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.