Painting it Black

A while back, I went to an exhibition of photographs by a well-known black photographer – a Pittsburgh resident who captured countless images of black (African-American, Negro, etc. - your choice) life in the city for a number of decades. Now... the literature accompanying this exhibition, predictably, described the black community of those times with words like “vibrant”, “dynamic”, “lively”, and so on – you've heard the same words used to describe Harlem in the old days, as well as any number of other urban black communities throughout the U.S.

Now, to begin with, when's the last time you heard, or read, any of these words used to describe inner-city black communities of today? Now it's more like “blighted”, “dysfunctional”, “drug-ridden”, “single-parent (i.e., without a father) households”, “crime-ridden”, “unsafe”... with a barely-concealed additional adjective: “hopeless”. And the question that always comes to mind – mine, at least – is “what happened”? And this is particularly salient given all of the alleged “advances” that have occurred in the meantime, starting with the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) – not to mention countless programs promoting affirmative action, equal opportunity, preferences, set-asides, minority-owned businesses, Head Start (1964), ad infinitum. (And do I need to add that the high water mark of the “urban riots” occurred after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act? The Watts riots of 1965 are usually considered to have been the first in this series, although they were preceded by Rochester and Philadelphia, both in 1964.)

So again I ask, “what happened?” Or better yet, what didn't happen? One would think that, once “equality” had been codified in federal law, people would have been satisfied to sit back and reap the benefits in a calm and orderly manner... and some did. But that doesn't explain the riots, or the apparent degradation of black communities and black culture since.

The explanations – if one can call them that – come from many quarters, and are typically divided into two main categories, which I'll call “racism” and “failure”. The “racism” theory (cherished by liberals, Democrats, the “black leadership”, NPR, PBS, the public schools, academia, etc.) focuses on what is called residual racism, or institutional racism, which is said to have persisted long after legal equality was achieved – right up to the present day, in fact. The theme is that, no matter what the law says, whites have done everything in their power to keep black people down – that there has, in fact, been a reaction not unlike what happened after the Civil War in the South. Yesterday's Klansman is today's bigoted cop and biased judge... subtle racism in hiring... discrimination in law enforcement... and so on. You've heard it all a million times, and I'm not saying it's all imaginary.

The “failure” theory (found mostly in Republican and/or conservative circles), on the other hand, contends that it's the black community itself – collectively or as individuals – that has failed to take advantage of legal equality, and for any number of reasons – passivity, the habit of being (and feeling) oppressed, a sense of entitlement, politics, hostility, refusal to “integrate”, laziness, sheer cussedness... again, you've heard it all a million times. And again, there may be more than a grain of truth to this idea.

What I think – trying to take the middle road here – is that the answer is “some of each”... but also much more. Consider, for a moment, not what measures like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act actually contained, but what they implied. The implication was that this would solve everything – that with equality before the law would follow, in short order, a change in attitude... even though those attitudes had been formed since the start of slavery in the New World and had persisted far beyond the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments. Black people reacted to being enslaved; no surprise! But they also reacted to the fact that, after emancipation, many other things that should have changed didn't... and this form of reaction continues to this day, despite all the “advances” of the 1960s and beyond. This is on the political side.

On the psychological side, the measures of the civil rights era and beyond seemed to imply that with equality should come not only changes in attitude and equal opportunity, but equality of outcome as well. I guess this could come under the heading of the “failure” theory, except it's much more subtle. From the perspective of many blacks, white “privilege” has always – no matter what form it takes – been at a cost to blacks. In other words, whatever advantages or gains whites have are ill-gotten, in the sense that there must (according to the narrative) be some instance of oppression and exploitation of blacks behind them – even if we're talking about, e.g., a small businessman in New England whose ancestors never owned any slaves and who hardly ever dealt with, let alone mistreated, a black person. It's not unlike the theory that all wealth is based on a crime; any advantage whites have must, by definition, be based, in some mysterious way, on oppression and exploitation of blacks – since (according to the liberal meme) life is a zero-sum game, at least economically. One man's gain is always another man's loss – therefore white gains must equal black losses; it's as simple as that. So what is the remedy for this? Not only equal opportunity from here on out, but what are called “reparations” up to, and perhaps beyond (call it “punitive damages”) the point at which blacks and whites have the same amount of prestige, social status, household income, money in the bank (or the stock market)... the same houses, the same cars... you tell me at what point this notion of “equality” would end, or be satisfied. Listening to what is referred to as the “black leadership”, I would say the answer is “never”. This is a wound that, apparently, will never heal (to which some would say, “then why bother trying?”).

Well, then – isn't it enough to just tell black people to “get over it”? I mean, after all, slavery ended nearly 150 years ago – way before anyone's living memory. Why can't these people just get organized, and suck it up, and move on? When will the “healing” begin? Et cetera. Yeah, well... it's easy to say, I suppose. Try it on some Jews whose family members died in concentration camps. But what is the alternative? Who profits from all of this continued bitterness and resentment – and I guess the answer is politicians and the “black leadership” -- not to mention the vast industry (including massive government agencies and programs) devoted to “fixing” whatever is wrong (or seems to be wrong) with the black community. So part of it, I guess, is simply the tendency of people of identify with, and function as, a group – one with historical traumas and present resentments – rather than as individuals. There is, supposedly, strength in numbers – but one wonders, in this case, if there is not also weakness in numbers. When the group has a victim mentality, who among them is brave enough to stand up and speak against it?

There is another angle to all this as well – getting back to that photographic exhibition. Black communities in that era were certainly not without their “issues”, but they did, in fact, consist mostly of intact families, had a respectable rate of employment (except, I suppose, during the Depression, when people of all races, creeds, and colors were out of work), and did not have overwhelming crime and drug problems. They were cohesive – a self-contained, sustainable culture – and were not forever at knife-points (literally or figuratively) with the larger, mostly white, community. And yes, they were separate – and yes, segregation was a fact of life, on nearly all levels. Blacks and whites lived separately, by and large, with some overlap at the borders... and they certainly “mixed” when it came to the economy and the workplace. But in an essential and profound way, blacks and whites lived in different worlds – and the blacks not only made the best of it, they figured out a way to thrive, at least culturally. This is what the photos revealed – a separate world, tantamount to apartheid, but a world nonetheless thriving, respectable, and eminently livable. You could be born, grow up, live, and die in that world and maintain your dignity and self-respect. It was, in fact, more cohesive than many white communities – which was a good survival mechanism, at the very least.

But then a funny thing happened. All of a sudden we had “integration”... “block-busting”... forced busing... and all the rest of it. Blacks and whites were being forced – by the government, through such “enlightened” programs as “urban renewal” -- down each other's throats. Did this make blacks happier, enough to balance out making whites miserable? Not that I can see. What I think happened instead was that blacks went from being first-class citizens in their own world to being second-class citizens in the larger world. The “block busting” worked both ways – white ethnics were driven out of the urban areas where they had lived for generations, but black neighborhoods were also bulldozed to make room for highways, public buildings, and “the projects”. The shack with an outhouse was traded in for the “garden apartment” -- but what was the result? Did a new day dawn? What I see is mostly alienation, resentment, and crime – crime amounting to sabotage. Was this really what the great black leaders of old, like Frederick Douglass, had in mind? Or Martin Luther King Jr., even? I can't believe it. Please note that the urban riots of the 1960s did not consist of blacks pouring out of the “ghettos” and setting fire to the white suburban neighborhoods (although this was a common, if unspoken, fear at the time). No – what was put to the torch was their own neighborhoods. Suddenly it was them against – well, the whole world, really. They joined, in a self-destructive way, in the cultural genocide. They had been robbed of one birthright – a cohesive, thriving culture and community – and handed some sort of political mutation... a form of open-air prison. And who can blame them? I'm not sure the rioters had this in the front of their minds as they stormed, ransacked, and looted – but I'm talking about causes here, not conscious thought. (And in fact, some of the more thoughtful black leaders did have some insight as to what was going on, and continue to to this day – but they were a minority within a minority.)

The biggest mistake, perhaps, that the “integrators” made was to expect that blacks would even want to be “fully integrated” into the white community – with all the psychological, sociological, and cultural displacements that implies. It was a superficial and naïve view, and could only be held by people who were, themselves, culturally bereft – as liberals in academics and government typically are. There are black people who are willing to cross that divide, and more power to them – but, in my experience, most blacks are not. Even a deprived and diluted state of “blackness” is preferable to becoming a stranger in a strange land. And I say this with absolutely no prejudice as to which is “preferable” -- my years in the Washington, DC area served as an ample lesson on that point, as have visits to the South. It's a particularly low form of patronization to simply assume that the heart's desire of blacks is to be as “white” as possible.

So the exhibition, while a celebration in one way, was actually more a reflection on what has been lost – but how many stopped to ask why, or how? There is an illusion of progress even among oppressed minorities, to the extent that they assume that things are “improving” no matter the evidence. Somehow, as time goes on, things must get better – which means that the things of the past, as treasured as they are in retrospect, must have been less valuable than the “rights” of the present, no matter how hollow those might turn out to be.

But I still haven't brought up the darkest side of this whole business. Not only did blacks become trapped in a world they never made, but that world proceeded to “manage” them through such, ahem, benign programs as welfare – which contributed mightily to the break-up of black families; and the whole spectrum of affirmative action/preferences/set-asides, etc. -- which caused many whites to seethe with resentment. Then we have incarceration (wildly disproportionate and based largely on minor drug offenses); “games and circuses” (e.g. basketball – not bad per se, but...); “channeled rage” (rap, hip-hop, etc.); and abortion – which some brave black leaders have “outed” as a form of genocide. And – not to get too paranoid here, but – how many believe that the deluge of drugs into black communities was, and is, simply an accident of economics and social history? No – I call it a form of management, the way the true black radicals of the 1960s were, almost to a man (or woman), eventually neutralized by means of drugs and/or incarceration (or outright summary execution by “law enforcement”). If the legislation of the 1960s opened a Pandora's box, well then, by gosh, the white community and its minions were going to deal with the result any way they knew how – and invent new ways besides. So yes, blacks are “free”, but they are kept in a cultural and psychological (even more than an economic) prison – almost entirely invented, programmed, and managed by, guess who, whites.

So despite all of the supposed privileges, benefits, and entitlements heaped upon the black community over the past 50-odd years, I say that blacks remain second-class citizens, precisely because of those “privileges” -- because those all, without exception, are based on the unspoken assumption that blacks are helpless, or at least incompetent, misguided, and foolish – and they not only need help, but will continue to need help in perpetuity. They are, in other words, handicapped – and the pity is that much of the black leadership seems to agree. The braver ones point this out, and realize that true equality – a truly level playing field – is the only way to true emancipation. But this is a politically unpopular position, to say the least – and the irony is that it's mainly the few remaining “radicals” -- like Louis Farrakhan – who take this position. What does Farrakhan want? “Separate but equal”? A return to forced, legal segregation? I think what he wants is “separate”, and quit worrying about “equal” -- let the community grow, and thrive, and take care of itself in its own way and on its own terms. Let it be its own entity, without reference to the white community or even to the “larger culture”. And this is nothing new or even especially radical – as witness any number of thriving, vibrant white ethnic communities that existed in Pittsburgh and in most other cities in the “old days”. What was wrong with that? Well – the social “planners” and theorists and levelers saw plenty wrong with it.  Cohesive communities represent a bulwark against totalitarianism, collectivism, and tyranny – and that's why they have to be done away with, by hook or crook... by way of (alleged) good intentions and, bottom-line, by force. So in that sense black communities share a grievance – perhaps the greatest one of all – with white communities. On one side you have racial, ethnic, and religious cohesion, and on the other side the state, by which I mean the government, which cares not for the old ways and old values, but only wants people to be turned into “good citizens”, which means willing servants of the regime. The beneficiaries of “block busting” wound up with a worse deal, in a way, than the victims; at least the latter were able to migrate out to the suburbs, whereas the “beneficiaries” wound up living in a newly-formed ghetto, where they form that most pathetic and servile of all entities, a “reliable voting block”. Where is the freedom in that?

Look at those photos, folks, and consider what has been lost – and then consider how it might be regained.

Why Is Anyone Surprised?

Those five mutants who were picked up for terrorist activities (intended, not actually carried out) turned out to be tight with the Occupy Cleveland group... and said group is, predictably, all in a flutter as to how to distance themselves from the alleged terrorists. Well, OK – given that the whole thing was a sting operation, which means that the “terrorists” would not have had a plan at all if they hadn't been helped along by the government... it remains that there was a plan, and they were willing participants. In fact, it reminds me of nothing so much as the anarchists of old – you know, those guys who were always pictured with long coats and bushy black beards, carrying a round black bomb with the fuse lit. That was raw material for the “Red Scare” of old (post-World War I)... and now it turns out that, with a bit of help from the makeup and costume departments, it can serve as raw materials for the current obsession with terrorism. Our home-grown terrorists, in fact, don't look all that different from white supremacists – not a coincidence, I'm sure.

But here's what I find striking. The Occupy types are shocked – shocked! -- that any of their associates would be implicated in any way in such a dastardly plot. And when you look at the Occupy movement on the surface, it seems reasonable – after all, who doesn't object, to some degree, to the many predations of Wall Street, big business, and crony capitalism? I even suspect that far more than 99% of the populace considers themselves part of “the 99%” -- i.e. the taken-for-granted, exploited, and put-upon. We do have a love affair with victim politics in this country, and even people who live high off the hog occasionally indulge in victimization claims. And it is certainly true that any number of Democrats/liberals mouth 99%-er words from their palatial mansions. But just being a 99%-er, or claiming to be one, doesn't automatically brand one an anarchist or a terrorist... right?

The important thing to remember about the Occupy crowd is not what they are against, but what they are for. The anarchists of old turned, overnight, into Bolsheviks and totalitarians. They wound up severely oppressing “the people” whom they had pretended to represent. And they were no more interested in true freedom and individual liberty than had been the czars and kings of earlier times. I will say that behind the face of nearly every self-styled “anarchist” lies the brain and heart of a totalitarian dictator. They only want to smash the state in order to install a new, even more oppressive, one in its place – with them in charge. Seek no further than the “coat-and-tie liberals” of the 1960s who have now matured into -- for all intents and purposes -- fascists.

Now... it is true that there is a significant anarchistic wing of the libertarian movement, and I suspect that they are the real McCoy... i.e., true anarchists in principle and not hypocrites with a hidden agenda. I'm not saying that their position is realistic or sustainable, mind – although they certainly deserve a lot more “air time” than they have gotten up to now. But at least they're consistent, and not driven by political relativism... which is why, I suspect, there are few if any among the Occupy crowd. Because that rag-tag group, if I'm not mistaken, consists not of true anarchists, and certainly not of true advocates of distributism – but of thinly-disguised communists, collectivists, and totalitarians. In fact, the thin disguise falls away entirely at times, as we have seen over the past few months... especially when one of them expresses a desire for the government to move in and solve all the problems the Occupy people are protesting against. Right – refusing to acknowledge that it was, by and large, the government that was responsible for the problems in the first place. So the solution for government interference in the economy is, apparently, bigger government. How can that possibly be considered anarchism? It's only anarchism to the extent that someone wants to destroy the current system – but they don't want to do that either; not really. All they want is that the current system changes priorities, and makes a shift in the people who receive privileges... and becomes more totalitarian. So, for example, the government is supposed to pay off everyone's college loans, presumably by taking money away from Wall Street. But the government and Wall Street are symbiotic; they're practically synonymous. And if the government pays off every existing college loan, how about the ones that are taken out next fall, or next week, or tomorrow? Shouldn't the government pay for those as well – which really means, shouldn't the government just send everyone to college for free? This would certainly require a bit of economic reshuffling... but I can guarantee government would only get larger, and I doubt “Wall Street” would get any smaller. Only the middle class would, as usual, wind up with a bigger bill.

So are the “Ohio Five” real, true-blue anarchists? They may think they are and act like they are, but unless they are extremely atypical of the Occupy crowd, they are anything but. The main difference would seem to be their tactics, which are, let's admit, a bit on the extreme side. How would blowing up a bridge in Ohio accomplish anything other than creating a highway version of TSA? How about a body scan every time you want to drive on the Interstate? I can hardly wait.

Another nuance in all this is as follows. The Occupy Cleveland movement says, in its indignation, that the movement is nonviolent. Well, fine – but we have all seen what happens when “non-violent” movements gain the upper hand. First comes revolt, then revolution, and then a settling of scores and an attempt to remake society that invariably involves enormous amounts of violence and coercion. Give any “non-violent” person some real political power and see how long he remains non-violent.  (See, for instance, the "non-violent" Quakers' role in "urban renewal", i.e. the forcible ethnic cleansing of urban areas.)  Even the ones who stand above the fray seem to have plenty of “lumpen proletarians” available to do their dirty work. (And how many “non-violent” political types, once in Congress, have signed on to every war, “police action”, invasion, and occupation that came their way – not to mention to the Patriot Act and other police-state measures?)

So this development at least makes it a bit more clear what the agenda of – I suspect – more than a handful of “Occupiers” is. And it's not as if the points they are making in public are wrong; it's more about the motive behind them. Many of them, I suspect, not only hate “big business” but all business... and they not only hate disproportionate distribution of wealth, but all wealth... and private property as well. Many of them have been quite explicit on this matter. But the irony remains that, while they hate the things that government has provided to the privileged few, they expect that same government to come in and clean house, and to right all wrongs, and to enact a great leveling – not only of rights and opportunity, but of outcomes on all levels. I hesitate even to call it hypocrisy – invincible ignorance might be more appropriate.

War and the Middle Class

I forget exactly how it came up in a recent discussion, but the theme, which offered all kinds of rich possibilities for insight, was the relationship between war and the middle class. But – you might say – isn't war something nations do? Isn't it, therefore, a collective, and therefore class-free, phenomenon? Right – tell it to the people who still believe that it was, by and large, the working class that provided the cannon fodder for the Vietnam war, since it was (1) larger in number, (2) more economically needy, and (3) had fewer defenses against the draft. I had no firm arguments against this at the time, and I've discovered none since.

The point is not that war is a conflict between the middle class of Country A and the middle class of Country B. And it's not simply that war is, by and large, something the ruling class comes up with and gets the lower classes to actually fight, with the political and financial support of the middle class. That is a good summing-up, but still misses many of the nuances.

What I find intriguing is the causal relationship between war and the entire class structure. Let's try and model the situation for a moment – remembering that models always tend to oversimplify. Take a country, nation, or society that has enjoyed peace for a considerable period of time – and, presumably, also a lack of other stressors like plague, famine, drought, natural disaster, etc. If this society is reasonably free – i.e. non-totalitarian and not overly socialistic – it will tend to have given rise to a middle class, i.e. a class of prosperous peasants (not a contradiction! “Peasant” simply refers to someone who farms, or works on the land. A peasant can be a millionaire.), skilled tradesmen, merchants, professionals of various sorts, middle managers, etc. And why is this? It's because a peaceful society tends to allow people, even on the lower economic levels, to produce more than they need for their own personal consumption. (Contrast this, for example, with the massive displacements of populations caused by war in places like sub-Saharan Africa, where people cannot even provide for their own survival needs since they have been separated from the land.) Plus, resources are kept at home and not squandered on war – said resources including young, able-bodied individuals. So people enter the marketplace and trade their surplus for someone else's surplus – or for goods and services they would not otherwise been able to afford... ones that are, one might say, invented in order to take advantage of increased wealth and surpluses. Hence we get the rise of a new class of goods and service providers, AKA the middle class. And, the ruling classes find that they want more than to sit in their fortresses overseeing a slave army – so they too wind up using the goods and services provided by this new class. Plus, economic freedom naturally leads to, or at least implies, downward distribution of political power (AKA subsidiarity), with the result that various ranks and levels of local, regional, and provincial government arise, along with an accompanying legal system, and these too are, by and large, made up of middle class individuals.

So this very roughly sketched-out and simplified model is what one might call the “peacetime model”. But what happens in times of war? Right away the ruling class – the warmakers (if not warfighters) – realizes that it needs more resources. So it taps the lower classes for manpower, which right away cuts down on the number of people who might be enjoying some measure of upward mobility through their labor... and it taps the middle classes for money, which makes everyone a bit poorer (and makes people at the lower levels of the middle class back into lower-class individuals). So there is an overall economic chilling effect, AKA (for propaganda purposes) “sacrifice” or “austerity” (but you'll notice the ruling class never seems to have to make any sacrifices of this sort). And if a war, or a series of wars, goes on long enough, we will see an erosion of the middle class – a decrease in its numbers as well as in its relative standard of living – which is likely to be permanent. For example, if you carefully study middle-class life styles prior to World War I – their homes, their clothing, their servants (!), etc. -- you will find a world that, basically, vanished with nary a trace, largely as a result of the “sacrifices” and economic displacements necessitated by the war. This was a true middle class – high enough on the scale to afford servants (who were from a true working class) but still no closer to the upper class than their descendants are today. (Small but telling example – my maternal grandfather's house, built right around the time of World War I, had a back staircase for the help. He was a small-town banker, and the house was no “McMansion”, but there was this staircase – which, by the time I came along, had long since been converted into storage space. They were, and remained, middle class – but what that meant had changed drastically. The entire economic structure of society had shifted, and the war had a lot to do with it, in my opinion.)

Now, you might say, “But! But! What about the fact that war creates millions of jobs... and what about the 'postwar prosperity boom', etc.?” Well – those millions of jobs are, number one, created at the expense of other goods and services (can you say “rationing”?). Number two, they extract a cost in the form of higher taxes and borrowing, AKA the national debt. And what does war, in turn, contribute in the way of goods and services? Nothing, really – unless you happen to deal in scrap metal. So I'm going to say that, despite appearances, war is always a net economic liability. True, it does have an energizing effect, and can get some people into the habit of working again... and it can serve as a kind of social mechanism to shame slackers and free-loaders. And, it can also stimulate people to either retrain or move to where the jobs are – more, even, than the Depression did. War is, after all, like any other government program, a jobs program. But if you want to contrast 1950s prosperity with the 1930s economic doldrums, you're going to have to come up with something besides World War II to convince me. I think the 1950s were prosperous despite the war, or – at best – as an unintended consequence. And after all, prosperity did not follow immediately on the heels of the war... and let's not forget that no sooner did we get back on our feet than the government got us involved in a new war, namely the one in Korea. So whenever you think that war contributes to prosperity, you have to ask, how much more prosperous would we have been if there had not been a war?

So I'm going to say that, in the long run, war is a detractor and a hindrance when it comes to a nation's economy – not to mention its politics, individual liberties, morale, self-image, and so on. And this is aside from the energizing effects of war, as mentioned above, opposed to the soporific effects of peace. Some people will always be lulled into semi-consciousness by peace and prosperity, and be shown the only real meaning in their lives by war. But I don't think we should let these types dominate our thinking. And I don't think we should be deceived by the rapidity with which some nations rebuild from the ruins of war. You can put up all the skyscrapers, superhighways, and malls you like, but it won't reduce the patient load in veterans' hospitals one iota... and neither will it repair the scars left on the “national psyche”. Wars create neurosis – in both people and in nations. We are still, in a sense, in the post-Vietnam era psychologically, in this country; the new novelties of wars elsewhere have not served to erase that trauma. And the novelties of future wars will not serve to erase the traumas of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., which are already quite apparent. In that sense, “rebuilding” is an illusion, and a form of denial. It's a way of papering over a deeper reality – one which will only die when the last combatant dies, but not even then, as witness the lingering bitterness about the Civil War, 150 years later. Why is most history about war? Because war leaves a more permanent mark on a society, and on its people, than any other type of event – although plagues can come close, as was the case with the Black Death.

But now we come to the ironic part. If peace and freedom give rise to, and reinforce, the middle class, and if war serves to suppress the middle class economically... then you would think the middle class would be, by and large, anti-war and pro-peace. But the true case is just the opposite! Who was out there on the street protesting the war in Vietnam? The children of the middle class, yes – but not their parents. And those children have, since then, developed a strange new respect for war, as long as it's being led by a president of the correct political party. The other protesters were the more conscious and/or radical components of the lower/working class and minorities. They knew that the war was a scam, that it was all about business, and that they were being exploited, misused, and abused. “No Viet Cong ever called me a nigger.” Crude, but it cut to the heart of the matter. The ruling class at the time was in it for – well, for money, as always... and also to expand the American empire, and for the sake of raw power. Oh, I suppose there was some sincere anti-communism in the mix, but I imagine the people for whom that was Job One were being duped and exploited by cynics.

But where were the “true believers” -- the real, live anti-communists – when it came to the war in Vietnam? The middle class, of course. They were the ones who voted for war over and over again – who never once expelled a politician from elective office for being too much of a warmonger – and who even sent their own sons off to fight, if it was really necessary. So we had the lower class – victimized by way of the draft as well as by the erosion of (and by) social programs – doing the heavy lifting for the ruling class, with the full political and economic (via taxation) support of the middle class. But did this mean that war was not damaging to the middle class – to its prosperity and, ultimately, to its liberties? Not at all. All the middle class got for their support of the war was higher taxes and a government increased in size many times over – the very things the “Tea Party” is demonstrating about in our time.

But that was Vietnam, right? Old news, right? After a brief period of self-flagellation, AKA the Carter administration, we got back down to the business of building the economy back up again, under Reagan, Bush I, and even Clinton. The middle class breathed the fresh air of... well, not freedom exactly, but at least superficial prosperity -- “superficial” because of the gathering storm of the housing bubble, savings and loan failures, the national debt, increased commitments overseas, the gradual turning of our political and economic sovereignty over to the Europeans, etc. And yet all seemed well... and it seemed that the Age of the Middle Class had returned – especially given that so many radical movements had been co-opted and neutralized by the government. “Black power”, La Raza, and radical feminism were like so many annoying but harmless gnats, or fading memories, in the sunshine days of the 1980s... and even the non-stop soap opera that was the Clinton administration was little more than harmless amusement (unless you were a Branch Davidian or a resident of Belgrade, etc.). Besides, by the early 1990s, the enemy we had known for so long – namely the Soviet Union – had dried up and blown away. That should have been good news, but instead it left a gap – an “enemy gap”. You see, an ideational society thrives not only on its own self-image as the best of all possible societies, but it also requires a dark side – a concept that “they hate us because of our freedoms” -- or because of our McMansions, or cable TV, or fast foods, or whatever. Materialistic, humanistic ideas can only thrive when contrasted with their supposed opposites – and not only contrasted, but entered into regular conflicts with people of other convictions. The Cold War was, first and foremost, a war of ideas – at least for (again) the middle class. (The lower classes weren't convinced that the Soviets didn't have a point – and the ruling class didn't care.) So an enemy gap gives rise to an idea gap – a period of uncertainty and doubt... and surely we can't have that. This is why the attacks of 9-11 were like unto manna from heaven – not that they were seen that way at the time, but they served to re-inspire the American middle class and give them a new cause, and a new crusade – a war on Islam! Finally a chance to get even for the Medieval Crusaders being unceremoniously booted out of the Near East! Am I saying that this was a conscious agenda (the way it might have been for the other side)? No – but the ancient meme was there, implanted in public school history classes for generations: Moslems are bad and evil people, and Islam is a bad religion. Communism – a pseudo-religion – had been conquered (more or less) through just waiting for it to self-destruct. Islam might be an even tougher nut to crack. But we can do it, because we've got good old American know-how, and a capability for self-sacrifice that would put the most ascetic monk to shame.

And thus was born the Next Great Cause of the American middle class – and the process, as always, was overseen, controlled, and manipulated by the cynical members of the Regime. They had the votes, the political support, and few would complain about taxes as long as they were going to fight “rag-heads” and not to support welfare queens. And who knows, the middle class might even cough up some military volunteers. But if not, no problem, we always have the proletariat, whose economic desperation readily pushes them into uniform.

But I say again – and the events since 9-11 offer overwhelming proof – war is bad for the middle class (and “other living things”, if you like). What were the Tea Party protesters protesting? Whether they knew it or not, they were protesting the political and economic impact of perpetual war. If you had asked any one of them if they were pro-war or not, you would have gotten a dollop of the same old Neocon pap – but the connection is there, whether they realize it or not. In the long run – if you exchange every old war with a new one, in perpetuity – what you're going to wind up with is the gradual extinction of the middle class... and this is aside from domestic policy and taxation. You will wind up with a warring state on the ancient or Medieval model – with a ruling elite and an army of slaves, with very little in between. You will wind up with, in a sense, a military model of society, which is what the ancient world seems to have specialized in. And yet this model is being aided and abetted by none other than the people who have the most to lose.

So the bottom line – for the time being, at least – is that each succeeding war causes the middle class to lose ground... and they are lucky if they manage to make it up before the next war comes along – a war which they, undoubtedly, will do everything they can to support. But this is based on a model in which war and peace are cyclic. What we have now, since World War II and especially since 9-11, is a perpetual war model, where no sooner do we conclude (more or less) hostilities in one country than we initiate them somewhere else. And it is this model which virtually assures the destruction of the middle class – and this process is already underway, as can be readily seen. The Tea Partiers are right about that much. What they are mistaken about is how things came to this pass, and the extent to which it's their own fault.

“Why despair, if everything is in God's hands?”

Thus, a recent gentle criticism of a major theme of my blog posts, which seems to be that it's, basically, too late – that the salvation of this country – its economy, its culture – will come only with the complete collapse of the current system. Or – if you agree with my theory that American sovereignty is already a thing of the past, and we are now slaves of an international banking and business cartel – it will come only with the complete collapse of that cartel, which seems a pipe dream, since it is clearly becoming more powerful every day (as witness recent events in Europe regarding national debt bailouts). It seems to me that the most likely near- and mid-term future for America, and for Americans, is that we're fated to be unwitting slaves of “higher powers” -- powers for whom our own home-grown “leaders” are no more than glorified servants. I believe that the evidence for this is overwhelming, and that more accumulates with each passing day. Americans are no longer masters of their fate – and their leaders aren't either. They serve at the pleasure of the Regime, or the cartel, or the cabal – whatever you want to call it – and as long as they serve faithfully, they retain their pathetically superficial “perks” and signs of power. Once their effectiveness goes into decline, however, they are tossed aside like so much used toilet paper. This is their fate, and I must say that it's richly deserved, since their actions amount to no less than treason.

So it's true – my commentaries seem to counsel despair, in that I believe things have progressed (if that is the word) far beyond any hope of cure within the system. And when cures within the system become impossible, one normally turns to, or waits for, cures without the system – apocalyptic ones like war, famine, and pestilence, or political/military ones like revolution or conquest by a foreign power. (Note that we have already been “conquered” by a foreign power, economically speaking – namely China.) After all, it was Russian military failures in the early stages of World War I that, arguably, rang a death knell on the czarist empire... and Germany's defeat in World War I set the stage for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. It would seem that, most of the time, revolution, as opposed to evolution, winds up making things worse than they were before... or maybe it's just that the advantage is handed to different people – i.e., the ones who wind up writing the approved history books. Clearly, someone is always better off as the result of a revolution or other catastrophe than they were before – but those “someones” tend to be vicious, plotting schemers, not ordinary folk. Anyone, for example, who thinks the Russian peasant wound up better off after the Bolshevik revolution than he was before has got some reading to do. But the rule stands – namely that someone always profits, someone always benefits. And this is true in the present case as well. Goldman Sachs executives are happier than pigs in stuff right now – as are armaments makers and anyone else who is profiting from the current round of insanity and criminality.

So the “conventional wisdom” (as opposed to the reality) about revolutions are that they are usually good things... and the conventional wisdom about wars, famines, pestilences, etc., are that, while unpleasant at the time, they can have (paradoxically, at least) positive results. (Where is the “zero population growth” fanatic who is not secretly pleased every time he hears about a famine, or civil war, or plague, in Africa?) And I suppose that, without the world-wide revolutions that began in France and extended (over 150-odd years) all the way to China, we would not have had the opportunity to see what socialism, communism, collectivism, and totalitarianism amounted to in terms of net benefit to mankind. As it is, ideas that should have wound up on the ash heap decades ago are still alive and well, thanks mostly to human fallibility and concupiscence. Each new generation, it seems, has to learn anew that the pipe dreams of secular humanism are no more than that – and that they are destructive of the human spirit as well as of mind and body. When young people complain about the grayness, dullness, and conventionality of ordinary life and ordinary people, what they are complaining about is, by and large, the effects of socialism. They are living in a society in which most people, on a deep level, are paralyzed with fear. (Ironically, they may think that socialism is the answer to these complaints!) We hear a lot about “dumbing down”, “leveling”, and the (misnamed) “lowest common denominator”; these are all symptoms of socialism and collectivism. More than symptoms, actually – they are active, conscious pieces of the agenda. The idea is to create a gulf, on all dimensions, between the controllers and the controlled – and no one is a better exemplar of this than Our President, who, with his modest and unconventional background, has ascended to the heights (with the help of the Regime) and now delights in lording it over the peasantry. One could say that he has forgotten his “roots”, but I suspect that, in fact, he has no real roots. He was born on the road, one might say – in transit. So he fits into any situation, but is at home in none. Maybe that makes him an ideal leader for our time, I don't know. But it is certain that he is as far from ordinary people and their concerns and values as the east is from the west.

So while I may counsel what seems to be despair – in the short- and mid-term – I'm perfectly willing to say “all is well” in the ultimate sense. I believe in divine justice, but I also believe that God is long-suffering... too long, in the opinion of those who want to see fire rain down from Heaven on the unjust before the night is over. Religion typically counsels patience, and waiting on God's pleasure; politics counsels impatience and impulsiveness. And when you combine the two, well... then you get the Evangelicals, who want nothing more than to accelerate the timetable for the “end times” by getting us to fall on our sword for Israel. They spend every waking hour nagging God to get on with it, and then proceed to ignore most of what the New Testament teaches.

And it may work, in a twisted kind of way. If our exertions on behalf of Israel wind up destroying our military (well underway) and our economy (very well underway) and our morale and self-respect (very well underway), we will eventually collapse, and then it will be Israel against the entire Arab/Islamic world... and even if they do fire off all of their nukes, I think it will be a suicide gesture on their part. So maybe the prophesies about the end times will, in fact, be aided and abetted by our foolish actions, who knows? Crazier things have happened down through history. (Think of all the examples in the Bible where something bad led to something good. This almost seems to be a kind of rule of history.)

So, in the light of all this, I say again – why bother? Well, it's not just because we deserve a better world than the one our leaders are providing us. There is such a thing as salvific suffering, and I think we're about to get many more opportunities to experience that than we have in a long time. But there is also the human mind and the human spirit, both of which thrive on truth, and grow sickly and die with a constant diet of lies, deceptions, and con games. Even to march to the gallows knowing the truth would be preferable to sitting on silk cushions in a state of delusion, it seems to me. The besetting sin of Americans in our time is not that they are fat and lazy – although there is plenty of that. It's that they are morally negligent and intellectually slothful; in other words, they simply refuse to use their brains for anything other than base activities and ephemeral amusements. The, um, “literature” available at grocery store check-out lines should be enough to convince you of this. And I don't expect people to be, or want to be, “intellectuals” -- heaven forbid! All I ask is the occasional thought based on reality rather than fancy... the occasional use of logic... the occasional sobering meditation on the Four Last Things (or if that sounds too abstract, then how about the dangers of empire?). People in the past were no smarter than we are, in terms of innate intellectual ability – but they had better intellectual habits, and better life habits. They had a level of independence and integrity that is almost inconceivable in our time – and yet we continue to benefit from their thoughts and actions. We benefit, but since we know not where those benefits come from we have no immunity against the people who are determined to take them away. And sure enough, the erosion of liberties in our time is nearly complete; in other words, we are living in what amounts to a totalitarian society, even though the way it is manifested is, for most people most of the time, “low-impact”. The government could do more to us, but usually doesn't; I don't consider this a compliment. “Soft” socialism – or, more properly, fascism – is still socialism. Soft tyranny is still tyranny. There is nothing in principle preventing the government, on any level, from turning up the heat; the fact that they don't is a testimony to a kind of pragmatism and nothing more.

So the truth really will set us free – intellectually and spiritually if not physically or economically... and that is what the saying means anyway. We must still “render unto Caesar” every April 15 (and most days in between), and we are still subject to countless restrictions on our actions. But “mind control” is still... well, let's say it remains on a voluntary basis. If a person wants to become an unthinking, unblinking, brain-dead clone of the Regime and the mainstream media, opportunities abound. But no one is forced into that situation against their will. And while I detest mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, it is still gratifying to, on occasion, encounter kindred souls – the way partisans would encounter each other in the dark of night in a World War II movie. To be truly a lone thinker – a prophet without honor, and even without a listener (or reader!) must be a trying thing. And yet, even then, it would be better to stand on the shore and shout at the waves than to remain silent.

And if the truth has intrinsic value, regardless of “results” -- and if that value is amplified in a gathering of like minds – is that the only reason for speaking out? It might be if we were sticking to a strictly materialistic model, but what if we adhere to a moral model as well? What if our politics is predicated, as much as possible, on moral principles and not only on ethical concepts (as noble as they can be)? And furthermore, what if our moral principles include not only concepts as to what ought to be done – let's say in the name of charity – but of what ought to be done in the name of faith? And what if we believe that our very salvation may be at stake depending on decisions we make in what appears to be a totally material, secular political realm? There is, then, value – infinite value, perhaps – in trying to conform our political actions (including words) to moral principles. And what if we believe that it might also be possible to save, or at least be an occasion of grace for, others based on our words and actions? What if their salvation is at stake as well as our own?

Now I know that this sounds a bit grandiose... but think for a moment. What if, for example, we could convert enough people to the Just War teachings of the Catholic Church? It would result in a complete reformulation of our foreign policy... and, most likely, doom the Republican Party (and who can say that's a bad thing?). And how about abortion – an issue where souls are at stake (not the souls of the victims but the souls of the perpetrators and their facilitators)? This would seem to be a most urgent piece of business... and simple charity would dictate that the truth be told, and repeated as often as need be. These are very straightforward issues requiring no egghead, intellectual, wonkish ruminations or advanced degrees. They are things, in short, that nearly everyone can understand – and there are plenty more similar issues. In fact, I would venture to say that all the really important political and economic issues can be made understandable to the average person, despite what the “experts” would have us believe. And it goes without saying that mistaken beliefs, and grievous errors, are not confined to the masses, but are almost a specialty of the intellectual elite.

So yes, there are plenty of good reasons to speak up, and not to remain silent, cowed, and fearful. There can be hope behind apparent despair. Pure cynicism and misanthropy are one thing – but has anyone ever accused any of the saints of those failings? I don't think so. The wildest, wild-eyed preacher on the street corner may ultimately have the good of mankind at heart, even if everything he says sounds like a Jeremiad. Is he more “negative” than the guy who sits at a cafe table all day sipping espresso and not offering a coherent opinion on anything? I think that despair – true despair – is the ultimate negativity. But simply living during a time of decline and fall of an empire is an accident of personal history – and pointing it out may well be a duty.

Excerpt of the Month

When I become Death, Death is the seed from which I grow...

Who really gave that order?

ANSWER: Control. The ugly American, the instrument of control.

QUESTION: If Control's control is absolute, why does Control need to control?

ANSWER: Control needs time.

QUESTION: Is Control controlled by its need to control?

ANSWER: Yes.

(Q) Why does Control need humans, as you call them?

(A) Weight, weight, time - a landing field. Death needs time like a junkie needs junk.

(Q) And what does Death need time for?

(A) The answer is so simple. Death needs time for what it kills to grow in...

... you stupid, vulgar, greedy, ugly American death sucker.

We have a new type of rule now. Not one-man rule or rule of aristocracy or plutocracy, but of small groups elevated to positions of absolute power by random pressures and subject to political and economic factors that leave little room for decision. They're representatives of abstract forces who have reached power through surrender of self.

The iron-willed dictator is a thing of the past. There will be no more Stalins, no more Hitlers. The rulers of this most insecure of all worlds are rulers by accident – inept, frightened pilots at controls of a vast machine they cannot understand, calling in experts to tell them which buttons to push.

--- From “Ah Pook Is Here” by William S. Burroughs

Stupor Tuesday

Tuesday was the day set aside for the apotheosis of Mitt Romney – and, sure enough, the prophesied event seems to have occurred, although you wouldn't know it from the continued flailings of Santorum and Gingrich, who are starting to resemble those movie monsters that continue to growl and fight even after losing multiple limbs. Ron Paul, of course, is in it for the sake of ideas, and being the only man of principle in the race, he's not about to dry up and blow away out of consideration for politics. His strategy of hanging in there with the otherwise execrable Republicans has, in my opinion, been the correct one, since this way his ideas reach many times more people than they would have otherwise – more than if he'd started out running in the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, for instance. Of course, many people are still expecting him to “cut and run” -- and the Democrats are praying (or whatever they do in place of prayer) that he does... but I don't think that's very likely. The “third parties” have their deals, their mini-empires, their rice bowls... and they are already well along in their own nomination process. Besides, Paul can continue to hang in there after the convention and after the election, and be a welcome thorn in the side of nearly all other Republicans... which, as Martha Stewart would say, is “a good thing”. If any consciences need pricking at this point in our history, it's those of the Republicans. (The Democrats, not having been blessed with consciences, simply need to be sent back to the pre-school cry room where they belong.)

But what made Super – or, as I call it, Stupor – Tuesday special to me was the remarkable conjunction of four front-page articles in the local paper... and if I were ever called upon to give a state-of-the-union address, I would not hesitate to use these as my text:

(1) “Voters back away from Santorum” -- the point being that Republicans have finally bowed to pragmatism over ideology, and have decided that Romney is the only candidate who has any chance of beating Obama in November. Well... I guess it's theoretically possible, I mean... it's theoretically possible that Hillary Clinton will some day become a nun... but what are the chances? As I've said before, the Republicans seem to be in perpetual denial about one key fact – namely that a good half of the voters pay no taxes. Zero, zip, nada. (Referring to income taxes now.) Their entire interaction with the federal government is in the nature of their receiving money that _other_ people have paid in taxes – and since Obama epitomizes this concept of redistributing wealth, and promises even more of the same, what possible reason could there be for tax receivers to vote for anyone else? And on top of that, Obama also has the unions in his pocket... academia... the press... the entertainment industry... trial lawyers... aggrieved minorities of all sorts... in short, pretty much everyone except for white, male, non-Hispanic, Christian, heterosexual taxpayers. Talk about a vanishing demographic! I mean... well, the irony is that this group still runs the country, as they always have, and constitutes the largest single component of the Regime... which is why votes, and elections, don't matter (assuming they ever did). The people with power will stay in power, no matter how tiny a minority they become, even unto invisibility. And that's why they can tolerate Obama – because no matter how much he manages to muck things up in the world of ordinary people, he can't touch them. And, he is easily bought, like almost all politicians. Bought – threatened – blackmailed... it's all the same in the end. Men become president with visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads, only to realize, in short order, that they are nothing but glorified servants. But by then it's too late... so they spend the next 4, or 8, years parading around looking “presidential”, all the time knowing that they are abject and pathetic frauds. But hey, the pay is good, and who doesn't love all that applause? Who doesn't like being able to lay siege to Congress once a year in the State of the Union address, with the poor Supreme Court justices forced to sit there in the front row, silent and stoic as cigar-store Indians? Yeah, it's great work, as long as one is realistic as to one's options (which are few, and trivial).

(2) “Israel asserts right to attack Iran” -- yeah, so what else is new? They've been asserting the right to attack anyone and everyone ever since their country was established. (For that matter, so have we. So I guess we're not all that different.) The subhead was “Jewish state must remain 'master of its fate', Netanyahu tells Obama”. OK, fine – nothing wrong with that. What I resent is that Israel is also the master of _our_ fate – diplomatically, militarily, and ultimately economically, because of the dire impact of the wars they have forced us to fight on their behalf. But the best part of this article was the accompanying photo – a classic! Obama is shown out of focus, and Netanyahu very much in focus, and staring at Obama the way a stern judge would stare at a juvenile delinquent. What one doesn't see is the tight rope attached to Obama's... um... certain delicate organs... with Netanyahu tugging on the other end, just to remind him who's boss. One false move, one stray word suggesting non-support, and Bibi would fall on Obama's throat like a starving timber wolf. Fortunately, our president is well-trained and, after 3+ years in office, knows exactly who is in charge and what his duties are towards them. So all is well. It's a beautiful thing, in a way – like being in prison, or Marine boot camp. No decisions to make, just obey orders. The lines of command are crystal clear; they do not waver with the winds of politics. And in an ironic way, it relieves the American people of all responsibility for our foreign policy – until we recall that we are the ones who voted all of these clowns into office. Then it becomes clear that it all began, as most things do, around the dining-room table. Our politicians are little more than super-sized versions of the demons that each of us holds within us. And they won't change until we do.

(3) “McCain calls for U.S. to strike Syria” -- as if we're underemployed with only Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and a few score other places on our hands. Again, there is a kind of austere beauty in the simplicity of such as Sen. McCain; the answer to any problem is to bomb it out of existence. ( I suppose the answer to childhood obesity would be to bomb McDonald's.) And I suppose it would be idle to ask if Assad's forces had killed more innocents than our drones in Afghanistan. And it all makes me wonder – what if McCain had been elected back in 2008? There's a good chance we would have gotten into World War III with Russia over Georgia, and all be dead now. But this guy is not only still at large, but is still in the Senate, and is allowed to express his opinions pretty much at will. I find this to be a worrisome reflection on the discernment (or lack thereof) of the American voter.

(3a) And not to be outdone, here's Mitch McConnell, who looks like a small-town grocer, urging military force against Iran. And this was done as part of a speech to – guess who! -- AIPAC. No one ever wants to just come out and admit that there is complete unanimity on any issue with implications for Israel – and yet that single fact drives not only our foreign policy, but is the primary factor impinging on our economy, our military, and our domestic security. But since there's universal agreement, I guess that means there's nothing worth talking about.

(4) “Holder defends targeting Americans in terror hunt”. Oh yeah, he's back – the clown prince of the Obama administration. Now, let's work through this idea for a moment. We can “target and kill American citizens overseas in the war on terror”. OK... but what's “terror”? We already know the answer to that question – it's whatever the government says it is. We know, for instance, that a fifth-grader who brings a BB gun to school is officially designated as a “terrorist” -- or at least found to be committing “terroristic acts”. So would it be OK for CIA mercenaries to move in and kill him? Oh, wait – Holder said “overseas”, didn't he? Right – but how long is it going to be before the same logic is applied on the domestic front? And how long before the “right to target...” trickles down to state police, county sheriffs, city police departments, the dogcatcher, etc.? When you define “terrorism” or “terrorist activity” in as broad and general a way as it's been defined by the government, then virtually any activity can be so described, and virtually any citizen can therefore be designated a “terrorist”. Which means that virtually anyone can be killed for terrorist-type activity, either already carried out, or in the process of being carried out, or in the planning stage, or no further along than the local bar when someone has had a few too many. We tend to forget that the government is like a very large dog – try giving it one small doggie treat when you're holding a 100-lb. bag of treats in your other hand. It can't be done. Before you know it, the bag is ripped open, the contents devoured, and you're lucky if you still have all 10 fingers. This has happened with every other government program and “initiative” in our history; what makes us think it won't happen in this case as well?

(5) Bonus article! From page 2: “Legalizing drugs not possible, Biden says” -- this was at a gathering in Mexico City. Here's the real gem: “Biden said that even if drug legalization might have benefits, such as reducing prison populations [not to mention adverse impact on blacks], it would engender health problems [more than the “War on Drugs” does?], expand drug usage [this is not the experience of Portugal, for example] and even create bureaucracies for drug distribution.” Don'tcha just love that last point – as if the “War on Drugs” did not already constitute a massive bureaucracy, not to mention a perennial threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well... I don't know if the Latin American leaders have the cojones for this, but what if they all got together and simply legalized all the drugs we spend so much time obsessing about, and so much money (and lives) trying to fend off? That would, I think, apply pressure where pressure is due – on our #1 Puritanical obsession, which borders on psychosis at times.

So OK – is this not ample fodder for a speech of any length? Could it not be part of a “teaching moment”? Someone needs to get up in front of the American public and – with reference to things like empire-building, subservience to Israel, the War on Terror, and the War on Drugs – scream, “get over it!!” None of these things is necessary... they are all massively destructive, not only to our freedoms and to the economy, but also to our overall quality of life... they are making us no friends but countless enemies... and they make us look like fools on the world stage. Fools, yes – but dangerous ones, because we still carry plenty of big sticks, even as we flail around blindly. We are, perhaps, at the most dangerous stage, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, when it comes to a declining empire – we are, in many ways, trapped by our own delusions, deceived by our own power (or former power), and feeling cornered diplomatically, economically, and militarily. There is no sense in which we are better, or better off, than we were, say, at the end of World War II when we could enjoy victory on all fronts and on many levels. Flawed as we were, we could still claim to be an exemplar and a friend to man. But then the deterioration started – Vietnam, our own cultural revolution, our totally misguided reaction to whatever it was that happened on 9-11... and so on. And yes, it is painful, because we were (at least my generation was) brought up to expect more. We did not yet realize that there is an iron law of history, and of cycles of growth, consolidation, and decay... and that the United States was on the brink of entering a long decay phase. Each new revelation raises the same questions – how did things get to this point? Why wasn't the process stopped, or delayed, or redirected? Why us? Why now? There is no feeling quite so frustrating as that of being trapped in history – of being on a timeline that future generations will look back on and shake their heads, the way we shake our heads about Rome, or the Ottoman Empire, or the British Empire, etc. But it seems as unavoidable as any natural cycle – and this may be the key. Maybe it is just another natural cycle, even though it appears to be something above and beyond nature. Perhaps the United States is, more than anything else, just one very large, old, sick, lumbering organism that has finally staggered to the edge of the tar pits and is wondering whether or not to just wade in and make a blissful end to it all.

The Gong Show

A couple of weeks ago I attended a performance by Shen Yun Performing Arts -- “the world's premier classical Chinese dance company”. It was very well done – costumes, sets, a live orchestra (with both Chinese and “Western” instruments)... a very clever interaction between projected animation and the live performers... and the dances were very well choreographed, both aesthetic and athletic, and the performers looked like they enjoyed their work.

So far so good. Now, the show was produced, or sponsored, by the Greater Philadelphia Falun Dafa Association. If that rings a faint bell, it turns out that Falun Dafa is an alternative name for Falun Gong – the organization that has run into so much trouble in China lately. According to a Wikipedia article, “Falun Gong adherents overseas have responded to the suppression in China through regular demonstrations, parades, and through the creation of media outlets, performing arts companies...” etc. So yes, this is a persecuted group in China, and I don't want to get into all the complications as to why, only to speculate that as a source of spiritual teaching, it is in obvious conflict with communism, which – despite all of China's muscular show of capitalist-style energy – is still the official world view. Or, to put it more broadly, materialism is the official world view – and that includes both communism and capitalism.

So here is this show that, according to the ads, “can no longer be found in China today because many of China's best artistic traditions have been lost in recent decades.” Well... I was in China a year ago and saw plenty of traditional music and dance performances, so I think that's stretching it a bit. Promotion of traditional forms is certainly not the sole privilege of either side in any political conflict, and we've seen plenty of evidence of that over the years. (I always think of this Georgian performer who used to appear at a place in Georgetown (D.C.) back in the 1970s – his audience would be liberally peppered with both White Russians and Soviet Embassy personnel.) Yes, believe it or not, there are things that really do transcend politics – although it's easy to forget that in this day and age.

But to get back to the show – it was mostly music and dance, with some solo singing numbers done recital-style... and those lyrics had a marked mystical touch – nothing obviously political, but very tendentious in a way, as though some particular world view was being actively promoted (which it was). There was a definite eschatological feel to it all. More obvious were dance numbers which featured young Falun Dafa followers vs. the police (wearing symbols that vaguely resembled the Soviet hammer and sickle). And sure enough, the young adherents were eventually rescued through divine intervention – including by a giant blue-haired Buddha.

Another interesting angle was this: There was a cadre of young, attractive women circulating around the theater and in the lobby, carrying recording devices, asking people for their impressions of the show. Nothing wrong with that, right? But how often have you been interviewed while sitting in a theater seat during intermission? The whole thing, to me at least, started to border on the cultish; I felt like I'd stumbled onto the Chinese equivalent of a Scientology get-together. And I'm not accusing them of engaging in brainwashing – but the presentations were heavy-handed at times, and, I think, qualified as propaganda. (The Chinese authorities would certainly think so.)

What I find intriguing, in a way, is that this show is traveling all over the country unimpeded, while at the same time we're engaged in this chess game with China, with “human rights issues”, foreign policy, trade, and monetary issues on one side and our “sovereign debt” on the other. To cut to the chase – they haven't yet, as far as I know, demanded that this organization or its activities be suppressed over here. (Ridiculous, you say? Look at what happens to people and organizations that oppose Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.)

And it is a good show. And I do recommend that anyone who enjoys Chinese culture attend. Just be aware that this is also a political organization, and that they have an agenda – which may be perfectly commendable, but it's an agenda nonetheless, which goes far beyond mere entertainment.

Don't Burn, Baby, Burn

The latest instance of our stepping on our shvantz in the Middle East is the burning – or partial burning, which is worse, I guess – of a bunch of Qurans. Now... the most obvious question, which is the first one our sterling media should have asked, but didn't, is: What's the American military doing burning _any_ books in Afghanistan, to say nothing of Qurans? I mean... where in the job description of the average soldier does the phrase “burns books as needed” appear? But apparently it has something to do with security in prisons, or something. But if that's the case, why not just confiscate the books and store them in some safe place until the war is over (heh heh)... or donate them to the nearest mosque? And finally, what on earth business does the American military have “handling religious materials” in other countries? How would we feel if some occupying army came over here and started “handling religious materials”? The question pretty much answers itself.

But there is a broader issue of which this is only one small instance. It has to do with the “face of America” that is presented to the rest of the world. And in the case of military occupations, that face has nothing whatsoever to do with the pompous pronouncements of the president, or the mealy-mouthings of generals in air-conditioned “briefing rooms”. No, it consists mainly of the interactions of our military – our “boots on the ground” -- with the local populace. It's at that interface that our image is formed... and make no mistake, the data gathered at that interface has a way of percolating upward and outward, as we see on a daily basis. Ordinary Afghans don't need CNN to tell them what's happening in their own country, nor do they need NPR to make excuses for our commander-in-chief's aggressive posturing. They can see it right outside their own homes – or inside, in worse cases. So this is where our image is formed, and this is also the seedbed of the next generation of rebels, insurgents, fighters, “terrorists”. We reap dragon's teeth everywhere we go, it seems. And yet the spirit behind the burning of the Qurans – just as the spirit behind the urination scandal – is as pervasive as it is simplistic: We (Americans, that is) are the master race, and you'd better do things our way or accept the consequences. (Or – you'd better at least pretend to be doing things our way, which is all we ever do ourselves.)

Now, I'm not claiming that direct interaction with our troops is the only way the natives get news of what we're doing and what our intentions are; that's just the most immediate source. Other sources include news of Evangelical preachers burning Qurans over here... “contractors” (who turn out to be Evangelicals) being paid to brief our troops about what a horrible religion Islam is... political pep rallies where candidates (including Evangelicals) promise to start wars with any Moslem country we're not already at war with once in office... see any trends here? That's right, class – we're engaged in a religious war here, and there's no sense denying it. The “wall of separation of church and state”, which has never been all that secure on the domestic front, doesn't even exist when it comes to our foreign policy. We have, in effect, declared war on Islam on behalf of Israel and on our own behalf – and, again, no stammering denials by “top officials” either here or overseas is going to convince the Moslems otherwise. The few remaining Moslem leaders who are unambiguously on our side are increasingly accused of treason, treachery, and infidelity.

And while we're on the subject, let me point out some of the things the typical Afghan (or Iraqi, or any other) native _doesn't_ care about; they aren't even on his radar. He doesn't care about our “freedoms”, nor is he particularly envious of them. He doesn't care about the “American way of life”, because his local imam has told him that it's hopelessly decadent. He doesn't care about “democracy”, because – once again – all he sees of that is what the puppet leaders that we set up do, and how's that supposed to appeal to anyone? He only cares about “regime change” as it directly affects himself, his family, his tribe, his sect. And when it comes to American money... well, if we fly it over there by the planeload, he'll line up to grab whatever he can grab, and run off chuckling like the Beagle Boys in an old Scrooge McDuck comic. But if we're tying to buy loyalty by handing out the long green, forget about it. Might as well try and buy loyalty from a pet rattlesnake.

Well, I don't want to belabor the farcical aspects of our endless wars in the Middle East, because we all know by now – or we should – that none of this matters to the people in charge. They don't care how foolish we look, or how many people we offend, as long as their agenda is pursued with diligence, and that agenda has nothing to do with good will, or enhancing the life style of the natives, or bringing them the blessings of a benign government. And so yes, it is a bit hypocritical of people like Obama to fall over themselves “apologizing” for Quran-burning, and it's equally hypocritical of the Republican candidates to take Obama to task for these apologies. Don't they realize he doesn't mean it? Don't they realize it doesn't matter anyway? All it does is highlight the foolishness of what was, long ago, determined to be a fool's errand.

An Academic Question

The question came up recently in conversation, why is the academic (college and university) sector so overwhelmingly liberal in its outlook? This has been the case for so long that we've come to take it for granted – of course academicians are liberal; that's just the way it is. And I suppose that this stereotype (which is nonetheless true) falls into line with liberals' own stereotypes – like the one that conservatives are stupid, primitive, ignorant, superstitious, rural, inbred, etc. ... whereas liberals (i.e. themselves) are intelligent, advanced, sophisticated, enlightened, humanistic, compassionate, etc. (This has led to, among other things, the characterization of “compassionate conservatism” as a contradiction in terms.) And I also suppose that American conservatives don't always help themselves much by embracing no-neck Evangelical preachers and allowing into their ranks people who are really and truly bigoted (even if their numbers are a small fraction of those alleged by the liberals). The truth is, there are knuckleheads on both ends of the political spectrum, and all along it. If you want to see liberal ignorance in action, just check out any of the numerous Jesse Jackson- or Al Sharpton-led “rent-a-mobs” over the years. Check out the people who voted for Obama then wondered where “their” money was the day after his inauguration. Check out, for that matter, the “Occupy” crowd, whose sense of entitlement rivals anything the Northeastern elites ever came up with.

The liberals/Democrats certainly have a multi-tiered social structure, with academicians and the media at the top, and politicians a step down (yes, I got that right – politicians are not “in charge” of liberalism, they are its product and are completely dependent on anointing by the people at the top). Below that level are the activists – some in academics, but more in politics, non-profits, churches, unions, and so forth. These are the people whose voices we are most likely to hear on the street, by way of bullhorns – and the people who get interviewed on the Sunday morning “talking heads” shows. They are supposed to represent the masses – the “people”, who are widely assumed to be incapable of speaking for themselves (and when they do, they turn out to be upsettingly conservative in their views, like Joe the Plumber).

Then we have the mass of “educated” liberal voters – the liberal elite as well as populists in fly-over country... followed by “cultural Democrats” (blue-collar or the descendants thereof), followed by the vast reservoir of tax receivers, welfare recipients, resentful minorities, and anyone motivated by envy and a desire for vengeance. Make no mistake, this is a caste system, and is every bit as ossified and impacted as anything you'll find in India. The theoreticians at the top define what is politically correct, the politicians follow their lead, the media and the activists push the agenda as far as possible, imposing it on the rest of us... the “moderates” follow along in lock-step, and the proletariat wait in readiness for the next signal to take to the streets.

So this is, basically, where academics appears in the overall political picture. Of course, their stated task is to educate youth, which they do with – let's admit – an admirable sense of duty and self-sacrifice. Because nothing is more important than to enlist the next generation in the never-ending battle against... well, whatever liberals are against, which is a heck of a lot. It starts, as it must, with the revelation -- to tender and callow youth -- that their parents don't know everything – that their knowledge base doesn't cover the waterfront, and that there are, in fact, viable alternatives to their priorities and values. (Of course, anyone who gets as far as college who hasn't already figured this out might need more than a few hints from professors – but let that go for now.) The process is, in a way, similar to that in Marine Corps basic training – first you forcibly remove all traces of certainty, ego, security, and self-respect, then you rebuild from scratch. The student who staggers, dazed, out of his first philosophy or “poly sci” class will return, like a starving dog, to his victimizers in order to partake of the fare they have substituted for everything he has known up to then. It will be strange and exotic, and contradict common sense, but it will have the advantage of being certified as true by every authority within reach – and youth of that age, contrary to stereotype, value certainty above all... even if that certainty is tied to moral anarchy, political authoritarianism, and economic pipe dreams. As long as it's not what “the old folks” think or say, it's OK.

Thus, the many-faceted mission of academics in our time – the corruption of youth as well as the inoculation of the body politic with a succession of fevers and delusions. And in this latter, they have no ally so vital and indispensable as the media – full of pseudo-intellectuals, poseurs, and frauds. The Sunday morning talking heads are the link between the halls of ivy and the heads of mainstream liberals, just as union bosses, public school teachers, and black preachers are the links between academia and the working classes. The system is admirable in its completeness and in its pseudo-democracy – by which I mean everyone is welcome as long as they know their place. Clearly, anyone who is otherwise qualified for membership – by being black, for instance – but who wanders off the reservation – by being conservative, for instance – is consigned to the outer darkness. This is simply the way the organism defends itself, and it would not have lasted all these many years if it had failed to do so.

Now, you might say, why am I only picking on liberals and Democrats? It's because the topic is academics, and we already know who enjoys the imprimatur of the vast majority of academicians and academic institutions. Plus, most of the so-called "conservatives" in academia and the media -- not to mention in politics -- are frauds. Their "conservatism" -- AKA "neoconservatism" -- is little more than a vehicle for American militarism, which is, historically, more of a liberal/populist cause than one that is truly patriotic or intended to preserve the nation and its citizens' liberties.

But even this is only a snapshot based on the current scene. A proper approach to the question also has to include a historical survey, which is what comes next. If you look back far enough, you find that, to quote an article in a recent issue of Chronicles, concerning medieval universities, “The income from the tuition charged went in large part to maintain the faculty in their pursuit of truth, an activity blessed and further underwritten by the Church, with which universities maintained a close association. Faculty took religious vows and typically lived in poverty, or close to it.” The picture we have from that time is not one of academics and scholarship “versus” the Church, but in harmony with it and with Church teachings. Even the science of that time (and yes, there was science back then, and plenty of it) was conducted within the wider context of faith – there being no better example than the work of St. Albert the Great. It would have been inconceivable to anyone at that time that there could arise a clash and a parting of the ways between science and religion – or between any sort of learning (the humanities, economics, history, etc.) and religion. It was a model of reality based on the premise that everything is part of the created order, and thus worthy of study, but also – again within the context of faith – on accepted premises that did not require scientific proof (logical proof being another matter, as exemplified by the work of Aquinas). To put it another way, science was the figure and faith the ground. The scope of science was broad, but still contained within the broader scope of non- (not anti-) science.

But then a few things happened – to put it mildly. One was the rise of heresies of various kinds, which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation and then, later on, to the secularization of most academic institutions. It was, in effect, a rebellion on all fronts -- spiritual, theological, and philosophical. It was no longer “unquestioning” faith that mattered, but only man, however defined – thus “humanism” became the leading theme in academics. Humanism, and materialism – which is why Marxism found such a ready reception in academic circles and continues to do so. But all academic disciplines suffered to some degree, not the least being economics, which Catholic social teaching was intended to speak to – which it has, but with very little tangible success. By the time the encyclical Rerum Novarum was issued in 1891, the juggernaut of secular, materialistic history, politics, and economics (as exemplified by the Industrial Revolution, socialism, and capitalism) was already up to full speed.

On the scientific side, most people would agree that Galileo's work was the first major battle in a war that continues to this day. Suddenly it appeared that faith and science could be incompatible – and the mindset of the time (and of ours) dictated that science must, inevitably, win. Any time faith and science ran into conflict, or appeared to, it was faith that had to butt out, apologetically. Two other major battles of note are Darwinism, or evolutionary theory, and Freudianism, or psychoanalysis. And what do we have in our time? I would say that the controversy over “when live begins” (in the womb) is paramount – but the battle over evolution rages on, as does a less noisy controversy over human nature. (Are we mere animals? Or animals with a spiritual side? Or animals with an illusion of a spiritual side? Etc.)

Now, I'm not going to try and condense a few libraries' worth of work into a single paragraph, but suffice it to say that, in Galileo's case, the Church may have dug in a bit too hard – or, let's say, it may have over-interpreted what faith requires in the face of observed phenomena. It's not as if faith has boundaries, but it certainly should be able to accommodate any and all true findings about nature; this was certainly the premise upon which St. Albert and St. Thomas operated. Even being willing to consider the validity of evolutionary mechanisms does not require a compromise with faith – providing that said mechanisms are kept within the bounds of science and not granted extra-scientific or metaphysical status. And as for Freud, he dismissed religion as an “illusion”, which is curious considering that he was perfectly open to all other human traits and habits, and anxious to describe their functions – their “survival value” if you will (thus, an area of overlap between Darwinism and Freudianism that today's liberals are curiously phobic about contemplating).

Another problem was that, since the Church and science had different missions and priorities, and spoke a different language, the Church did not have ready scientific answers for Darwin, for example. All the faithful could do was kind of sputter and say, well, it can't be true, because it's against faith – and thus the fault line became wider and deeper. Since then, however, at least one major line of research (and mathematics, and logic) has come along, namely Intelligent Design theory, that is able to ride out and do battle with Darwinism on its own terms... and this, I hasten to add, is not the same as “creation science” or “creationism” -- although liberals love to conflate the two. (This is also why you hear a lot more about "creationism" than about Intelligent Design, since secular materialism has ready answers for creationism, but is strangely silent about Intelligent Design.)

There are also plenty of perfectly sound economic arguments against Marxism, some of which actually predate Marx and some of which have come along since – and many of these are compatible with Catholic social teaching. So in this sense the tide is turning, and we find, in small, isolated pockets of academia, robust theories and models that are a match – and more than a match – for Marx, Darwin, and Freud, but which are also compatible with faith. And yet there is still a long, uphill climb ahead, simply because many areas of science, economics, etc. are no longer (assuming they ever were) matters of fact, data, and logic, but matters of – dare I say it? -- faith.

Yes, there is a “secular faith” that has grown, and broadened, over the years to take in virtually every human endeavor (including religion, if it's studied in an anthropological and/or psychological way) – and its premises are simple (if seldom stated) and self-serving – namely that anything worth study must fit into a “scientific” mold, and that only findings resulting from this process are valid as a basis for human activity (to include education, government, etc.). But at the same time this secular faith is corrupted by decidedly non-scientific premises having to do with the nature of man and the significance (or lack thereof) of human existence. Whether we say that it's all about economics, or survival, or sex, and nothing more, we are are not making a scientific statement. But because this “faith” is purely secular, it fails to answer man's highest needs, including the need for meaning – and it is thus a form of despair. At least the existentialists were willing to go all the way in this regard – if life is meaningless and absurd, then each of us is set back on his own devices; we are lonely people in a lonely world, with naught but cold infinity on either side. But this is taking a very negative “is” and deriving from it an even more negative “ought”. Most so-called humanists don't have this sort of courage – they insist on making up values out of whole cloth as a poor substitute for genuine faith. The problem is that so many of the values they come up with turn readily into catastrophes like revolution, war, totalitarianism, collectivism, etc. If human beings are, somehow, provided with a consciousness, but then given nothing to think about other than their own mortality... well, then doesn't this make us the most pathetic of species? Hateful, even? And sure enough, one typically finds, within the ranks of secular humanists of all stripes, people who hate themselves, but who hate humanity even more. Their “humanism” is just a disguise for despair. Is it really an accident that all attempts to change human nature... to collectivize... create little but death, destruction, and misery? They want us to believe that a life without faith is perfectly benign... that it doesn't hurt anyone else... “live and let live”, “tolerance”, "diversity", and all that – but the results tell a different story. And I don't care whether you're talking about left-wing secular humanism or right-wing fascism; the end result is the same. Deny a big part of human nature, and you deny man. Deny man, and you deny his right to live in a meaningful way – or to live at all. The tragedy of our time is that the academic world, which should be the strongest force against this point of view, is its biggest promoter. But this is a consequence of the great schism I have tried to describe above... and the answer is not for the Church to pull further away from science, and from academics, but to reclaim both and put them back into their rightful place within the larger context of faith.

I know there's much more that could be said on this topic, but I hope I've made a good start.

The Church Non-Militant

The waves of totalitarianism are lapping at the feet of the American Catholic Church, in the form of the new “initiative” on the part of the Obama administration to provide “reproductive services” to women as part of health plans connected with Catholic institutions. And what are ordinary American Catholics likely to do about it? Yeah, I mean the folks 54% of whom voted for Obama in 2008. Talk about sheep to the slaughter! The chaplain of my local Latin Mass community pointed out that there is nothing new about this – i.e. about Catholics lying down and playing dead in the face of intrusive and persecutory policies on the part of the government. We have tolerated every fresh assault ever since the country was young, so what reason would the government have to expect us to stand firm now? Everyone knows that Catholics have been, historically, tolerated in this country as a source of cheap labor and Democratic votes, but have never been more than second-class citizens. Even John F. Kennedy had to, basically, apostatize in order to keep his campaign for president alive... and it still didn't do him any good in the long run. No, anti-Catholicism has been part of the life blood of America since its founding, and I suppose that we can only claim to have held our own in the areas of primary and secondary education and big-city politics. But even that is a thing of the past, since parochial schools have fallen on hard times and the (admittedly corrupt) big-city machines have fallen victim to the ethnic cleansing of blue-collar whites from the cities. So there's really nothing left of Catholic political or social power these days – and the final blow was (or was supposed to be) the exposure of “pedophile priests” in every diocese and parish. So the Catholic Church in this country is, undoubtedly, on the ropes, politically speaking, without a friend in the world – which means that it's ripe for the picking, especially if you're a Democratic/liberal power-hungry demagogue (including those who are nominally Catholic).

And, for that matter, what is “the Catholic vote”? Does it really exist? I say that it doesn't, for the simple reason that, statistically, the “Catholic vote” is indistinguishable from that of the general populace. And when there is no statistically-significant difference, you have to conclude that the groups are, for all intents and purposes, the same. So if most people would have no objection to the government imposing its own “health care” values on Catholic institutions, why should Catholics? Why, in particular, should Catholics who themselves make use of artificial birth control and even, heaven forbid, abortion? As far as they're concerned, the government is simply validating what they already felt to be the case – that the Church was being a fuddy-duddy, and behind the times, and imposing their rules and standards on everybody.

Of course, what no one has yet mentioned in the current controversy is that anyone working in a Catholic institution who doesn't like the health-care plan that is offered there is free to leave, or to purchase their own policy outside the institution. It's not as if we're talking about a bunch of slaves here, who have no choice of where to work or whom to work for. Another option – also unmentioned to date – is that the Church simply disengage from the institutions in question. I don't know what their legal relationship is now, but I can't imagine that most of them would not survive being independent – if their services are truly needed. I mean, is a hospital or charitable organization going to go out of business just by ceasing to be “Catholic”? Still another option would be for the Church to simply refuse to cooperate, and take the government to court on the matter – and this seems most likely at this point... more likely than capitulation, which would be a complete disaster, because then all we would have to do is wait for the government's next outrageous demand... like that Catholic hospitals start performing abortions, “or else”.

This is, truly, a time for the Church to stand tall and reclaim the moral high ground – yes, even as the “pedophile priest” cases plod drearily through the courts and new revelations crop up with each passing day. It's time to say that the current generation will no longer put up with attacks and insults – and that the “wall of separation of church and state” has to operate both ways, not just to protect the state from religion (which it does very effectively if you're talking about the Catholic Church) but also to protect religion from the state.

The problem is, Catholics have such a long history of compromise – of going along to get along. We know that, outside of the old urban enclaves and a few isolated rural areas, we are in a vast landscape of anti-Catholicism and hostility... or, at the very least, skepticism and distrust. What, after all, was the great fear about John Kennedy? That he would be “more loyal to the Pope than to America”. (Funny how no one seems to have a problem with our politicians being more loyal to Israel than to America...) Well, when it came to JFK, that was the least of their worries – but it's still a good question. If America is a moral country, and if the Catholic Church teaches morality, you would expect their interests and values to seldom, if ever, diverge. Right? The problem is that America embraces a Protestant version of morality, which has little or no use for, for example, Catholic social teachings or “just war” doctrine. So whenever these come into conflict, the Protestants invariably win, while the Catholics are open to charges of disloyalty and not being “real Americans”. And this is, quite simply, why “Catholic” politicians leave the Church behind when they get into politics – the two are incompatible and can never be reconciled. I mean, it must be tough enough to be a politician in a “Catholic country” like Spain or Italy, with all the conflicting pressures; over here it's impossible. And yet, these characters persist in identifying themselves as “Catholic” in the expectation that this will give them some advantage in elections – although if the “Catholic vote” is an illusion, then one has to wonder if it's worth the trouble.

Ideally, the Church should, without delay, excommunicate any politician who supports, in any way, abortion. Occasionally, some isolated bishop threatens to do this, but to my knowledge it has not yet been done. The most they will ever say is that politicians of this sort “have excommunicated themselves”. Yeah, well... whoop-te-do. I think it would more dramatic if they were officially excommunicated, and then driven from church with a flaming sword if they ever tried to receive Communion. That would be the “church militant” -- that would be a church with, if you'll pardon the expression, balls. That would be a church that is unapologetic, assertive, and willing to stand up for its rights, rather than the cringing lap dog we see so much of the time. That would be a church that – come to think of it – acts like the Jews and Moslems do all the time. Imagine that!

It is to the credit of some bishops that they have stood up and protested this most recent offense – and likewise some politicians (even those who are less-than-stellar Catholics). And sure enough, the Obama administration has backed off a bit -- maybe too small a bit to be significant. But it is too little, too late? Is it all too pathetic, like the half-hearted opposition to abortion on the part of the Catholic establishment? Are we afraid that we might wear out our welcome, and be put on boats and shipped back to Europe and Latin America? Well? I mean – what on earth do we have to lose? If the bishops rose up as one man and simply said, do not vote for any politician who supports abortion, period – what's the worst that could happen? Ooo, we might lose our tax-exempt status or something. Well... it's been my observation that, historically speaking, the true moral power of the Catholic Church seems inversely correlated with its material wealth. This is certainly true if you break it down to the level of religious orders, or even dioceses or parishes. We might say that in poverty there is (moral) strength, and in riches there is, inevitably, compromise with the world. What this administration is asking us to do is compromise – fatally – with the world, even when there are no discernible advantages to doing so, and no discernible disadvantages to refusing. If you work day and night for years... decades... centuries to rob the Church of its political and moral influence, what incentives are you then going to offer for its “cooperation”? The answer is – none. We have arrived at the point of brute force... of the last battle between church and state, at least in this country. The Protestants are already fatally compromised, and have been for decades; the Jews have traded their spiritual birthright for a mess of political, social, and economic pottage; the Moslems in this country are the new minority that it's politically correct to hate and oppress... and so who is left to take a stand? Basically, it's the Catholics or no one – and yet we have become so unused to the idea that it seems downright shocking, and possibly in bad taste as well. Wouldn't it be easier just to allow ourselves to sink into the same “melting pot” -- the same morally-indifferent mush as everyone else? But I call to your attention Dore's illustrations of the Inferno – just being in the majority in no guarantee of comfort and security.