A Divided Society

Have we ever, in our national history, been so polarized, divided, fragmented? Everywhere the question hangs:  Is our civilization  collapsing? The turbulence of the late 60s does not compare. That was largely a passing, generational divide, focused mostly on the Vietnam war. The cohort of  privileged, pampered, boomer "revolutionaries" quickly moved on to bourgeois careers, comfort, affluence, and security, now flavored with a self-righteous progressivism.. Our Civil War in the 1860s was clear cut, slavery and states' rights, and over in four years. Currently we are engaged in something like the religious wars that lasted hundreds of years in the 16th and 17th centuries. Our conflicts and divides are multiple and interweaved in complex, convoluted ways.

1.  The Religious/Moral Divide. This is the primal, foundational conflict that underlies all the other issues. We have here two opposed, incompatible religions. The Cultural-Religious Revolution of the 1960s rejected traditional religion in favor of: rupture of sex from spousal unity/procreativity; deconstruction of the masculine/feminine; reproductive rights as the depersonalization of the unborn for the purpose of backup contraception; a secular "arc" of history, as inexorable triumph of technology over a disparaged past, replacing Salvation History; and the Marxist model of oppressor/oppressed (male/female, white/black, straight/LGBTQ, Israeli/Gazan, etc.) as structurally systemic and omnipresent. And so we have the Democratic Party as (among other things) the institutionalization of Cultural Progressivism and the Republican Party as (among other things) the protector of traditional Christianity. 

2. Gender Divide.  Survey's indicate that 55% of men and 45% of women voted for Trump in 2024. My own (particular and anecdotal) experience suggests that the divide is even greater because of the intensity elicited but not measured. In my world, most women are repulsed by Trump; many men exhilarated. Clearly this is rooted in masculine/feminine psychology.

The Harris campaign had a single coherent idea (aside from disgust with Trump) about which she would become flamingly and uncharacteristically passionate, indignant, articulate: "reproductive rights." About everything else she was vague, avoidant, indecisive or giggly. Her battle cry was the right of women, against an imagined "patriarchy," to kill her unborn child.  Her party has become a raging matriarchy: think the stepmother of Hansel and Gretel! Masculinity is conceived as toxic and violent; or castrated and configured as passive, effete, gentle, inclusive, and powerless. The black male, for example, in the BLM narrative, is imagined as defenseless and victimized by the far stronger white policeman. The core problem of the black community, a deficiency in virile fidelity, honor, discipline, virtue, is intensified by this fiction that breeds futile insecurity and resentment. The entire Biden regime was a demonstration of weakness: Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza; open borders and tolerance of crime; indulgent, unrestrained spending which fueled inflation; and a team of intelligent, refined, gentle men entirely lacking in masculine confidence, energy, and dynamism.  This party has become the expression of anti-virility and non-paternity as well as raging, shrill feminism.

And so we have young men, across ethnicities and classes, viscerally renouncing the Left in favor of a vibrant, if decadent, masculinity of the Right. Trump himself, along with his coterie of cartoon characters, is flamboyantly, shamelessly, boastfully masculine, in a most immature manner. He is the ninth grade wise guy, bully, disrupter-in-chief: big, strong, intimidating, smart in his pushing of the boundaries, tormenting of the weak, and absolute demand for attention. His entire performance is, however, fascinating and entertaining for the immature male psyche. Even as it is disgusting to the sensitivities of the more mature female. He offers our country a striking virility, entirely devoid of virtue,  paternity, dignity, selflessness, and respect.

3. Class (Economic, Educational, Cultural) Divide: Building upon emergent trends, Trump singlehandedly reconfigured the political-class structure of our society. This is a dazzling accomplishment: something akin to Alexander the Great or Napoleon. 

Already in the 1970s the DNC has renounced the religious roots of the Catholic working class and become the progressive party of the affluent, educated cosmopolitan and the ethos of liberated sexuality and abortion (backup contraception). In the following 50 years (1970-2020), the prosperous economic peace between capital and labor steadily deteriorated as a widening gulf separated the working poor from the educated, affluent progressives who benefited from the globalist, technological order. Trump, ironically given his own wealth, impeccably channeled the populist rage at this condescending hegemony.

This divide is overwhelmingly rooted in education. DJT won large majorities of those without college education. Biden's compulsive crusading for tuition forgiveness manifests that his loyalty is with the upper, not the working class. Higher education has become, in large part, socialization into the progressive world view. So it is logical that educational credentials bring a bias to progressivism. It also makes sense that women, who outachieve men in schooling, would lean left.

The cultural divide is multifaceted, complex and dense. Along with the obvious religious and educational dimensions, there are others. To a sensibility that is refined, sensitive, feminine, DJT is a vile, crude character. He is "low class." He is without class...shamelessly and defiantly. He is dismissive, personally, of intellectual and religious values. He blatantly, happily free of hypocrisy, exults in wealth, celebrity and power. He is defiant of the Puritanism and moralism of our upper classes: blatantly. This blend of rage, power, and defiance is intoxicating for his base. He is their champion: defying and defeating the upper class with their superiority, power, privilege and contempt.

The economic piece is the strangest! He aspires to help the underdog and yet his actual economic policy is built upon tax breaks for the investment class.  He has not up to now delivered real economic relief for the underclass. It is improbable that he will. Democrats, who steadily advocate economic policies favorable to the working and poor, are baffled that so many vote against their own financial interests. Many explain this as ignorance (lack of schooling), racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misguided piety. They are, in a way, not entirely wrong. My own view is that culture trumps economics. The obsession with money is itself a cultural perversion. More important than money is honor, dignity, respect, autonomy, agency. Underlying the populist revolt is a degree of fear and anger; but also a justified demand for dignity. 

4. Diplomatic Divide. Here we contrast a resurging populist nationalism with the internationalism of the upper class. This globalism is complicated: belief in free markets and trade (Republican); confidence in the efficacy of international cooperation and negotiation (Democrat) in agencies like the UN, WHO, and others; residual trust in the military might of the USA. These last two move in different directions: Biden and to a lesser extent Obama contrast with hawks (Haley, Pompeo, etc.) who served the first Trump administration.

Trump, with his MAGA direction, is not really isolationist. He is intensely international, engaging across the globe to advance our national interests. He is devoid of any idealism. For him, diplomacy is an analogue of hardball, self-interested business: he is out to get the most he can, indifferent to anything beyond self-interest. Intuitively (he is extremely intelligent) he sees the global reality that we are no longer in a unipolar or even bipolar world. He looks to protect our interests: indifferent to the plight of others. This is realpolitik as crude national imperialism, narcissism on the global stage. It is realistic in its awareness of a multi-polar world and the limitations of American global power.

Democratic Party is in an identity crisis: baffled that it was defeated by a cartoonish buffoon. Its only explanation is the ignorance and malice of half the electorate. It is a split personality: the expression of Cultural Liberalism as it continues to advocate for the poor and working classes. As such, it has no moral core. The energy is focused obsessively on the availability of abortion. They continue to dominate blue states and may succeed in some national elections. But morally there is no hope here.

Republican Party is far more complicated and interesting. It is a circus: with different agents, energies and interests...many contradictory of each other. First, the primal populist rage (Steve Bannon) fueled more by emotion than policy clarity other than closed borders, nationalism and anti-wokism. Second there is the old establishment, quiet and dormant, but still in the picture. Third, there are the emergent tech-oligarchs (Musk). They are, in my view, a misfit in the party: philosophically incompatible,  entirely opportunistic, and ultimately dangerous in their techno-aspirations and pride. Lastly, there are the religious/moral conservatives who retain a large seat at the Trump table. Particularly interesting in this last group is the trend, largely Catholic, sometimes called National Conservatism, to broaden traditional political wisdom beyond family/person to the broader social good, including advocacy for the poor, unions,  a reasonably vigorous government. Vance and Rubio show these tendencies. I will be watching them in the coming years. 

What's a Guy to Do?

 Dear Fleckinstein:  My friend has a big problem. He is crazy about women. He is obsessed. He can't help himself. What is he to do?  from Anonymous

Dear Anonymous:

This is serious! Your friend is what the Spanish language calls a "mujeriego" which is a man that is crazy about women.  It is chronic, deep-seated, and critical! But not hopeless! There is one path ahead for your friend.

He is to love women...more!  Yes, more; not less. Differently. More.

He is to love women more tenderly, reverently, appreciatively, chastely, gratefully, humbly, generously, confidently, compassionately, protectively, passionately, receptively, assertively. (That is 13 adverbs!😍)

This is a long, arduous journey. It is a 100 years war. It is not a few therapy sessions or self-help books. A priest in confession said these cravings will not cease until your body is cold in the ground for four days. It is probably a structural aspect of his person so he will live with it the rest of his life. 

This is a patient, prolonged itinerary of moving beyond infantile neediness, regressive compulsions, romantic fantasies of comfort and enclosure, lust, covetousness, narcissism, bad habits and neural wiring.

Do this:

- When you are attracted to a woman, pray for her. For her happiness, family, holiness. This is helpful: it shifts you out of your own neediness into communion with God and your true identity as a man who loves women.

- Own and acknowledge the interior emptiness, sadness, longing and loneliness. Bring it to God in prayer. My own preferred aspiration is: "I come to you, Lord, as a poor man; in need of your mercy and in need of your love."  Another good one: "Lord, give me what I seek in her and bless her." And of course the classic: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, be merciful to me a sinner." Recall what Monsignor Giussani told us:  "The true protagonist of history is the beggar: us begging for Christ; Christ begging for us."

- Direct your gaze always away from her curvaceous figure to her eyes. There you will glimpse the nobility, agony, intelligence, generosity, truth, goodness and splendor of her heart and soul.

- Deepen and intensify your loyalty to your spouse, present or future, or your religious vows to Christ.

- Frequently place yourself under "the mantle of the purity, holiness, tenderness, love and beauty" of our Blessed Mother with aspirations, the rosary, hymns, the scapular or miraculous medal.

- Cherish strong, close friendships with men so that your needs for intimacy are not so strongly directed to women.  (This practice is even more urgent for men sexually attracted to men.)

- Deepen your Eucharistic devotion, daily mass and visits to the Eucharist as much as possible, and ask Christ to infuse within you his own virile, fruitful, pure, heroic, ennobling love for women.

- Even if you are falling into sin, imagine you are falling onto Christ who fell three times on his climb up Calvary with his cross.

- Confession of sin to priest, even weekly if necessary.

- Confide your afflictions, temptations and failings to at least one trusted, safe, wise mentor: friend, confessor, counselor, spiritual director. Has to be a man of course. Women don't understand this stuff.

- Cherish strong relationships with good, holy women who elicit your true virility.

- Wholesome, temperate habits in all areas of life: sleep, diet, exercise, friendships. reading, prayer, work, service to others, recreation.

- Pray to holy women and saints. My own daily litany, mostly 20th century, is: St. Terese of Lisieux, St. Elizabeth of the Trinity, Elizabeth Liseux, St. Josephine Bakata, St. Maria Goretti, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Mother Katherine Drexel, St. Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. Mother Mary Ann Cope, St. Mother Jean Jarden, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Rose Hawthorne, Mother Margaret Cusak;   Etty Helison, Maria Teresa Debjanowicz, St. Faustina, St. Theresa Benedicata of the Cross;  Caryll Houselander, Adrienne von Speyr, Madalein DelBrel;  St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Dorothy Day, and Catherine de Hueck Dougherty.

(That is 13 practices, in no particular order.)

Tell your friend, Anonymous, to be patient. This is the long game. Rely upon the Holy Spirit. Be gentle with your own weakness. Give praise and thanks for the heart-piercing Beauty of women! And for your own virility, including your cravings however disordered, in its God-given and Christ-imaging Splendour. 

Ordo Amoris

 Vice President Vance and Pope Francis are both, of course, right about the "order of love."  Vance sees that there is a structure, a hierarchy, a priority about love; Pope Francis sees that Christian charity reaches outward, beyond boundaries to the margins. The two complement and complete each other.  The VP (intellectual, combative, virile, conservative) is stronger on order; the Holy Father (emotional, compassionate, inclusive, feminine-of-sensitivity, liberal) is clearer on love.

Love has an order. It is infused with, as it infuses, Truth. An ordo that is weak in love becomes defensive, pugnacious, ungenerous, chauvinist, xenophobic, tribal, macho in a toxic way.  (Sounds like our current administration?) Love that is weak on order becomes emotive, volatile, vague, confused, dispersed, vacuous, effete. (Sounds like our current pontificate?)

My love for my wife would be defective if I did not care about the young women in Afghanistan, the displaced Palestinians, or the hostages in Gaza. My concern for these suffering people would be diminished by negligence of my spouse and immediate family.

I count as my singular blessing and foundation that I was conceived, born, and raised in a family where my mother and father loved each other...tenderly, reverently, passionately, faithfully, with deep Catholic devotion. Love...quiet, modest, stable, less than perfect...was the air we breathed. Our family of nine was itself enclosed within a large extended family, St. John's parish/school in Orange NJ, the global Roman Catholic Church, the United States of America, the Democratic Party, the UAW with the union movement, and the entire Greatest Generation.

When I was seven years old, the "age of reason" I learned about the starving babies in China and was pierced to the heart. The image of those suffering children indelibly structured my person and my aspirations. In other words, the simple love I absorbed in my family moved me around the globe to China. I grew up with the NY Times, America and Maryknoll Magazine in the Catholic Camelot of 1945-65, prior to the Cultural Revolution with its rupture of sexuality from marriage, when political liberalism was expressive of a vigorous, open, solidly traditional Catholicism. We interiorized a fervent internationalism and a firm sense of our mission as Americans and Catholics within the global family.

My wife and I were blessed to raise our seven children in a tough, working class neighborhood of Jersey City, the most diverse city in the country. Our children were not sheltered, but learned quickly to navigate safely in a dangerous world and became comfortable with all sorts of people. My wife opened our home to all sorts. A particular memory: two tough little boys, whose parents were drug addicted and always close to homelessness, were playing in our house with another child from an affluent family. The two tough kids were dispersing our toys all over the house; the rich kid was following them, spontaneously putting them back in place. Quite a contrast!

The lifestyle of the Catholic Worker was always, for me, a vague aspiration; even as my wife kept us tethered to a stable, wholesome primacy of the family. This did and does still make for tension, but of a fruitful type.

As I write this, Pope Francis is in the hospital with a complex lung infection. His pontificate is likely drawing to a close. We commend him to our Lord as we seek to receive what is best and reject what is problematic in his papacy.

I have admiration and hopes for JD Vance. He has more talents of heart and intellect than any American politician since JFK. But he has his own limitations. Consider: he was raised in the tribal, combative hillbilly culture; served as a marine in early adulthood; went to Yale where he was clearly a misfit;  succeeded in the combat arena of finance; and finally into the political game in a viciously polarized society. He has been groomed to be a fighter. Politics is always combat, Culture War; but it is also always cooperation, compromise, reconciliation. My prayer is that in the coming years he will grow deeply into his Catholic faith and distinguish within Trumpism the good and the bad.

 

Guest Essay: "Concerns About Second Trump Administration"

Today Fleckinstein welcomes comments from brother-in-law Michael Mulroe which were part of our exchange in early November in regard to the second Trump administration. 

I do not, as a rule, read the essays posted by my brother-in-law Matthew, but, as I was the inspiration for his post “Do I Have Concerns About Another Trump Administration?” I felt obliged to see what he had to say.

Some background. After the outcome of the 2024 election was decided I sent a note of congratulations, and the following question about Donald Trump to several friends and relatives who had voted for him:

“I am interested to know whether, given his (in my opinion) tendency to prioritize his own self-interests, and the recent evisceration of constraints on abuse of presidential authority, you have any concerns going into his second term as president.”

It seemed to me to be a fairly apolitical question that did not touch on the rationale for voting Trump vs. Harris. And while Matthew begins his essay by stating that I (Michael Mulroe) am “deeply troubled by realities” of migrants, global warming, etc., the truth is that my biggest concern about a 2^nd Trump presidency is the threat, in my opinion, of his pushing the country towards autocracy. There is nothing I have seen since last week’s inauguration that has assuaged my concerns.

What follows is the response I gave to Matthew back in November after reading his essay.

=====================================

Matthew,

As my initial query to you was about potential abuse of Presidential authority, I am responding to just the middle third of your essay where you elaborate on why you do not believe DJT poses a threat.

You begin with the following statement:

“Regarding his egotism and potential for abuse of Presidential power I am not greatly concerned for three reasons.”

My query did not write “egotism”, however. I wrote “tendency to prioritize his own self-interests” which I believe is a different and, in this case, more dangerous thing.

I have the following thoughts on your 3 arguments in Trump's favor.

YOU WROTE

1. Ross Douthat is right: he is not a power broker; he is a vain, self-centered man, desperate for attention. My daughter said "He is not a fascist; he is a big baby." He has little interest in policy, ideology and power. He wants everyone's attention. He is an entertainer; he is performing for the crowd. What he says is not to be taken literally; it is entirely histrionic, performative, attention-seeking.  In his four years of power, he did not maximize it. For example, a real tyrant would have used the covid emergency as an opportunity to monopolize power: he let the states do their thing and deferred to Fauci.

I RESPONDED

I find it interesting that you use the phrase “what he said is not to be taken literally”, as one of the most astute quotes I have heard about DJT is (roughly) “do not take what he says literally, but take it seriously”. When he says something provocative I believe it is more than attention seeking, but rather a window into what his driving motivations are and what he is willing to do.

He is, indeed, vain, self-centered and desperate for attention, but in his mind money and winning out in “the deal” are his ultimate ego boosters. His M.O. is to use whatever means are available to structure things to his advantage. In his world everything is a transaction, and relationships are only as valuable as the benefit he derived from the last transaction. Is that a problem? In the business world maybe not. As the President of the U.S. I think so.

But he was like this in his first term, so what changed? I believe 3 things:

1) Autocrats (I believe that is a better fit here than tyrant and it is what I believe he can become), do not pop up out of thin air. They are often rightfully elected into power and take office intending the best for the people they serve. But over time they morph as they learn they can manipulate the system to their advantage and create a narrative discourse that enables them consolidate power. DJTs rhetoric demonizing his opposition (“the enemy within”), threatening the press (“fake news”, threatening to cancel broadcast licenses), claiming election fraud (“stop the steal”) all take time to seep into the national psyche. He had insufficient time in his first term to make this transition.

2) In his first term he had to temper his actions with considerations about re-election. In a second term that is moot.

3) In his first term it was unclear as to how much the courts would let him get away with. The Supreme Court has pretty well rolled out the carpet for him.

I am not claiming he intends to remain in office after his second term is up, but I believe there is a strong likelihood that he will act in autocratic ways that will harm our governmental institutions.

YOU WROTE

2. He surrounds himself with good people, he delegates to them, he defers to them as he himself lacks strong inner convictions. This is what has made him successful on such a grand scale. Paradoxically, he has a certain humility in that he does not claim expertise but defers to others with specific competence. For example, unlike the arrogant Biden who was sure of his competence about Afghanistan, he would not have overruled his generals and pulled out of there with such devastation.

I RESPONDED

His “grand scale success” is in the eye of the beholder and I will defer debate on that to another day.

The primary quality of the people he surrounds himself with is loyalty to DJT. Jeff Sessions, whom I presume you would consider to be a good person, did the right thing by recusing himself from investigations involving DJTs 2016 run for office. But it was not a great career decision. So to whatever extent he is delegating to his subordinates they know that loyalty to DJT comes first and they are out of a job if they waiver.

Whatever humility he has apparently does not appear to extend to dealing with foreign leaders, most notably Vladimir Putin and Kim Song Un. A private meeting with Putin and no record of what was said? And then siding with him over U.S. intelligence services on Russian interference? I suppose that is a certain humility. Granting North Korea a degree of international recognition with nothing in return? Or maybe less in return? He assumes that his knack for business dealing carries over to international relations. I would call that hubris.

As for Afghanistan, that should have been handled better. But generally forgotten is the DJT set the wheels in motion by signing an accord with the Taliban in February 2020 that established a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, to a large extent limiting Biden’s options.

It is interesting that as I was writing this news broke that Matt Gaetz is the pick for AG. A man with limited qualifications for the job, and apparently of questionable moral character, but possessing the traits that DJT admires most – unwavering loyalty to DJT and the willingness to act as an attack dog on his behalf.

YOU WROTE

3. Lastly, our basic institutions are resilient, rooted, stable and resistant to someone so unfocused, unhinged, and infantile. He was restrained by his own advisors but also by establishment Republicans, the courts, the Democratic opposition, and the durability of our institutions. His election denial was rejected by all kinds of courts and most Republicans (notably Bill Barr). The alleged "insurrection" was overcome in a few hours and the actual election validated immediately, by both parties, with his own Vice President presiding. 

I RESPONDED

You are more optimistic about the state of our institutions than I am.

I think back to December 2000. The outcome of the Presidential election was in doubt not because of voting fraud, but because of a technical glitch with voting machines in Florida that left a sizable number of ballots unprocessed. Working towards a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court county officials were conducting a hand tally of those ballots when Roger Stone (who will resurface to foment false claims of fraud in the 2020 election) helps to orchestrate the “Brooks Brother riot” whereby those officials were cowed into stopping their work and allowing the clock to run out in George Bush’s favor. All this occurring during a far more stable period of our nation’s history.

Your recollection of the aftermath of the 2020 election does not quite line up with mine.

I agree that the courts uniformly rejected the suits brought forth claiming fraud.

And while Barr did eventually state that the DOJ had found no evidence of widespread fraud, he made statements before the election sowing fear that fraud could occur. Barr also further helped stoke claims of election fraud by sharing with DJT info about an ongoing FBI investigation into a case of discarded ballots in Luzerne County, PA – a case that was subsequently found to have no basis in fraud but was used by DJT to push claims that there were.

True that DJT received pushback from multiple fronts, but I disagree that this restrained him, as he continued to pursue the only viable paths open to him to overturn the election. The January 2021 attempted coup of the DOJ was thwarted only because DJT did not have sufficient loyalists in DOJ leadership – a mistake he will not make in the coming term.

Regarding Jan 6, I find your phrasing ‘alleged “insurrection”’ troubling. From our subsequent conversation I understand that you object to that term being used by the press, as it was not the basis for any of the legal cases coming out of that day (although its close cousin Seditious Conspiracy was). But on paper your statement comes across (to me) as downplaying the events of the day. You also wrote separately to me that Jan 6 was similar in kind to the BLM protests of the preceding summer and while on the whole I would agree, there is one key point in which I believe they differ. In the BLM protests any violence or destruction that occurred was directed at some, essentially random, symbol of authority – one police or fire station was as good as the next. Jan 6 was a different animal. The objective was not even the Capitol per se, but the specific action that was taking place inside the Capitol on that day.

A repeat of 2020, however, is not what most concerns me.

DJT is a master of using the court system to his advantage. Bankruptcy, frivolous lawsuits, delay tactics – they all served him well as a businessman. Even as former president he masterfully worked the system to insure that no trial would occur before he had a chance for reelection.

But, how much does that even matter now? The Supreme Court’s decision granting immunity for “official” acts pretty much gives him free reign to do what he wants – he just needs a subordinate to provide coverage in advance. And if a case is filed in response to some action he takes, recent history indicates that it will take months to work its way through the system.

His initial list of potential appointees (Gaetz especially so) is also telling…. Short on qualifications for the position, long on loyalty to DJT.

I hope that your optimism about the next four years pans out. I fear, however, the Trump supporters have made a Faustian bargain.