Author: mccoysnoise

Humanae Vitae … and Child Abuse: Part II

If one intends to review this post, but has not yet read Part I (which is immediately below), I would start there.  🙂

I would suggest that to this day, many Cardinals, Bishops, and others in the Church hierarchy seem glaringly detached from the harm caused to the many thousands of children by abusive clergy over the last decades (perhaps centuries) and stunningly oblivious to the visceral reaction that parents have had across the world to the revelations.  It has seemed to me that from the first revelations decades ago, the Church’s condemnation of these atrocities has been largely pro forma … curiously antiseptic.  Many in the Leadership clearly appear to believe that if the Church issues suitable expressions of regret when necessary, and keeps its head down, things will return to normal.  They haven’t yet realized:  things are not going to return to normal – at least in their lifetimes.  They literally don’t “get” the visceral effect that these continuing scandals have had on the faithful, and the crippling impact they have had on the Church’s credibility.

Pope Paul wrote in Humanae Vitae:  “No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law.”  Only members of the Magisterium apparently fail to recognize that due to these child abuse atrocities and the ensuing cover-ups, many of the faithful do now deeply question the Church’s competence to interpret natural moral law and its claim to moral leadership.

Despite the Church’s professions of love for the children, why did Church leaders all the way to the Vatican (that it reached the Vatican is no longer disputed) go to such lengths to cover up what has happened?

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul addressed priests as follows:  “[B]eloved sons … you who in virtue of your sacred office act as counselors and spiritual leaders ….”  He addressed Bishops, “… We turn Our mind to you, reverently and lovingly, beloved and venerable brothers in the episcopate ….” [My italics].

Our mothers all taught us:  actions speak louder than words.  It’s hard not to suppose that they covered up because their visceral reaction was to protect the Church and the brotherhood of priests – these were their family.  Who turns in his son? Brother?  Organization for which he has labored a lifetime?  They seem not to have heeded Matthew 18:6:  “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea …”

Ironically, August 15 – the day after the latest abuse revelations — is the Holy Day celebrating the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, during which the Church waxes rhapsodically about the Blessed Mother’s devotion to the Lord.  I’m confident … she gets it.

A few closing thoughts to these long notes:

I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of priests do their best to serve God and the faithful.  There is no man on earth I respect more than Pope Francis.  I feel deeply for the burden that these devout clergy carry as a result of the actions of their fellow priests.  I hope – notwithstanding the fact that the abuse appears to have been rampant throughout the Church – that many had no inkling of what was going on.  For those that did know, had no authority to act, and didn’t speak:    John 8:7:  “… Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone ….”  I wasn’t in their place; assessment here seems to me best left beyond the earthly realm.

Something even the most steadfast members of the Church hierarchy would probably agree with me about:  that those that conspired to cover up these instances of abuse in order to protect the Church suffered – ironically – from insufficient faith.  The Church didn’t need their “protection.”  Matthew 16:18:  “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

After reading this, one might ask why I remain a practicing Catholic.  Because as imperfect as its leadership can sometimes be, it remains for me … the gateway to the Almighty (I believe that there are many gateways, in and outside the bounds of Christianity; it is just that this is mine).  My feelings are best described by a character in The Vicar of Christ, one of the three best novels I have ever read:  “The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the symbol of the universal Church.  To whom could I now turn in my old age?”

Part I: Humanae Vitae … and Child Abuse

The original genesis – so to speak – of the concept for this note was the Catholic Church’s celebration of “Natural Family Planning Awareness Week” in late July, a national educational campaign of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that “promotes awareness of Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods” [i.e., the rhythm method].  At least this year (and perhaps every year), it’s timed to coincide with the anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 issuance of “Humanae Vitae” (Latin for “Of Human Life”), in which His Holiness declared generally “unlawful” the use of artificial contraceptive methods, going against the 1966 conclusions of a significant majority of the members of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control established by Pope John XXIII and that Paul later expanded.

Retirees have time to pursue long-delayed interests; although I understood the gist of Humanae Vitae, I recently actually read it.  A couple of general impressions emerge.  First, the Church, given passages such as the “Value of Discipline” and “Promotion of Chastity” (these in the context of marital relationships), considers sex inherently wrong, and can intellectually justify the act only as the unavoidable means to procreation; that the conjugal act can have value in and of itself as a manner in which a committed couple can manifest their love and support for each other is entirely foreign to its thinking.  Second, Pope Paul – clearly a good man torn between satisfying his own bureaucracy wedded to longstanding doctrine and addressing a technologically and scientifically evolving world unimaginable during the centuries when the Church formulated its body of rules – was attempting to counsel married couples in the conduct of their relationship and family responsibilities while having no better grasp of their struggles than I have of the challenges faced by a Somali farmer or a Cambodian woman.

While reading the Encyclical was intellectually instructive, studies indicate that most Catholics are making their own decisions about their conjugal lives and the formation of their families; the main point of the note as I originally considered it was a lament that the Church remains in such stubborn opposition to a practice in which the majority of the married faithful reportedly engage and, unlike abortion, results in no sacrifice of generated life.  However, the release this week of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury’s report indicating that hundreds of priests had sexually abused over 1,000 children over a period of 70 years – and that Bishops and other leaders of the Pennsylvania Catholic Church had covered it up – caused me to think about several of the Encyclical’s passages from a different perspective.

Twice in Humanae Vitae, Paul mentions how the world’s (in 1968, mind you) increasing economic and educational demands made it difficult to provide for a large family.  He even states, “We have no wish at all to pass in silence the difficulties, at times very great, which beset the lives of Christian married couples,” … but in fact, he did pass over them.

In the parable of the Sower found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christ describes how seed spread by the wayside dies, how seed spread on rocky ground sprouts quickly and then dies out, how seed spread among thorns grows and is choked, and how seed on good soil flourishes.  The seed in the parable represents the Word, not children, but I would submit that the message applies every bit as well to child rearing.  Very few children mature into well-adjusted adults without nurturing.  To get strong offspring, a loving parent does his/her best to get a child in danger of being lost by the wayside into better circumstances; does his/her best to alleviate physical, emotional, or other obstacles impeding the child’s growth; tries to block bad influences that might strangle the child.  Just as plants need tending to grow, children do as well.  The Church views children as a “Good” in the abstract, but His Holiness’ advice that unmarried couples rely on the rhythm method to manage their family size was a copout; he had to know that it was far from foolproof, and that unintended children would result.  He didn’t – nor does the Church today, by clinging to Humanae Vitae – demonstrate an understanding that parents need to be able to lovingly nourish each other when and as best while having only so much time, energy, and resources with which to raise children well.  I would submit that taking your chances with how many bushes you plant and then watching a number wither for lack of care is more than reckless; it’s immoral.

I fear that too many in the Church hierarchy view children as objects to be celebrated at a distance rather than as people requiring nourishment close at hand.  Part II of this lengthy note will look a bit more at Pope Paul’s comments in Humanae Vitae in relation to the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report issued 50 years later.

A Monday’s Sundry Thoughts

Of assorted items in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

  1. An Op-Ed piece by Mike Solon, former adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, entitled, “Tax Cuts Bust ‘Secular Stagnation’,” in which Mr. Solon asserts that the 4.1% second quarter GDP growth “… should finally discredit three popular claims made by opponents of the president’s policies: that tax cuts would blow a hole in the deficit, that corporate tax cuts would serve only rich investors, and that secular stagnation was a valid excuse for the slow growth of the Obama era.”

That we have had recent and fast economic growth is a fact.  I’m a bit surprised that Mr. Solon is willing to claim lasting vindication for the Republican measures so quickly.  A significant majority of the economists quoted in Journal pieces over the last six months have opined that the tax cut and attendant spending bill have given us a short-term economic boost akin to one’s feeling after downing an expresso … while they fear we will have a similar economic letdown as the burst wears off.  That said, this is an instance where the long term score will be what it is.  I intend to paperclip this piece to my January calendar for each of the next few years to see how Mr. Solon’s assertions bear out over time.

  1. An article entitled, “China Says It Isn’t to Blame for Failure of NXP-Qualcomm Deal,” citing China’s State Administration for Market Regulation’s recent failure to approve Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP – which the regulator claims was due to its concerns with the deal’s anti-competitive aspects. The piece indicates that the regulator denies that its failure to approve the acquisition was related to the U.S.- China trade friction.  The account included the following:  “[Despite the regulator’s denial,] people with knowledge of the situation have told the Journal that the friction is the main reason for [the regulator’s withholding of approval].”  The article added the following observation by a China economist:  “For Beijing, which is seeking to develop its own semi-conductor industry, blocking the NXP acquisition pays an added dividend:  It hinders the growth of Qualcomm, which has a commanding position in cutting-edge chip technology.”

I can’t fault China for utilizing legal (or at least colorably legal) measures that serve as counter-measures to our retaliatory tariffs and/or slow our advancement in a strategic industry; it’s Foreign Policy 101:  “You make a move, then I make a move.”  As per a post I made a while back, I do question the Trump Administration for literally saving China telecom giant ZTE, whose activities in this country create national security issues for us and better enable China to compete against the U.S. in the race to 5G technology.  The billion dollar fine that the Administration has assessed against ZTE is pittance in the scheme of things.

  1. Yet, I would submit that the most noteworthy item was a story in the middle of the paper entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Sees Signs of Peace.” The piece is not really very long, but manages to state all of the following in neutral terms:  Afghanistan’s “beleaguered” soldiers have failed to recapture significant new ground from the Taliban; civilian deaths have hit historic highs; Afghanistan is struggling to build a reliable air force and expand its elite fighters; the number of Afghan districts controlled by the government has dropped from about a half to a third in the last six months; our troops want the Afghans to close some remote check points because they’re easy targets for the Taliban; a suicide bomber killed at least 20 people at the entrance to an airport a few hours before our Gen. Joseph Votel, who oversees U.S. Afghan war operations, arrived there;  “[i]n western Afghanistan, local officials warned the American commander that the Taliban were making gains with the help of neighboring Iran”; “U.S. officials in southern Afghanistan said they needed more time to prop up an Afghan military capable of securing the country without American help”; and “[NATO] allies in the north warned that internal Afghan political divisions posed as big a risk to stability as the Taliban.”  [My italics].

At the same time, as the account dutifully records the above facts, it reports that American officials “don’t believe that the numbers tell the whole story”; that U.S. and Afghan officials have stated that the Taliban have shown a new willingness to negotiate; and that Gen. Votel indicates that the U.S. forces’ assessment “… has to account for both an objective and subjective evaluation of the situation,” that “[i]f we only focus on objectives aspects, you will miss something,” that “[w]e’re seeing some things that are moving in the right direction,” and that the state of play still leaves him feeling “cautiously optimistic.”

What follows is in no way a criticism of President Trump; I would submit that he inherited an untenable situation created by President George W. Bush that might well have been better handled subsequently by President Obama.  It’s most certainly not intended as a criticism of Gen. Votel or the American command; they’ve been given a mission, and no one ever effectively executed an endeavor by being pessimistic.  However, the juxtaposition of objective facts and American statements in this piece (which I recommend be read by anyone able to access it) sounded for me – and perhaps would for others with longer memories – unnerving echoes of 1960s’ accounts of the Vietnam War.  This is one area in which I suspect that Mr. Trump and I might privately agree:  it’s hard to see how we can achieve stable and durable conditions in Afghanistan enabling us to depart; if we can’t secure the situation, our people are sacrificing to simply postpone the inevitable; like the North Vietnamese, the Taliban and other Afghan factions understand that we’re fighting in their homeland, undoubtedly recognize that we’re weary, and realize that they can win by simply waiting us out; but – unlike the Vietnam conflict, where the North Vietnamese were simply satisfied to have us leave – it’s hard to see how any agreement enabling us to withdraw won’t ultimately facilitate terror’s following us home.  A terrible dilemma; an area in which I have genuine sympathy for the President, and heartache for our people fighting this battle …

President Claims Russia Favors Democrats

In case you missed it, President Trump tweeted the following earlier this week:

“I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!”

What precipitated this note was an observation a good friend made in an email about the President’s tweet:  “ … IF the Dems win big in the mid-terms, [President Trump and the Republicans] will challenge the results and want special investigations, or at the very least, spread discord that the midterms were affected by the Russians … Either way [i.e., whether the Democrats or Republicans do better in the midterms], Putin wins .…”

Putting aside for just this one post whether or not it is in our best interest for the President to have adopted the attitude toward Russia and President Putin that he has, any citizen with any power of discernment undoubtedly recognizes that his approach has been one of conciliation – bordering on if not constituting obsequiousness.  Mr. Putin himself said last week that he wanted Mr. Trump to win in 2016.  The body language between the two men at the Helsinki news conference could not have been more fraternal.  Even a number of Republicans that hadn’t previously had the courage to speak out against other Administration policies voiced criticism of Mr. Trump’s Helsinki performance.

Although I have grave concern that our friend is correct about the ultimate effect of the President’s latest stratagem, even the most ardent of his supporters should be offended by this tweet.  Given the intelligence community’s unanimous assessment that Russia did interfere in our election processes in support of Mr. Trump, for the President to assert that Russia didn’t do that (which he has done repeatedly since taking office, and did again in a tweet this week) while at the same time claiming (1) that no President has been tougher on Russia than him (contra, at least:  H. Truman; D. Eisenhower; J. Kennedy; R. Nixon; and – far from least – R. Reagan) and (2) that Russians will favor Democrats in the midterms so strains credulity that it seems … that the President must believe that his followers have super stretching and swallowing powers.

In that spirit, I took a minute to look for those that might have the capacity to accept the President’s claim.  Below is a link to the site, “Category:  Fictional Characters Who Can Stretch Themselves.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_characters_who_can_stretch_themselves

The only character I could locate with super swallowing powers was Vice President Pence.

President Trump and the Russians, whether through coherence or by coincidence, have regularly sought to undermine our citizens’ belief in our institutions and electoral processes.  I hold out the hope that few of our citizens, no matter how substantively conservative, can either stretch or swallow enough to credit Mr. Trump’s latest bull … oney  …

Letter to U.S. Rep. Pocan, re: His bill to Abolish ICE

A letter I’ve just mailed [I cling to the old hard copy approach 🙂 ] to Mr. Pocan, the U.S.  Representative for Wisconsin’s Second Congressional District:

Dear Representative Pocan:

I am writing to express my deep disappointment at your ill-considered introduction of a bill to terminate the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).  While I abhor both the policy under which we separated parents and children at the border and our apparent treatment of many of those reaching our border as rabble rather than human beings, the fact remains that we need enforcement of our immigration laws.  I’m confident that ICE agents undertake dangerous and difficult responsibilities on a daily basis that those of us in our ivory towers prefer not to think about.  Your meat-axe approach seems to lack any substantive solution to the immigration enforcement challenges we face.  I assume that you are feeling suitable embarrassment if, as The Wall Street Journal reports, you intend to vote against your own bill if the House Republican leadership submits it for a vote.

On a less important level, liberals seem determined to be their own worst political enemies.  Our state and a number of other states and districts are closely divided.  Judging by the President’s polling numbers, he’s lost support during his time in office.  Today, it seems likely that few of those that voted for Secretary Clinton would vote Republican, while a significantly higher number of the more centrist voters that ultimately voted for the President rue their vote.  Right now, Democrats are on the Republican side of the 50-yard line.  While it may be exhilarating to strike a gesture for a party’s most ardent supporters by taking actions like you did, it’s not the way to win elections.  There’s no need to stoke the enthusiasm of Democratic loyalists; their fervor against the President and Republican policies is so strong that they’ll come out and vote.  What you and other Democratic office holders should do – if you wish to win, and not simply feel exhilaration — is focus on earning the confidence of those 2016 Republican voters that have developed misgivings about the Republican actions over the last 18 months.  Many of these voters fear that their values no longer have a place in our country, have the impression that our immigration policies are too lax, fear crime, etc., etc.  To vote for Democrats, they must be assured that their justifiable concerns will be taken seriously by Democratic office holders.  If Democratic Party strategists advise that providing these sorts of assurances will require the party to renounce the societal openness it also champions … then the party needs new strategists.

In an early chapter in his book, The Best and The Brightest, David Halberstam wrote the following about John F. Kennedy’s assessment of his chances for winning the Democratic Party nomination in 1960:

“[The liberal intellectual wing of the party was] not only dubious of [Kennedy] but staunchly loyal to Adlai Stevenson after those two gallant and exhilarating defeats.  That very exhilaration had left the Kennedys, particularly Robert Kennedy, with a vague suspicion that liberals would rather lose gallantly than win pragmatically, that they valued the irony and charm of Stevenson’s election-night concessions more than they valued the power and patronage of victory.  [My emphasis].”

Although it is unusual for me to align with House Speaker Paul Ryan on domestic issues, I agree with his comment quoted in this weekend’s Journal:  “[Democrats advocating abolishing ICE] are tripping over themselves to move too far to the left.”

Will it be exhilaration or pragmatism?  Has the party learned anything over the last 60 years?

Initial Reactions to the Kavanaugh Nomination

Back in February, I entered a long note on the two-factor methodology that I believe should govern a Senator’s decision whether to vote to confirm a President’s nominee to the Supreme Court [including edited versions of letters I had previously sent to Sens. Charles Grassley and Tammy Baldwin respectively related to the nominations of Judge Merrick Garland and then-Judge Neil Gorsuch — to which letters, alas, neither Senator paid any heed ;)].  The approach that I believe should be adopted is straightforward:  Is the nominee judicially qualified?  If so, is there any other objective reason why s/he should not be confirmed (criminal indictment, substantiated drug abuse problem, etc.)?  I do not believe that the candidate’s substantive views on any issue should play a role in whether s/he should be confirmed.  The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and appoint federal judges; the Senate should promptly discharge its duty to consent to qualified nominees, and to withhold its consent from those that are not.

 

As I stated in my letter to Sen. Baldwin, I consider the Senate Republicans’ refusal to promptly hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination (and – unless unexpected issues had been uncovered – to have confirmed him) a dereliction of their duty.  It frankly grates on me that Senate Republicans flouted by procedural tactic and with partisan malice what I consider their constitutional duty to have fairly and promptly assessed the merits of an apparently qualified nominee put before them (by the way, put before them by a President elected by over 50% of the votes cast, with almost a year left in his term).  The Senate Republicans’ actions can be viewed as even that much more galling since Judge Garland was in effect replaced on the Court by a judge (albeit indisputably qualified) of a different philosophy nominated by a President who, while validly elected, didn’t even receive the most votes cast – let alone 50%.

 

Having vented my spleen at the disreputable behavior of Senate Republicans toward Judge Garland’s nomination (for what I would wager will not be the last time), I would assert that any citizen that claims respect for our system and belief in fair play doesn’t get to pick and choose when s/he supports those principles.  Our constitutional officers and we as a people need to stop answering one partisan act with another.  Assuming that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is as qualified a jurist as early accounts make it appear, I would if a Senator vote to confirm him to the United States Supreme Court unless some other objective reason (of the type noted above) indicating his unfitness surfaces during the Senate confirmation process.  Those that espouse the need to have respect for our processes … should respect those processes.  We have the President we have, and he has lawfully exercised his power to make the nomination he has made.

A Postscript to Yesterday’s Post ;)

Almost as I was sending yesterday’s entry about the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s July 3 finding upholding the Intelligence Community’s Assessment of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, and expressing dismay at what I consider to be the counter-productive nature of a delegation of Republican Senators’ current trip to Russia, President Trump was hosting a campaign rally in Montana.  In addition to his customary .. er .. inaccuracies, the President said this (I’ve seen the tapes):

“Putin’s fine.  He’s fine.  We’re all fine.  We’re people.”

Such a grotesque denial of reality by our President in the area of most critical importance to the lifeblood and safety of our nation is, frankly, terrifying.  The fact that the crowd cheered as he spouted this and other nonsense was disquieting.  (That said, I do have more than a bit of hope that some Montanans were merely being polite; yesterday, the Wall Street Journal quoted a Montana Trump supporter as saying, “… if Trump … asked me to vote for [Republican Senate candidate Matt] Rosendale, I’d say, ‘Yeah, sure.’  But then I’d go out and still vote for [current Democratic Senator Jon] Tester.”)

In commenting yesterday on the Republican Senate junket to Russia, I suggested that the Senators’ conduct, in the light of the ICA findings as upheld by the Senate Select Committee, was, although seemingly unwise, perhaps merely well-meaning blundering rather than dereliction of duty; I can’t make the same allowance for the President of the United States …

Chatting in the Face of Cyber War

Two related items that shouldn’t be lost in the flurry of the holiday:  The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s issuance of findings on the Intelligence Community’s January, 2017, Assessment of Russian interference in our election process (the ICA) and … a trip currently being taken to Russia by a U.S. Senate delegation.

On July 3, the bipartisan Senate Committee issued a set of its findings on the reliability of the ICA.  The findings are worth reading in their entirety — only 7 pages and readily found through an internet search.  Although many are aware, it’s worth noting that this Committee contains one more Republican than Democrat, and that at least three of the Republicans on the Committee – Sens. Lankford, Cotton, and Cornyn – have been strong supporters of President Trump in other contexts.

First a recap of some of the ICA referred to in the Committee’s report:

  • That Russia executed a “significant escalation” in its attempt to interfere in U.S. domestic politics in the run-up to the 2016 elections through multi-faceted cyber espionage and cyber-driven messaging via Russian-controlled propaganda platforms.
  • That Russia’s activities were in furtherance of its longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order.
  • That Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election, intended to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.
  • That President Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for then-candidate Donald Trump.
  • That President Putin and the Russian Government aspired when possible to help Candidate Trump win by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.

The Senate Committee’s findings regarding the reliability of the ICA include the following:

  • That the ICA was a “sound intelligence product.”
  • That the ICA was supported by evidence reviewed by the Senate Committee.
  • That the intelligence analysts that prepared the ICA were under no politically-motivated pressure to reach any conclusions.
  • That the disagreement among intelligence analysts was reasonable, transparent, and openly debated, with analysts on both sides of the confidence level articulately justifying their positions.
  • That the [Steele] [D]ossier did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA.

Meanwhile, during the same days that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee was issuing these findings, we have a Senate delegation visiting Russia and conferring with President Putin and Russian officials.  This group – entirely Republican – apparently includes Sens. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Kennedy (R-LA), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), and … Wisconsin’s own Ron Johnson.  Sen. Shelby has been quoted as saying during the trip, “[The United States and Russia] have a strained relationship, but we could have a better relationship between the U.S. and Russia because there’s some common interests around the world that we could hopefully work together on.”

While Sen. Shelby – for whom, along with Sen. Kennedy, I had a fair measure of respect before this episode – is literally correct – there are indeed areas in which we have common interests with Russia (e.g., the ISIS conflict) — his comment is largely akin to saying that you have a common interest in weed control with a neighbor trying to burn your house down.

I remain an unabashed Richard Nixon – Ronald Reagan follower in the foreign policy sphere.  It is inconceivable that either of those Presidents, given the clear evidence of Russia’s interference in our election process – which Dick Cheney noted last year some would consider “an act of war” — would believe cozy conversations with the Russians at this time to be in America’s best interest.  Both Presidents made clear, publicly and privately, that they understood that the Russians of their day – and Mr. Putin, cut from the cloth of the Cold War, is of their day — respond to strength and resolve, not amiable chatting.  I would suggest that this delegation’s activities are at best well-intended blundering, and arguably a disappointing dereliction of their sworn duty to “… defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic …”

The Time for Outrage is Past: MAAA

Although I’ve been tied up with other pursuits the last couple of weeks, ongoing events have caused me to consult my American Heritage Dictionary.  It defines “shock” in part as follows:

“[An] unexpected blow … A severe offense to one’s sense of propriety or decency; an outrage.…”

I would suggest that although our institutions are so far holding fast, they are under the greatest internal strain since the civil war.  Every day, President Trump assaults our basic foundations purely for his own self-aggrandizement.  His enablers support him to protect their own interests.  It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past.  I would submit that every citizen has a duty to think critically about where we are going as a country … and what s/he is going to do about it.

Mr. Trump lies chronically – indeed, promiscuously.  I assume that even those that support his substantive policies recognize this. Truth – what is – is more important than the substance of any issue.  Our republic cannot indefinitely survive breathing the carbon dioxide exhaled by the President.

The President and his allies engage by turns in an unceasing and unwarranted attack on the courts, law enforcement, and the mainstream media.  While clearly none are perfect, the rule of law and freedom of speech have supported our way of life over this nation’s history.  The President seeks to trample them for his own purposes, with his sycophants shamefully and cowardly abetting him.

Mr. Trump incites racial and religious hate.  Using broad strokes to label immigrants and Muslims as our enemies manifests a malevolent disregard of what this country stands for.  The vast majority of Americans – including him – are descended from immigrants.  The right to freely practice one’s faith is a cornerstone of this Republic.  His constant reference to gangs such as M-13 when discussing southern migrants seeks to create an inference of a general criminal invasion that the relative numbers show is absurd.  Separating parents and children at the border is inhumane.  Making children pawns in a legislative negotiation for his border wall is monstrous.  He stokes his followers’ fears and encourages their darker emotions because it helps him, not them.

A transgression that to me is as destructive as those above is the way the President is letting his own supporters down … and they seemingly don’t recognize it.  I would offer that the way he manipulates the millions that believe in him is as cruel as his treatment of his adversaries.

  • His massive tax cut predominantly benefited big corporations and the rich, at a time when unemployment was already steadily dropping and The Wall Street Journal was reporting the U.S. economy to be in the forefront of worldwide economic growth. Economists unanimously expect the tax cut to aggravate deficits that will in turn more quickly endanger entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  This threat won’t much matter to Mr. Trump, his family and friends – they’re rich.  It will matter to the great percentage of the President’s supporters who do and will rely on these programs.

 

  • His attempt to protect legacy industries such as coal mining and certain of our manufacturing segments are as if Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to protect horse buggy manufacturers while slapping tariffs on materials Henry Ford needed to build cars. Through his phrases, Mr. Trump assures his financially desperate supporters that it isn’t their fault that their fortunes have deteriorated over the last decades.  While a serious physical condition may not be the patient’s fault, there is no return to health by blaming others or administering outdated care plans.  He’s lulling them with a pipe dream.  Challenges created by automation, globalization, an aging population, etc., etc., aren’t going away.  Instead of alerting his followers to their and our nation’s need to focus on the industries, technologies, and opportunities of the future, he’s giving them Leave it to Beaver.

 

  • Perhaps the most remarkable: It is now undisputed that the President dictated the statement that Donald Trump, Jr., initially issued in the summer of 2017 indicating that Trump Campaign officials’ meeting with Russians in the summer of 2016 did not involve a campaign issue.  It would have taken no prescience for the President to realize that if the truth came out – which it did, in a matter of days – the false statement would be putting a bull’s eye on his son for an obstruction of justice charge.  Who endangers one’s own child?

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan summarized some of the challenges we will be facing in the coming months in a piece she published in May, 2017:

“The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated … that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability.”

Although I obviously consider Mr. Trump to have shown his unsuitability in the areas listed by Ms. Noonan, I would offer that he has demonstrated his unsuitability in two areas that matter even more:  his apparent lack of moral compass and his selfish disregard for the well-being of the people he has sworn to serve.  It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past.  Although I will give the President credit in the future when I think he deserves it, now is the time to devote energy, within the bounds of law, morals, and ethics, to the electoral contests ahead.

It’s time to Make America … America Again …