife don't have such a relationship.  Perhaps he disdains her views, or pays no attention to what she thinks or does.  Even if that was the case, though, it would be reasonable for someone to think that they're a normal married couple, that they respect one another and know what each other do, at least in most cases.  Certainly, one would think, when it comes to flying flags over the home in which they live.

Assuming, then, what most would assume in the case of a marriage, i.e. that each partner will love, honor and respect their spouse, it's not at all unreasonable to expect that what one spouse publically declaims on matters in which the other is involved in deciding will influence the making of the decision, or will at least lead reasonable people to believe it will do so.  Pedantic recitation of each partner's individuality and legal rights isn't persuasive in such circumstances.  In fact, it seems disingenuous, and even dishonorable.

Supreme Court Justices seem to be doing a kind of ethical limbo dance.  How low can they go?

You Take 16 Nuns And What Do You Get?

How to complete the phrase making up the title to this post so that it matches with the song made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford?  In the circumstances, I suppose something like:  "An undersized, dubious Catholic sect."  How's that?

It's unusual for me to post about the Church twice in a single month, but I find myself fascinated by the news about 16 Spanish nuns, of the Order of St. Clare or "the Poor Clares", who have declared themselves separated from Rome and their putative superiors in the well-established Catholic hierarchy, thereby becoming a self-described sect.  The Church has had a number of sects and heretics over the centuries, but this one must be remarkable at least for its small size and the fact that it's made up of nuns.

Instead of the Pontifex Maximus (as I enjoy calling the Pope) and their duly appointed bishop, the nuns have pledged their allegiance, as it were, to a person who calls himself a bishop, Pablo de Rojas Sanchez-Franco, who was excommunicated by the Church in 2019.  The declaration or manifesto of the nuns in which their schism from the Church was announced makes it clear that they object not only to the current occupant of the Throne of St. Peter, but to all of those who have sat in it since Pius XII.

From these facts it may be inferred that the sectarian nuns are very conservative Catholics, or traditional Catholics, or perhaps best described as Catholics who utterly reject the reforms which have taken place since 1958, when Pius departed this sinful world.  And if what we read about the manifesto is correct, that certainly is the case.  I'll admit I haven't read it, and must do so.  In fact I will do so now, if I can locate it via Google.

Well, perhaps not.  It seems to be 70 pages long, and I'm having trouble finding it.  I'll read the letter to which it's attached instead.

No, I won't.  As far as I can ascertain, both the manifesto and the letter are only available in Spanish.  Perhaps there'll be a translation someday.  No doubt I won't be interested in reading it then.

There are indications in some articles I've read that the manifesto may echo criticisms of clerics of the Church's authorization of the blessing of same sex marriages.  It's uncertain whether that's true, as it may be the person who wrote the articles merely refer to that as an example of dissent in the Church.  The nuns presumably condemn this practice as well, by implication if not expressly, its authorization being given post-Pius XII.  Regardless, it appears the Sisters complain that in general, Catholic pastors have failed their flocks, leaving them exposed to the (homosexual?) wolves.

What we see here may be another example of the claimed tendency of modern Catholics to desire a return to the "halcyon days" of the Church, i.e. the days pre-Vatican II, which has been remarked on by some as I noted in a prior post.  If that's the case, this desire goes beyond the aesthetic (and perhaps sentimental) preference I have for the old forms and rituals of the Church, which I think is understandable given the dreariness of its current ritual.  It is instead, I think, a sign of a sort of atavism among Catholics.  There is it seems a desire to revert to the past, not only as to form but substance.

I wonder if this desire is a sign that many of us today seek certainty more than anything else.  Certainty of thought and doctrine, even if that means disregard of what's taking place, perhaps even the disregard of what facts and reason indicate or suggest is true, or regarding the nature of the world with which we must interact.  Adherence to a doctrine already established and unquestionable creates a sense of comfort and stability, lacking in our all-too-interesting times.  It also instills a sense of fellowship; those who accept the doctrine and the lore are part of a community, no longer alone in the face of seeming chaos.  

What can compete with such a sense of solace?

  

Under the Upside Down Flag (Alito Incognito)

It's said that displaying the picture of a Supreme Court Justice upside down is a sign of profound distress due to an emergency threatening the nation.  It may also be used as a symbol of protest.  This picture of Justice Alito was posted by here by someone.  I don't say it was me, but I take advantage of it to comment on the flying of the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, The Grand Old Flag of our Glorious Republic, The Flag Of Our Fathers, upside down at his house  in January, 2021, contemporaneous with the insurrection effort of January 6 of that year and the silly "Stop the Steal" movement related to the 2020 election.

Justice Alito when confronted with proof that this took place promptly hurled his wife under the bus, and claimed that she had done it without his knowledge or consent.  He was, it seems, unaware of events taking place at his home and of the conduct of his wife, who as far as I know has neither confirmed nor denied his gallant claim.  Alito claims she treated our flag in such a fashion because of signs on display in the yards of certain of his neighbors, which we're to believe were so offensive as to merit this call for distress, or which otherwise required that she brandish her support for the claim the 2020 election was stolen in this fashion.

It's not a persuasive claim or explanation, I think.  The Justice has displayed an ignorance of women in general in the past, but it doesn't follow from this that he was, or is, ignorant of the thoughts and actions of his wife specifically.  Also, just why anyone would think flying the flag upside down is an appropriate response to nasty neighbors is unclear.  I can't help but wonder if this was Alito acting incognito; i.e. with his identity rather thinly concealed by the person of his wife.

If hanging the flag upside down was conduct in support of the "Stop the Steal" farce or was intended to express belief that the election had been stolen, it's remarkable that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice would act in this fashion given that even at the time, as I recall, the claims made in that respect had been laughed out of courts throughout the nation.  One would think a belief in judicial impartiality and reserve would cause a reasonable person to question the basis for the assertions being made in court which various judges dismissed, and it may be expected that even the wife of a Supreme Court Justice would hold such a belief, if not the Justice himself.  But perhaps this isn't to be expected of either the Justice's wife or the Justice himself in this case.

We see at the Supreme Court as we see elsewhere in our politics and society a sense of disdain for lives different from ours and thoughts which are contrary to our own.  We also see self-righteousness of an extreme kind.  In politics and in an increasingly political judicial system, the expression of this self-righteousness is pharisaical.  

We know the Supreme Court Justices have recently refused to adopt a code of ethics similar to that which applies to other federal judges.  It seems they're serenely confidant that no such code need exist (it's to be hoped they don't think that ethics themselves are unneeded at the Supreme Court, but only in lesser courts).  We know also that another Justice and his wife have blithely accepted costly gifts from very rich friends and admirers, for the most part wealthy conservatives, and see nothing objectionable about this mooching on their part.  This kind of self-regard can be dangerous, as Supreme Court Justices, who have no term of office and whose decisions cannot be appealed, can come to think of themselves as truly supreme.

We can expect that neither Justice Thomas (whose wife supported claims of a fraudulent election) or Justice Alito will recuse themselves from cases involving the January 6th insurrection under the circumstances, of course.  

It's unsurprising that the reputation of the Supreme Court is diminishing.  Lawyers know judges better than most, and probably are no more impressed by the knowledge or characters of the current Justices than they are of most other judges of appellate courts.  They know there's nothing particularly laudable or admirable about them and their significance is simply in the power they wield.  But it strikes me that others are coming to know this as well.  Unfortunately, certain of the Justices seem bent on making certain that respect for the Court continues to dwindle.

Benevolent Dictatorship

It seems a growing number of persons in our Great Republic have come to believe it should not be a republic.  They think it may continue to be great, of course, unless they're one of those who believe it isn't great currently, but may be again, once it is no longer a republic.  

Those who think this way apparently favor a form of government more in line with autocracy or dictatorship.  They're certainly not the first to do so.  The belief that there has been or may be such a thing as a benign despot, or benevolent dictator, has a long history in our long, and sad, history.

It's an attractive belief.  We imagine someone holding near absolute or absolute power who would do the thinking for us, act in our interest, for our benefit, dispense what we think is justice, create and maintain prosperity, allow us to do what we think we should be able to do, all without hinderance from opponents or onerous regulations and requirements.  But has there ever been such a ruler, or could there be one?

Pictured above is one person who was considered a benevolent dictator, Lucius Ouinctius Cincinnatus.  He was quite literally a dictator as that was a position one could be appointed to by the Roman Senate.  The Roman dictator had unlimited authority, or imperium, but only for a specified period of time (usually 6 months).  A dictator was appointed in times of emergency.  Cincinnatus held the position twice.  When his term was up, he returned to private life.  In accordance with his legend, he's shown plowing his fields when representatives of the Senate arrive to tell him of his appointment. 

He's a model of the disinterested figure who takes up sole power solely for the benefit of the state and its citizens, and gives it up when his service to the state is done.  George Washington enjoyed being compared with him.

Later dictators weren't necessarily as popularly remembered.  Lucius Cornelius Sulla in particular is remembered as a man who brought his legions into Rome in violation of tradition, during the conflict between him and Gaius Marius, and essentially through force of arms remained dictator as long as he pleased.  During his dictatorship he proscribed all those he considered his enemies and dangerous to the patricians he favored.  He did give up his powers, though, eventually, and lived a comfortable private life until his death.  

Augustus may actually have been something close to a benevolent dictator after he seized supreme power in Rome, but was ruthless in his quest to obtain it.  The later so-called "good" emperors, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, may be called benign at least in comparison to other emperors of Rome.

In more recent history, Frederick the Great was thought of as a benevolent despot but I suspect that was because he was something of a philosopher, learned and cultured, in addition to being a great military leader, and such things played very well in the Age of Enlightenment.  Napoleon was believed to be one as well, at least by some, at least for restoring order and glory to France after the chaos of the French Revolution and the Terror.

Subsequent rulers with great power can't reasonably be considered benevolent, however.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini aren't considered benign by most, and for good reason.  It seems they were considered to be benevolent for quite some time, however.

A dictator must be considered disinterested to be benign, I think.  In other words, the ruler's goals and conduct mustn't be selfish, or favor friends and relatives, or supporters, primarily if not solely.  Likewise, enemies should be punished based on the extent the state is harmed by them.  Although great or absolute power may be exercised, it must be in the service of the state or its citizens.  Otherwise, a ruler is merely self-serving.

But what one considers a benign dictatorship is subjective, now, entirely.  And calls made for it are, sometimes blatantly, dishonest,  Those seeking power for themselves or others do lip service to justice and impartiality and patriotship, but do so in such an inane manner as to bring their credibility in question.  Just listen, and hear.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini considered liberal democracy to be a weak and ineffective form of government, too inclined to consider elements they and those like them thought to be foreign or contemptible.  Those who now dream of an autocracy replacing the democratic type of government here think much the same, judging from their comments.  They imagine absolute power applied in their favor and against others.  There's nothing benign about an autocracy which is intolerant and exclusive.  

If there is such a things as a benevolent dictatorship, that's not what's being sought or desired, here and now, and no amount of fear-mongering or misrepresentation can hide that fact.  What's being sought is a government by certain people, for certain people and of certain people.

The Tedium of Sexuality and Emoting in Narrative Art

I was watching a series on one of the streaming services which it seemed would be amusing, in an absurd and fantastic way, and which proved to be amusing, when something happened.  Certain of the characters began to display feelings for each other, by which I mean romantic and sexual feelings.  The times being what they are, the characters are gay, or are in the process of "discovering" they're gay, or bisexual, or whatever the appropriate description may be.  As would be the case for me even if the characters and relationships were irretrievably straight instead of gay, my amusement and interest diminished.  Now, alas, what was amusing and fantastic in the show will become secondary, no matter what effort is made to make the romance or sexuality exotic or, I suppose I must say it, inclusive; or, as I suppose I might say it more accurately, didactic in the manner of today's creators of narratives .

There must be something which makes the creators of narrative art, but especially the film and media arts, include at least one sexual relationship in the story being told.  That relation comes to dominate the story if only by virtue of the fact it's displayed in one way or another on many occasions as the story plays out, regardless of context.  No doubt sex is of great importance to us all and very much part of our lives, but it's as a consequence very commonplace.  Now and then a sexual relationship may be uncommon, and even extraordinary, but that's the case only rarely.  It strikes me that sexuality and sexual/romantic relations are therefore not subjects of great art and shouldn't be.

Think of great films.  Which of them centered on a sexual/romantic relationship?  Which of them involved such a relationship or relationships not in passing, noting or referencing them infrequently, but primarily? Casablanca, perhaps.  Dr. Zhivago?    I don't know; there was quite a bit else going on, like the Russian Revolution.  I find it hard to think of anything else.  Gone with the Wind?  I'm not sure it's great, frankly.

Then, consider those that weren't.  2001: A Space Odyssey, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange to give Kubrick his due.  The Godfather and Godfather II; Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, The Manchurian Candidate, The French Connection, The Bridge on the River Kwai; etc., etc.

There is Psycho, however.  Perhaps it's possible for great film art to be based on the depiction of a sexual obsession or sickness.  

Sexual relationships and romance being exceedingly mundane for the most part, however, there's not much interesting which can be done with them.  They take away from the story.  How is it, then, that they're omnipresent in film and series, TV and otherwise?  Is there an expectation on the part of creators and consumers that one will intrude necessarily?  There shouldn't be, and I claim that good and memorable works of art don't involve them to any significant extent.  

I think it takes a real effort to insert sexuality in any interesting narrative, but we see those efforts being made and their results all the time.  Even when sex isn't involved the characters are given opportunities to display emotions and weaknesses.  When watching an absorbing mystery or fantasy or drama, it's difficult to care whether the characters have feelings for one another which they must express together with various insecurities and attributes which it appears the writers, directors and producers think should be pointed out for reasons unrelated to what's taking place.  What's taking place must, in fact, be interrupted while the characters emote.  Past failures and traumas are revealed and discussed while war and murder and social conflicts rage.  

Perhaps it's hoped the viewer will come to sympathize with the characters, or see themselves in them.  But the self-pity and conceit indulged in on screen is just as mundane as the sex and romance.  People don't watch to see and hear what they may see and hear everyday, everywhere.  They wish to escape from it.  I think they wish most of all not to be lectured about it.

Catholics Get Back To Where They Once Belonged

I saw an interesting article while browsing the news on the Web today.  Buried among the stories regarding student protests (but are they, really?) and the trial of America's Trimalchio for payoffs to a porn star was a story which claims to describe the rise of traditional Catholicism in these Not-So-Very United States.  Can it be so?

Perhaps.  Those who've indulged me by reading this blog with some attention will know of my sentimental fondness for the ceremony and ritual of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as it existed before, and even for a time after, Vatican II.  It seems that others are fond of them as well, and miss them or seek in them something they've been unable to find in the bland proceedings which take place each Sunday hosted by the local churches.

It seems to me that something not necessarily bad, but stupefying, happened as a result of the reforms of Vatican II, in this country at least.  I don't pretend to any knowledge of what took place elsewhere.  But here it seems that Tom Lehrer was right when he said that the reforms were being made in an effort to make the Church "more commercial" (as he noted in introducing his song The Vatican Rag on the TV show That was the Year that Was).

There was the switch from the recitation of the liturgy in Latin to English, of course, but other reforms were made as well.  For example, the priest said mass on an altar, which consisted of something resembling a large table, facing those attending the mass.  Prior to Vatican II, the altar was as shown in the picture above and the essential portion of the mass devoted to the transubstantiation of the water and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ took place with the priests facing the altar with their backs to the worshippers.

The idea was, I think, to make the worshippers participants rather than observers and make the mass and the Church more popular, as it was believed people were leaving the Church.  So, the clergy was to encourage involvement of laypersons in arranging the ceremony, and did so.  Whether as a consequence of that or of the efforts of priests and clergy as well, the music accompanying the ceremony was replaced by other music considered more popular, and the language of the liturgy itself was changed, not merely to English but to an English it was believed would be more comprehensible and less challenging, in other words more "modern" than "old fashioned."

Perhaps it was an effort to make the Church more "popular" rather than more "commercial" but I think that the result was the same.  It seems to be an axiom of marketing of products in our economy that the pitch to sell be aimed at the "lowest common denominator."  A formula was arrived at for that purpose.  There was to be nothing unusual or exotic.  Songs sung and words used were commonplace, and sometimes even maudlin or cheesy.  Attending mass became more and more a like watching a sitcom, or to put it more kindly a drama of some kind.

Instead of becoming interesting to more and more people, the Church became less and less compelling, less worthy of interest.  It was much the same as everything else.  

What it seems the Church forgot, I think, was that people don't want religion to be like anything else.  There's an expectation that it be different.  There's a view that those of a particular religion should be distinguishable from others--that they form a community, devoted to certain beliefs.  This is desirable as it is establishes the difference between believers and others.  It makes the followers of a particular religion special.  The best way of making a religion and its adherents distinct and a separate, presumably superior, community is through ritual and ceremony.

It seems to me that the apparent tendency towards "traditional Catholicism" is a result of these expectations and desires.  The Tridentine (Latin) mass was certainly exceptional, and some (like me) probably think it remarkable and even inspiring.  The old music was beautiful and ornate, not mundane imitations of bad rock or country songs with references made to Jesus and love.  The ritual, the incense, the chiming of the bells, the solemnity of the Eucharist, must seem quite attractive now in comparison with the tepid performances which have been endured so long.

What I find concerning, though, is that "traditional Catholicism" which may be making a comeback includes old doctrine and forms which express not the beauty of the old ritual but the repressive aspects of the Church.  That women are now beginning to wear hats or little lace hair coverings as they did in Church before Vatican II seems to single them out due to their sex, and in an oppressive fashion.  Requiring that only men be priests, and they be celibate, is much the same in that respect; the claim that men only be priests because the Apostles were all men makes no sense.  They weren't women, true, but neither were they priests.  Early Christianity owed much to the participation of women and they were very involved in its spread.  Only later did it begin to imitate Judaism and reduce their status.

There are various problems with Catholic doctrine, and I would find a resurgence of belief in them disturbing, but I can understand why the old ritual and ceremony that distinguished the Church before Vatican II is seeming more and more attractive to religious believers.

The Storm We Must Endure

"Things floating like the first hundred flakes of snow, out of a storm we must endure all night..."

Yes, there's a storm coming.  A siege of sorts, perhaps.  "A horror of thoughts that are suddenly real."  In either case, something we must endure.

I quote from Wallace Stevens' poem titled, dourly (or should I say wryly?), Man Carrying Thing.  Dour to me, I think, if not to Stevens.  Stevens can evoke a grim sort of Stoicism in me sometimes, a serene kind other times.  I hope for serenity though I think the coming storm will be dour.  Thoughts, our own and those of others, horrible in themselves suddenly become real and imminent.

The signs are hard to miss.  There are no notable people on our national stage, though there are players aplenty.  Those who preen on it are largely rogues or their pusillanimous followers, or merely venal and self-involved as may be expected in what has become a plutocracy.  

A plutocracy has no established social or political agenda beyond what favors wealth and the interests of the wealthy, to the extent those interests extend beyond wealth.  It's a very simple system of government in some respects, as a result.  It's devoted primarily to the protection of wealth already acquired, and the acquisition of additional wealth by those already wealthy.  Secondarily, it may be devoted to the pursuit of whatever ideology is preferred by the plutocrats, if they or a majority of them agree on one, but it may be assumed that ultimately that ideology will involve the accumulation of money, which is power.

In a nation dominated by the acquisition and use of money, the wealthy will be few, but because they have money they're able to manipulate those without it.  Those without it will dream of it and admire and emulate those who have it.   Ultimately, those manipulated won't particularly care what's told to them by the wealthy, their wealth rendering them as idols to idolaters.  They'll do as told in the hope that they, too, may be wealthy sometime.  Alternatively, they may believe that the wealthy must know what they're saying and what should be done, because they're wealthy.

Whether our Glorious Union is a true plutocracy or some form of oligarchy is uncertain.  It certainly isn't a democracy, representative or otherwise, given the influence of money which has been enshrined even in the law.  But it's manipulation and the urge to be manipulated which I think will ignite the coming storm.  Our legislature is corrupt or has become a kind of sanctuary for fools, our executive will be headed by an incompetent but possibly well-meaning dotard or a sociopath and con man, our Supreme Court is dominated by moochers and reactionaries.  The majority of our people are intolerant and unthinking, and tribal in their sensibilities.  Short term prospects aren't good.

Some say Stoicism is a philosophy of he status quo, but I wonder if it is, instead, a philosophy or way of life which provides comfort and strength when the status quo is intolerable.  More and more things are beyond our control and will disturb us if we don't recognize that's the case and instead do the best we can with what is in our control--our thoughts, our feelings, our conduct.  We need not do what others do, we need not think as others think, and so we may if we try hard endure the storm which rages around us and need not be a part of it.  

Pierre Hadot in his book about Marcus Aurelius referred to an Inner Citadel.  Imagine a Roman Emperor who needed to seek such refuge.  If he did, and managed to wage war and rule an empire while doing so, what a fortress it could be for others.

Protest and Prejudice

 

It should be obvious to all of even rudimentary intelligence that protest and prejudice aren't one and the same. Prejudice is, in fact, one of the things which may be protested.  It often is protested, in fact.  Similarly, one may be prejudiced against protests and protesters.  

Since the difference between them is obvious, when it's claimed that people who protest are prejudiced, the claim can't reasonably be accepted on its face, without explanation.  Their prejudice and the prejudicial nature of the protest should be established.  If prejudice isn't or can't be established then it may be inferred that those making the claim are, in some sense, prejudiced against the protesters and the protest.

Lately we're deluged with media coverage of protests being made against Israel regarding its actions in Gaza.  We're also imposed upon by posturing politicians and pundits who are apoplectic over those protests and condemn them as anti-semitic.  

Being a Boomer, I've seen, heard of and read about protests since I was a wee lad.  I haven't participated in any, as I'm one of those Boomers who were born late enough to miss the major ones which took place in the 1960s, and am also by nature more an observer of events than a participant in them.  I will participate when in great need, however.

In any case, protests, particularly those which take place on college campuses, don't astonish or appall me.  I consider them somewhat commonplace.  College students are excitable and easily swayed and have a keen sense of injustice, though they aren't necessarily sensible.  They can also be self-righteous and ignorant, though that may be said of humans generally who would rather avoid the rigors of thought and critical thinking. 

It is, or should be, clear that someone who criticizes the state of Israel isn't thereby anti-semitic.  I, personally, think that the creation of Israel assured that the Mideast would be subject to bloody conflict for many years.  That has been the case and I suspect will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.  I don't accept the claim that any people have or are entitled to have a homeland by grant of God. As a result, I don't think Israel is more or less entitled to exist than any other nation.  I don't think that these opinions establish I'm anti-semitic.  Israel is a nation, and is as subject to criticism as any other nation.

No reasonable person can contend that the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel in October of last year were justified.  I think that's apparent.  They were horrific.  If it is being claimed by those protesting against Israel on college campuses that they were justified, does that in itself make them anti-semitic?  If it's being claimed by the protesters that Israel's response to those attacks is excessive, does that in itself make them anti-semitic?  If anti-semitism is properly defined as hatred of or prejudice against Jews qua Jews (which seems a common definition of it), wouldn't the consideration of whether conduct directed at them is justified, or whether their conduct in certain circumstances is excessive, indicate that the fact that they are Jewish isn't the sole basis for approval or condemnation?

Mere criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza should not be deemed anti-semitic.  Is more than that involved in the protests?  If so, then clearly there should be concern about them.  In particular, if Jewish people are being targeted merely because their Jewish, and for being Jewish, the claim of anti-semitism is justified.

The latest protests, at Columbia University, seem peaceful; certainly in comparison to some of those protests engaged in by Boomers against the Vietnam War, for example.  According to accounts I've read, even the police who were called on by the University to clear students away, resulting in arrests, commented on the fact the protesters were peaceful and the University's reaction excessive.  

Unfortunately, reports regarding what is taking place conflict, and much of what is said and written seem polemical.  There are politicians who claim, or perhaps merely assume, that protests are anti-semitic and Jews are being repressed or are in danger, and demand colleges takes steps.  It's difficult to find much in the way of evidence to support such claims, though.

I admit to suspicion regarding the claims of anti-semitism being made by right-wing politicians and pundits.  Although it's probably unfair to believe that most if not all of them are gibbering, drooling idiots, it seems clear enough that their posturing is politically motivated and disingenuous.  Their relish of the opportunity to be sanctimonious where Ivy League colleges are concerned is too excessive to be genuine.  In fact, I find it disturbing whenever members of Congress insert themselves in matters of most any kind.  I doubt their good faith and believe most of them to be corrupt, that being the case almost necessarily in a political system where the acquisition and spending of money by politicians are of primary concern.

So, the question I think must be answered is:  What is it about the protests being condemned that makes them anti-semitic?  To me, that means:  What is it about them that isn't merely a criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza?  If they aren't anti-semitic, then they should be handled by the authorities like any other protest