Three Political Divides in the age of Trump

The three fundamental political divides in our society could be called: the classic, the class, and the cultural-moral.

The classic economic divide between Democrats and Republicans involves the economic interests of labor vs. capital and the role of the state in the free market, a tension intrinsic to developed, late industrial societies. This does not have to be a viciously polarizing divide, but has traditionally been relatively friendly: not so much a battle-to-the-death as an amiable if competitive softball game at an  family picnic. By the 1940s the radical socialist elements (now reemerging in new shapes) in the labor movement were defeated by pro-capitalist, pro-democracy, anti-communist, largely Catholic forces. For example, I can't recall anything terribly negative spoken about President Eisenhower in my staunchly Democratic family in the 1950s. Later in that century, during my 25 years at UPS, mostly in management, I enjoyed an easy collaboration with union shop stewards: we were equally committed to implementing "the contract" and we all came from the same source, the ranks of hourly, union workers. I was a pro-union supervisor and the union leaders were (deep down, if covertly) pro-company. The issues around this divide are economical and regulatory: minimum wage, capital gains tax, health care, safety and environmental regulations and so forth. Being material and economic, these are inherently susceptible to compromise: if I want a $10 minimum wage and you a $20, we can compromise at $15.

With regard to this classic divide, I position myself as a slightly-left-leaning moderate. I retain the values of my family background: sympathy for the underdogs, for labor, and for a robust but limited government. At the same time, experience has given me keener understanding of the dysfunctions of big government and the benefits of free enterprise. I am roughly equal in my respect for the deficiencies and advantages of the expansive state and corporation. What they share is a malignant compulsion to grow like a cancer, beyond human, sober and rational dimensions. If there is a single must-read book on economics it would be the marvelous Small is Beautiful in which Schumaher argues for a modest, limited and human scale to technology and institutions. Beyond that we should study the work of Ivan Illich and Jacques Ellul along with a smattering of the agrarian Wendell Berry and the Christian anarchists Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Together they are antidotes to the "gigantism" common to the Democratic and Republican parties that since World War II have lost any  sense of subsidiarity.

The  second, new class divide is much more severe and polarizing: that between the winners and losers in the new economy. For example, in 1950-70 the vigorous economy granted rich benefits to industrial, union workers: a UAW or Teamster worker might live close to and quite similar to a doctor or a lawyer. But the post-industrial, high-tech, information economy has seen a diminished union movement and a chasm between new upper and lower classes. On the one hand, the more educated, competent (meritocracy), and privileged develop marketable managerial or technical skills and use connections to advance; meanwhile, an emergent underclass is trapped in a web of bad education,  under-employment,  and , even worse, a deteriorating family and faith network. And so we find ourselves with two classes (I am not talking about the "1 %"): the winners are educated, cosmopolitan, mobile, more liberal; they are often but not always secular; they advocate sexual freedom even as they benefit, almost unconsciously, from a relatively intact marriage-family pattern. The underclass is destroyed by broken family structure, lack of medical coverage, under-employment, a fractured marriage-family system, broken communities, and a residual faith but a falling away from Church.  This divide, of course, explains the emergence of Trump!

I myself view this chasm with alarm from my own stable position in the upper tier since I benefit from good education, a rich middle class network of connections, and a steady income. I see the two sides of the coin, the material/economic and the cultural/spiritual: the first is the loss of jobs, benefits and opportunities; the second the decomposition of families and communities due to loss of faith, Church and an ethos of chastity and fidelity. Clearly, the primary cause of poverty is the single mother, struggling to raise children without a partner. As a moral conservative, I estimate that the moral/cultural causes are responsible for the most of our poverty. However, the economic also plays a roll. In this regard, I have small, but limited confidence in the proposed solutions from right and left: a prosperous economy will trickle-down benefits including jobs even as a stable safety network (especially health care) will help many. I have really no trust that the erratic, incoherent tweet-policy of Trump will help.

The most important of the three divides is the cultural-moral: in the wake of the Culture Revolution: traditionalists resist the emergent hegemony of:  liberation of sexuality from marriage, fertility, commitment and family; deconstruction of the Mystery of masculinity/femininity; an unrestrained Frankenstein-like explosion of technology; and a genocide of the unborn, marginalized and powerless. This is total and absolute divide: there is no compromise between "reproductive rights" and the life of the tiny One. This is Culture War, always and everywhere.

Here lies, in my view, the widest moral divide our nation has ever faced.  We now face two religions, two nations...entirely contradictory and incompatible. In the brutal fratricide over slavery, it is known that almost every soldier, North and South, carried a bible; under the immense difference, there was a shared Christianity. Slavery itself is not inherently evil in the manner of murder of the innocent. Our prison system is essentially a form of enslavement: the criminal loses personal rights and is under the control of the state. He becomes a slave of the state. No one wants to entirely do away with prisons! One of the origins of slavery was something similar. A hostile enemy attacks to destroy your people; you defeat them; you have three options for the surviving soldiers: free them to attack you again; kill them all; or enslave them. Clearly, the moral high ground is slavery. But killing of the innocent and powerless is inherently evil: never, ever allowable under any circumstances.

Into this chaos steps the surprising, ironic, puzzling and contradictory figure of Donald Trump. With an uncanny, unconscious and lucky touch, he has brought together an alliance between old-school Republicans, the alienated underclass, and moral conservatives.

Regarding the classical divide, he is clearly Republican,  the epitome of capitalism as power, arrogance, and privilege. His tax cut shows this: it benefits the affluent in stereotypical trickle-down fashion. And yet, paradoxically, he announces himself as champion of the working man; the one "chosen"  to bring back industrial jobs; a friend of expansive government and huge debt and deficits; and the tariff-master, indifferent to free trade.

With regard to the second, the class divide, he is even more contradictory: he arouses the fury of his base against the privileged elite even as he is himself the embodiment of that class. Despite the inappropriateness of his person, he is a demagogic genius in arousing the passions of resentment, jealousy, fear and contempt in his base.

The greatest irony, however, is his role as champion of the unborn and the traditional ethos of the marriage and the family. In his personal life, he is a true child of the Sexual Revolution: in a class with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein and the out-sized villains of the Me-Too Movement. But his presidential politics have been absolutely steadfast and (in my opinion) sincere in his commitment to the moral right. And so he retains the (reluctant) loyalty of many Evangelicals and conservative Catholics. He may have two or three fingers reaching out from the flames of hell, into purgatory and towards heaven! He is not entirely a hopeless case; but prayers to St. Jude (patron of the hopeless) are in order!

Is the USA an Empire or a Country?

This fascinating question arose recently in NYC where Michael Brendan Dougherty presented his new book: My Father Left Me Ireland. He was joined in genial conversation about, among other things, the proper role of nationalism and love of country, with prominent moral conservatives including  Reno, who has been advocating a positive kind of nationalism in the age of Trump, and Douthat who (as always) expressed lucidly my own ambivalence. For me, the USA is both my country (which I love) and an empire, in the good and bad senses.

Regarding the country I love, I think of all the freedoms (so beautifully painted byNorman Rockwell),  of the rule of law, democracy, free markets, enterprise and the inviolable dignity of every person. I think proudly of all my uncles who fought in World War II and my son who has served in the army and now the reserves.

Since 1945, our country has been an empire. This imperial Pax Americana, has been largely benevolent, especially in light of the competition: bad actors like ISIS, Stalin and Putin, Mao and Jinping! We have spread much of what is best from Christian tradition and the Enlightenment. And so, I remain a moderate internationalist, supporting a strong American presence and influence around the globe.

But there is also the negative sides of imperialism; and they are not a few.

1.  First of all, from its founding this country has hated the Catholic Church. As a fervent Catholic, therefore, I am at odds with much of American tradition and practice; my DNA is counter-cultural.. The exception to this enmity was the time of my youth, 1945-65, when there was a romance between this country and my Church: among the towering Catholic figures widely honored across society were JFK, Fulton Sheen, Thomas Merton, Flannery O'Connor, and others. The euphoric love affair was short-loved however, as the Cultural/Sexual Revolution cast elite culture ferociously against the Catholic Ethos. We find ourselves back where we always were: a persecuted minority, marginalized and despised by the powers that be.

2.  Secondly, I imbibed from my Catholic upbringing a strong sense of the unity of all people under the fatherhood of God and therefore a fierce internationalism. From my youth I cared about the starving babies in China and the persecuted behind the Iron Curtain. So today I reject Trump's "America First" but not as much as I despise the secular, liberated cosmopolitanism of Clinton/Obama that imperialistically exports "reproductive rights," the degrading emancipation of sexuality from family, and genocide of the powerless.

3. Thirdly, coming of age as a prospective Maryknoll missioner in seminary college in 1965-9 I became aware of the "Ugly American" side of our international influence: the power, affluence, materialism, arrogance, and contempt for other cultures. Moving into adulthood I shed many of my left wing leanings as I deepened my appreciation for my Catholic tradition, but I never lost my sense of the dark side of American materialism, consumerism, hyper-technology, mega-bureaucracy, and the not-always-obvious attack on faith, family, local communities and moral values.

4.  Fourthly, the "melting pot" narrative by which we are all molded into a uniform culture is largely wrong: America has always been a complicated, competitive arena in which diverse tribes, ethnic and cultural and religious, compete to protect and advance what is sacred to them:  WASPS, white evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Black evangelicals, secular liberals (which includes many who identify as liberal Catholics, Reform Jews, and mainline Protestants), and numerous others. For example, even the Democratic Party into which I was born was a coalition of Southern (racist) democrats, secular (largely Jewish) and culturally liberating democrats, and ethnic, Catholic labor-union democrats (like my own family).  This makes for quite a circus! (E. Michael Jones is particularly keen on this!) Even the power elites are diverse and set against each other: the culture liberal elite (media, academia, Hollywood, and tons of money) are set against the traditional moneyed Republican elites. True to my working class, Catholic roots, I send a curse on both houses. The diversity, plurality and complexity of this country has a positive aspect: no particular group is able to impose itself on the others.

There always is, however, a dominant culture working to incorporate the rest of us. Historically, of course, this was White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestantism. Since 1965, the hegemony belongs to a culture that is: secular, oblivious of God, technocratic, careerist, meritocratic, anti-tradition, destructive of gender and family, materialist, consumerist, non-racist (to an obsession!), sexually liberated, sterile, individualistic, addicted to the expansive state and malignantly-mega corporations, corrosive of local and intermediate communities and isolating...even as this toxic culture presents dual faces of economic (Republican Party) and cultural (Democratic Party) liberalism. (On this see Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Dineen as well as the work of the two David Schindlers and the Communio school of thought.) This new cultural empire is, in my view, very (if not absolutely) bad as it separates us from the Source of all good; undermines wholesome bonds of family, faith, and locality; and breeds isolation, loneliness and despair! To that extent, I am fiercely anti-cultural and possibly anti-American. But it is more complicated than that; although it is largely in bondage to an Evil Empire, I have not despaired of my county.

The election of Trump was a immense relief, even for some of us who reject his ideology and despise his vile immorality and narcissistic incompetence, in that it represented a relief from the oppression (e.g. contraception mandate) of the Obama regime. This fractured, non-monolithic society (as Yuval Levin argues brilliantly) lends itself to a certain modesty of ambition: my political goals have become smaller. I do not envision a Catholic America: I am not out to absolutely ban abortion, contraception, guns, or global warming. Rather, I am defensive of my own freedom:  to practice my faith as I understand it and pass my tradition onto my children, without coercion from the liberal state. A certain "live and let live" is desirable. If 2/3 of pregnant black women in NYC decide to abort, I cannot prevent them; but I will not finance it. If over 90% of fertile women want to poison themselves, bodily and spiritually, with the pill, I do not resist; but I will not pay for it through my taxes or my insurance premiums. If two men want to "marry"  and announce their performance of toxic, sinful actions, it is not for me to control or judge them: but I will not be forced to bake their cake or hire them in our Catholic schools. Not the Supreme Court, not the Affordable Health Care Act, not the totalitarianism of political correctness none of the above will force me to participate in sytemic sin...THAT is a hill upon which I WILL die!

And so I remain conflicted in my love for my country. Our country is darkened by a revived anti-Catholicism as well as diabolic forces of uncontrolled technology, meritocracy, bureaucracy, sexual license, consumerism, hedonism, personal isolation and despair. I find myself in agreement with both Rod Dreher and Adrian Vermuele: we Catholics need to partially disconnect from the fragmented, larger culture to strengthen our own local families and communities; even as we participate in broader political life to protect our values,  advance them, and become a light to this country and world. We can work with the right to defend religious liberty and powerless human life in all its forms; even as we collaborate with the left on a variety of issues such as gun control, immigration, protection of the environment and workers rights. A wholesome love for country can be rooted in a fierce resistance to the emergent hegemony, a balanced sense of subsidiarity, a moderate internationalism. and a grateful patriotism that is not without a critical sense.

In Praise of Illegals: Making America Great!

I never met an illegal I didn't like! It was Will Rogers who said "I never met a man I didn't like." I don't go quite that far as there are legals I dislike!! Hispanics in general, including illegals, are unfailingly: respectful, hard-working, family-oriented, gentle, quiet, dependable, usually Catholic and often devout, amiable, warmhearted and fruitful; their women are sweet, soft, nurturing; their children are adorable...to-die-for cute!

That is my experience and my belief! Ok: I admit to an intense hispanophilic prejudice in favor of immigrants from our South! Perhaps it is because I had wonderful experiences as a young man in Mexico and Puerto Rico! Perhaps it is because of my uncle who married two (not simultaneously!) Peruvians and gave me my Peruvian cousin; or my double cousin (do you know what that is?) who raised a marvelous family of five with his beautiful Latina bride!

Perhaps it is because I am myself an illegal: I jay walk, park illegally, speed, talk on my phone while driving. My tax return would not face scrutiny since I have poor records so I make up the numbers. In my business career my favorite was the "flexibility clause" which allowed me to prudentially dispense with rules and regulations when necessary. In my current position I am out of compliance, always, with many rules. Just recently my 99-year-old mother told me that it was a venial sin that I parked at a bus stop. If she is right, I am facing SERIOUS purgatory time! My view is that you will go crazy if you take too seriously every rule in this hyper-bureaucracy universe.

The right is in a frenzy over a "hostile invasion" and unprotected boundaries and the rule of law. The left is hysterical over the alleged "humanitarian crisis."  I have a different viewpoint.

Maureen Dowd in a recent column noted that a Columbian mother-with-child was interviewed in a detention center and expressed appreciation that she was safe from guns and receiving clean diapers and good food. "But you are sleeping on the floor!" protested the interviewer. "Yes! On a mat." she responded gratefully.

A NYU economist was asked about the solution to the crisis of gang violence, political corruption and severe poverty in the "triangle" of Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador. Happily, he did not advocate a "marshal plan" as the infrastructure is lacking. He said that the people themselves were providing the solution by moving north. He noted that the Trump administration had discontinued the half a billion in annual subsidies to motivate those governments to stop the flood of immigranats. But illegals in this country annually send $20 billion back to help their families.

To be sure, the conservatives have a valid concern about the rule of law and control of borders and the progressives are rightly worried about treatment of the refugees. But both sides could enefit from a few deep breaths and a more positive approach. The humanitarian situation is much worse in the countries of origin than in our centers: that is why so many are coming! Their decision is intelligent, hopeful and courageous! And our country is not surrendering to chaos! The USA is a magificant country...economically, geographically, culturally...and more than capable of absorbing those who have come to date. Indeed, we need them! Big business knows we need them for industry! We need them to pick our crops, repair our homes, landscape our lawns, serve in our restaurants. We need them because they have babies and we (whites) are increasingly anti-life.

Personally, I blame Trump and the Democrats equally on the failure to intelligently address the issue. The dysfunction at the national level highlights the need for subsidiarity as well as the intelligence, courage and hopefulness of the decision of so many to risk all and come here. God bless the illegals! They are the ones who are making America Great!