Today’s Progressives seem to have all the good intentions of their earlier believers, but they seem to have learned little from their history. What makes the outcome ugly is their stubborn insistence that ‘this time it will be different’ married to the quasi-fervor that their ends justifies the means.
Today’s progressives remain true believers in science, but that “faith” has edged over into scientism, the belief that science can settle all questions, and can in fact itself be “settled.” Science can’t unlock the secret of love nor can it explain the evil mind. Science is settled only until it’s not, and if the recent pandemic taught the average person anything, it was to be very careful about expert opinion. Science is great at explaining how (and sometimes why) things work. It’s not so good at determining policies affecting people’s lives.
Another place where Progressivism today is worse than its predecessor is in its adoption of another -ism: presentism. Presentism is the belief that people today are superior (morally, ethically, intellectually) to those who came before, and we should judge the past by our superior standards. While today’s technology is undeniably better, I see no data which suggest people today are superior. Where’s today’s Jefferson, Michelangelo, da Vinci? Ranchers one-hundred years ago knew ecology better than most ecologists today. Farmers two centuries past produced surplus crops without modern irrigation or drones. Common people during the Middle Ages spoke a vernacular language as well as Latin, and they mastered trade skills as a way of life. Humanity today has better tools, but human nature remains unchanged. Societies can be more or less humane, but progress there is not certain.
As an example of presentism, I often mention that family structures in the US were more stable in the 1950s. I barely can finish posting that on social media when Progressives will retort that I “long for the patriarchy” or “forgot Jim Crow” or want to send people “back into the closet.” That’s presentism rearing its ugly head. Yes, all those things happened in the 1950s, including stable family structures. Now there is no evidence to suggest that limiting anyone’s freedom contributed to more stable families. I would argue stable families happened despite those challenges. Especially for black families, who faced so much oppression, yet were remarkably stable. Not any more. What happened? If you’re a progressive today, the notion there was anything good in the past has to be rejected, as only today, and the better future, matter.
You can hear presentism whenever a Progressive talks about being on “the right side of history.” Christians believe history has a direction, which is what led the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to famously say “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” But that’s a religious proposition, not a progressive one. Ultimate belief in one’s righteousness about ‘the side of history’ has been at the core of many of the worst examples of inhumanity in the past century.
Finally, Progressives also retain their fondness for change. As they have seen their ideas rejected by the courts and the voters, they now opt to argue for changing the system in toto. Progressives are proposing eliminating the Senate (because it equalizes all States and thus currently favors Republicans), enlarging the House of Representatives (because, yes, everybody agrees we need MORE politicians in Washington), term-limiting the Supreme Court (not mentioned when the octogenarian RBG wore the robes) or simply ignoring its rulings when they are not consistent with Progressive values (did they not learn about the South’s Massive Resistance in the 1960s?).
“We’d all love to change your head”
Rather than learning humility from their failed history, today’s progressives double-down on their beliefs. I still don’t question their motives. The original progressives were just as self-righteous, but they had an excuse in that history had not yet shown them their follies. Perhaps Progressivism will learn, change itself, and survive as a movement. But there’s a difference between being blind, and refusing to see. That’s from a really old book, but most progressives wouldn’t want to read it.
If you thought my last post was my attempt to come-out as a Progressive, never fear, you’ll feel differently after this one. Or maybe the next.
My review of Progressive theory’s positives centered on its good intentions, its openness, and its vitality. To which I would now note:
the path to hell is paved with the first
no tent is ever big enough, and
action in the wrong direction is not progress.
Why all the negativity? Well, as I alluded to in my first post, today’s Progressives act like they have never heard of their movement’s past. America tried Progressivism once before, and to paraphrase Dr. Malcolm, Progressives “had their shot, and nature chose them for extinction.”
He got all the best lines!
American Progressivism developed in the period 1890-1920. It grew rapidly, and by the time of the 1912 Presidential election, all three major party candidates (Democratic, Republican, and Progressive) identified as some form of Progressive. This was a period of profound social and technological change, which was fertile soil for Progressive beliefs. A person born in 1860 went from a society on horseback to railroads, automobiles, and even planes by the age of sixty. Communications went from letter and post to telegraph, telephone, radio, and silent movies. Medicine identified disease theory and greatly reduced infant mortality. And society went from farms and small shops to factories and mass production.
It’s easy to see why Progressivism would be attractive under such conditions. Technology seemed to be promising unending improvements. New groups of people were disadvantaged by all the changes: factory workers, miners, immigrants. The system (whether it was society, religion, or the government) appeared to be unequal to the task of adapting. Progressives held some form of power in Washington from 1901 (when Teddy Roosevelt replaced the assassinated McKinley) through the Republican Taft administration until 1920 (the end of Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s second term). At that point, a massive voter rejection of Progressive policies ended the movement’s influence for a century.
Progressivism scored some major victories: Woman’s suffrage, laws against forced labor and poor working conditions, and others for unionization and protecting the environment (including the National Park system). But it also led to over-reach, as in the case of Prohibition.
What happened to Progressivism? Many of those positive qualities I mentioned in the previous post had a negative side, too. For example, the belief that technology (especially science and medicine) always make things better proved to be disastrously false in the Great War. Mass production brought mass warfare. Flight brought aerial bombardment of cities. Chemistry brought gas warfare. TriNitroToulene (TNT) made better explosives. Even electricity and mass production led to child labor at sweatshops.
The drive to improve mankind also had consequences. Some doctors wrongly applied evolutionary concepts to biology and society, developing bogus concepts like eugenics and championing discredited phrenology. They furthered efforts to limit the growth of “unwanted populations” or uncivilized ethnic groups. Contraception led to mass sterilization, care for the mentally-ill led to mass involuntary hospitalization, and the apparent “superiority” of European cultures promoted paternalism at home and colonialism abroad.
Politically, Progressive’s Big Tent failed to screen out elements with whom they should not have allied. Communism seemed to be like-minded, even as it quickly showed its de-humanizing techniques. Racists and Nazis championed Progressive ideas, taking them to their logical extremes. International bodies like the League of Nations treated all countries equally, a recipe for inaction, while idealists put forward treaties outlawing “war” as if that had any significance.
This history, long established and not controversial, always made me wonder why certain liberals chose to brand themselves “Progressives” in the early 2000s. It would be like some new German party saying they were for National Socialism, not realizing the words had history with another meaning. Of course, Republicans spent decades besmirching “liberalism” which was the very essence of republican (note the small ‘r”) values, so perhaps self-proclaimed liberals had to come up with a better name. They didn’t.
Progressivism not only failed to deliver on its promise, it played a major role in setting the stage for some of the horrors of the 20th century, from the Holocaust to medical experimentation to racism to global war. By the early 1920s, Americans were already tired of it, yet they would suffer its consequences for almost thirty more years. And then it became a dirty word, buried in history for another fifty years.
When, like a political zombie, it came back. Next, part three, the Ugly.
I have friends of every political, religious, and ethnic stripe. I like to think it reflects kindly on my inclusivity, although I admit it reflects poorly on my friends’ judgment of character. Be that as it may, I often irritate my Progressive friends with my persistent questioning of their beliefs. I make an observation about some trend or incident in the public space, they respond with a mixture of shock and disgust that anyone they know could think the way I do. Rinse-n-repeat.
Today I want to try a different tack. Part of the problem is we all assume that others must see the world as we do, which leads us to jump to conclusions when we see an opposing opinion. People think, “you must see the world as I do (since I’m objectively correct), so if you disagree with me you must be ________ (stupid, evil, etc).” To help break through this cycle, this post will cover what I believe are the positive aspects of Progressivism in its American form. The next post will be on its negative components. I’ll leave it to your imagination where the third post will go. Let’s get started!
Progressivism grew out of the Enlightenment. Its basic belief set is that mankind can do better: through technology, through good government, through better education, through being more inclusive. Thus Progressives are the most optimistic pessimists on the planet. They look at what is today, or what was yesterday, and think “how can anyone have let this happen? We must do better.” And they imagine a future–never that far off–when best will arrive. So the first point for Progressives is their passion. They really want to make things better, and they won’t rest until things are.
The second point for Progressives is their compassion. Since they are always looking to improve things, they focus on the least fortunate among us: the poor, the sick, the mentally-ill, prisoners, women, children, immigrants, anyone marginalized by the system. It bears repeating that everyone should be focused on these groups and what places them at a disadvantage. It is undeniably good to be a voice for the oppressed, the misused, the abused.
The third positive aspect of Progressivism is its willingness to change. If you believe things can be better, you must be willing to suffer change. Question things. Don’t accept “that’s how we always did it” or “That’s just the way it is.”
The Progressive Anthem?
Progressives will never be satisfied with the status quo, nor are they afraid of change. Their constant challenges bring vitality to any political environment.
Finally, the Progressive movement is inclusive and bipartisan. My Republican friends may be scoffing at this, but hear me out. Progressives are happy to have any group join in their quest for improvement, and they are willing to extend their ‘big tent’ to newly-identified groups who are marginalized by society or government. And while Progressives almost exclusively occupy the left-wing of the Democratic Party in America today, they originally grew out of a different wing of the Republican Party in the early twentieth/late nineteenth century. I’ll talk more about this in my next post, but Progressivism flourishes when there is broad social/technological change.
In summary, I truly believe Progressivist theory has society’s best interests at heart, that it wants to improve things, that it is open to new ideas and concepts, that it will work tirelessly to achieve a better world. Why am I not then a Progressive? Part Two!
My old college roommate (aka cellmate) Creatch and his lovely wife Tammy visited with us last week, and we all went off to see Mexico City, which was a return trip for Judy and me. Some hints and suggestions from a great trip:
Facade of St. Augustine, in Polanco
Uber works quite well in CDMX. We used it for short trips inside the city, as well as longer trips to Xochimilco and Teotihuacan. As usual, it is cheaper, faster, and more reliable than the taxis. The only drawback is it is still a car on a road, so it is subject to the congestion which is endemic to Mexico City. Which leads to this tip:
Visit during the holiday periods of Christmas and Easter. Our first visit was with Charter Club Tours during Christmas week, and we learned that while most of the attractions are open, many chilangos (residents of the city) depart for elsewhere, so there is much less traffic. I checked with a local, who confirmed the same happens Semana Santa and Pascua (the week before and after Easter). Both are ideal times to visit.
The Mexico City metro is extensive, reliable, cheap, and safe. We used it frequently, and at $5 MXP per trip (about $.25 USD, regardless of length) it is quite a bargain. While it can get crowded, we never felt uncomfortable or threatened. You navigate by the distinct symbols for each station, as well as directions (the endpoints for each line), and there are plenty of signs and people willing to help. There are even cars/areas set aside for women and children, to avoid even the possibility of anyone bothering you. Best of all, no car traffic or congestion.
One thing from which you can’t get away is smog. It’s better when there are fewer cars on the road, but if pollution bothers you, you need to come prepared. And since you’re at 7300 ft elevation, you may feel it even more!
If your stay includes a Monday, many museums, attractions, etc. may be closed, so plan the rest of your schedule around what you can do that day. The Soumaya museum, Carlos Slim’s art gallery and tribute to his late wife, is open every day of the year, and you can spend an entire day there, so it’s a great wild card to visit whenever you have extra time. Oh, and take the elevator to the top and work your way down the spiral levels (less crowded, easier on your feet).
We stayed at the Pug Seal Anatole France, a boutique hotel in Polanco. I can’t recommend it enough if it is in your price range. It had great customer service, very comfortable rooms, a central location, and a made-to-order breakfast to die for.
If you’re going to visit the Teotihuacan pyramids or Chapultepec castle/palace, go early in the morning. It is hot, there is a lot of walking, not that much shade, and the tours/busses start arriving around 1100.
Xochimilco. What to say? If you don’t know, when the Mexica ruled Tenochtitlan, it was an island city in the middle of a great lake. The Mexica created islands (chinampas) around the city to use as farms, and a tiny fraction of those islands are still around, although greater Mexico City has enveloped them. About thirty years ago, some enterprising Chilango started offering boat rides on the remaining canal, where a family could come and picnic on the water. It became a local custom, and now there are a thousand or more little party boats, and other boats with mariachi bands, floating cafes, floating bars, floating trinket stores, you name it. It runs almost everyday, it’s a tourist attraction and a great party. But it has nothing to do with the original chinampas. We found a private eco-tour using the same type of boat, but it went out of the crowded tourist canal to the remaining farm islands, where Ricardo showed us his farm and treated us to a fresh meal of blue corn tortilla chips, vegetables & guacamole, tamales, café de olla, and horchata. The visit was educational, delicious, peaceful, and supported the return of farmers to the chinampas. I highly recommend it: De la chinampa.
Our boata narrow side canalthe farmmany herons!
We were able to attend the Balet Folklórico,a rousing performance of pre-Hispanic and Mexican culture, music, and dance, at the Palacio Bellas Artes. Both the building and the performance are not to be missed!
If you want to eat at any of the legendary restaurants in CDMX, like Pujol in Polanco, you need to make reservations about two months early, even for lunch. It’s worth it, but you need to plan ahead. There are many just great restaurants in every neighborhood, so you won’t go hungry and don’t need to break the bank.
Among those “must-do’s” are eating at the Casa de Azuelas in Centro Historico, where Sanborn’s has its flagship restaurant, and getting churros at any of the several el Moro franchise locations. They will check your passport to see if you have before you can leave CDMX . . . not really, but they should, and so should you!
Also, you must visit the Zocalo, the main square of Mexico City, which functions as a combination of Times Square, the National Mall in DC, and the Smithsonian. It’s huge, and has the world’s largest Mexican flag (which has raising and retiring ceremonies at varying times around dawn and dusk). It also has government buildings where you can reserve a tour to see fantastic murals of Mexican history, and the top of the original Mexica great temple (Templo Mayor) and the crazy leaning Catholic Cathedral. Note for first-timers: Mexico City is sinking (it was built on a lake-bed in a seismically-active zone) as much a several centimeters a year. As you walk around, you will get a vague sense that “something I am looking at is not quite right” which is caused by the many buildings leaning at weird angles. It’s not you; it’s the city. When you visit the Templo Mayor, just know that there is probably no other place on earth where more people have died: the Mexica practiced mass sacrifice daily for several centuries!
On a lighter note, among the great places to take a break and a picture are the cafe atop the Sears store next to the Palacio Bellas Artes, the restaurant near the top of the Torre LatinoAmericana, and the cafe (la Terraza) overlooking the Templo Mayor in the Centro Historico. Spectacular views for the cost of a cafe and a snack.
Even if you’re not Catholic, if you just want to understand Mexico better, take a quick trip to La Villa, the suburb where Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to Juan Diego (a Mexica) in 1531. There is a series of chapels and Basilicas there, built over the years, to hold the image of La Guadalupana (named for the hill) which miraculously appeared in Juan Diego’s tilma (or rough native cloak). Ignore the miraculous cures. Ignore the story of the anarchist who tried to blow up the image in 1921, destroying a golden crucifix but leaving the image unharmed. Ignore the fact that scientists can’t explain the image: the tilma should have disintegrated by now, the fact that the image is not painted on, in fact they don’t know how it is “there”, the fact that there are images within the image which are inexplicable. Instead, watch the faithful crawl across the stone and asphalt square on their knees to attend Mass. When Padre (later defrocked) Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued his grito to liberate Neuva España from Spain, his army marched under a banner of La Guadalupana. Regardless of faith, all Mexican revere her.
Finally, in Chapultepec park (much larger than Central Park, by-the-by), there is a cultural center called Los Pinos. It is the Mexican White House, and it is free to visit. The current Mexican President decided it was too pretentious, so he declined to move there and turned the various homes (several Presidentes build their own) into a museum open to the public. Undoubtedly the next Mexican President will move back in, and you’ll have visited while it was still available!
“The fullness of time.” Sound familiar? It’s a Biblical phrase, referring to the fact that God allowed so many centuries between the fall of Adam & Eve and the birth of Jesus Christ, who came to save us from the effects of that first sin. Why Roman-occupied Judea, and why what we now call first century CE (Christian Era)? Only God Knows! I was always fond of the line from Judas’ closing song in Jesus Christ Superstar, where he asks “why’d you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA0Uao6Od-w
The 70s haven’t aged well, have they?
Small confession: I still pull up the Superstar soundtrack and listen to it every year during Lent. Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice could make great musicals, even if their theology was weak.
We’re approaching Holy Week, and that may mean little to you, or a lot, or it may seem a little stale (even to believers). What happened “in the fullness of time” was extraordinary and extraordinarily strange. But it can become background noise to the Easter Bunny, Spring Break, and other accoutrements which crowd out the message. I wanted to share a little thought experiment that might help put the events in a differnt light.
Imagine for a moment it never happened. No Jesus Christ, no Passion, crucifixion, and resurrection. Rome remains Rome, Pantheon and all. Eventually it falls and the rest of European history happens, with Enlightenment humanism and Deism playing the role Christianity actually did. So for the purposes of our thought experiment, the world is much as it is today, just without Christianity.
Now imagine God chooses the present times for “the fullness of time.” What might that look like? Somewhere off the beaten path in the greatest power of the planet, there’s a story developing: certainly not in Manhattan, but perhaps just outside Manhattan, Kansas. News of a local phenom arrives on social media. He’s a Jew, a former union card-holding carpenter, but he laid down his tools and started preaching and teaching and developed a small following. Next there’s a claim he turned water-into-wine at a friend’s wedding, and that merits eyeballs and internet scrutiny.
His name, Yeshua Bar Yosef, is familiar. Some Instagram sleuth points out Yeshua already had his fifteen minutes of fame: yes, you might remember him as the American adolescent who disappeared on a Jewish Youth Summer trip to Israel. He was found days later deep in conversation with some rabbis at the Haredi Shul, unharmed and apparently unaware of the international concern his disappearance had raised. Now he’s back in the spotlight.
TikTok has video of the wedding in Cana, Texas, but it’s a drunken mess. No one is sure if they really ran out of wine, or when, or how they got more. Yeshua isn’t giving interviews, but clearly he has a message that resonates with others. Fat checkers point out he still lives with his mother, Mary, although the man he called dad (but who wasn’t listed on his birth certificate) has died.
Yeshua has a preternatural ability to charm those he meets, and to irritate the powers that be. It seems like everybody takes sides, especially in a divided America, but the divisions aren’t along traditional political lines. Groups claim him, only to be confounded when he doesn’t conform to their ideas.
When he storms through the Wynn/Encore casino in Las Vegas one Sunday, overturning the roulette tables and chasing out the inveterate gamblers, family values types are cheered but libertarians are aghast. His refusal to show up for the arraignment brings praise from Antifa and the Sovereign Nation: strange bedfellows indeed! Yet he still pays his taxes and tells his followers to obey the law. Social liberals are with him until he tells them God made them “male and female”; social conservatives balk when he tells them they should love their brothers, and everyone in need is “their brother.” Almost no one in America likes it when he says marriage is permanent, and divorce another form of adultery. Of course the government has no idea what to make of him, so the FBI has an open case file and plans to infiltrate “The Way.”
Now things really get weird.
Near Magdalena, New Mexico, Yeshua joins a prayer group outside the Planned Parenthood center. But some of the crowd leaves, after he tells them to put down their bullhorns and just talk with the women. He meets one local woman named Mary, who has an appointment to abort her six-month along fetus because it has been diagnosed with anencephaly. Yeshua prays with her, lays his hands on her abdomen, and convinces her to have faith. She leaves without the abortion, and later has a sonogram showing a totally normal child, which she will bear. Skeptics point out doctors make mistakes, and that’s all that’s happening here.
But then there’s the drug addicts. Neglected and ignored by society despite being in their midst, they are outcasts, and they are drawn to Yeshua, and he to them. Numerous addicts, even those addicted to opioids and heroin, seem to walk away from an encounter with Yeshua free from addiction. Likewise with sex workers, gamblers, internet porn addicts, and the mentally ill. Some claim miracles, others say it just goes to show the power of true friendship.
As his fame spreads, the government becomes more concerned. An FBI informant prompts Yeshua to denounce the government as corrupt and to deny paying it taxes. He asks for a dollar and says “whose image is this?” “George Washington’s” the informant responds. “Then give to Washington that which is his” Yeshua scolds.
Progressives want him to denounce capitalism, private property, and embrace government programs to fight poverty. He tells them “doesn’t the farmer reap what he sows? First, take what God has given you and share with the poor.” Neo-conservatives want him to affirm America’s status as a chosen people and the right to amass wealth as sign of special favor; he demurs, saying “God loves all His children, and those who have more, have been given more, to do more, not to keep more.”
Yeshua gets run out of the synagogue in his hometown after suggesting He is the answer to what they have been seeking. The nerve of the man, as if YHWH would send a savior to Kansas! More tension builds as he suggests there is something beyond America which demands a person’s primary allegiance, a message which resonates around the world but crosses a red-line for the America First crowd. The healings continue, as do several near-scrapes with local authorities and mobs.
Large crowds gather to hear him speak, and he tells them stories of love and kindness which stand traditional logic on its head. Don’t hate your political opponents, love them! Help anyone in need beyond just what they need! Don’t worry about tomorrow, just focus on doing God’s Will today! Pollsters find a dramatic change in attitude among those attending his rallies: less conflict, less anxiety, greater charity. But those protesting around the events grow ever angrier and violent.
And then, a good friend of Yeshua’s dies from a drug overdose in Bethany, New York. Yeshua eventually shows up (four days later), attends the open casket showing, and raises his buddy Lazaro from the dead. Of course it was all staged (according to some), but others question “how?” since Narcan can’t do its magic days later. But what else is there to explain it?
Yeshua announces that he plans to march to The Mall in Washington, DC, and his followers swell to a huge crowd which lines the road, welcoming him. Just as many counter-protesters are marshaling, too. The DC government denies him a permit, and threatens to mass arrest his followers if he ignores their decree. He calls their bluff and the immense crowd marches peacefully to the Lincoln Memorial, where he gives a moving sermon about the poor, the peacemakers and those who hunger for justice “having their fill.” As he blesses some baskets of food to share with the crowd, a murmur goes up as they realize the food he provides is seemingly without end.
At the summit of all this emotion, police move in to arrest him, while a gang of counter-protesters storms into the event. All hell breaks loose, and gunfire erupts. People are trampled and a melee of violence ensues while his followers try to flee. Yeshua is seen extending his arms as if to welcome the assault as police and thugs reach for him, and then beat him to death: all live-streamed for the world to see.
No one is sure who exactly did what; the video is as indistinct as it is horrific. Days later, there are reports that Yeshua’s body has disappeared from the morgue where he was held pending the investigation. And now some of his followers are claiming he has been raised from the dead!
Sorry, but I had to wait for this one, as nothing was real or final until the indictment was unsealed. Did you watch the non-stop coverage? Pretty riveting. If you liked that, you’ll probably like televised Quidditch.
Let’s get one thing clear upfront: if you want to convict former President Donald Trump–in the court of public opinion–of being a lousy human being, you have my full support. I even know some MAGA-hat wearing people who admit as much. Bu that’s not a crime in the borough of Manhattan, so on to the charges and more importantly, the consequences.
Let’s start with what Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg charged Trump: thirty-four felony counts. Ignore the number of counts, as they represent simply thirty-four iterations of the same crime: falsifying business records in 2017. Which is a misdemeanor under New York State Law, with a five year statute of limitations. Two problems here: Trump is charged with a felony, but the crime is a misdemeanor, and it is well past the expiration date. But wait, there’s an explanation: under New York law, this crime can be raised to a felony if the fraudulent action was accomplished to hide another crime. And, New York allows the statutory clock to be suspended when a defendant is out of the state (like, in the White House), so we’re on steady ground. Sort of.
But what’s the other crime Trump was hiding, you ask? Well, the indictment doesn’t say, but eventually DA Bragg will have to explain it in court. In a press conference, Bragg referred to both federal and state election laws, and state tax law. The problem with the first is there is legal uncertainty about a state prosecutor alleging a federal crime that no one has been accused of (although Trump was investigated by both the Federal Election Commission and the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and neither brought charges). There is precedent for crimes which were charged or tried, but none for allegations. Just as an example, imagine the DA tying the hush money to a UN law on corruption for which the DA had no jurisdiction, with which no one was charged, nor tried, nor found guilty. No one is yet clear how Trump may have violated New York state election law as part of a federal election, as federal law supersedes state law in federal election cases. That leaves state tax laws, which may be the strongest link Bragg has. If you have heard talking heads saying that the indictment rests on an untested legal theory, this is the part to which they are referring. It’s just not clear, and certainly not cut-and-dried.
Back to the title, what actually happened? Regarding an alleged affair, Trump used his attorney and fixer, Micheal Cohen, to funnel hush money to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election. Trump fraudulently listed payments to Cohen as legal expenses, the heart of the charges.
Trump did exactly what the charges say he did. Cohen made the payments (before the election), Trump reimbursed him (after the election), and the paperwork showed a fraud. So why did the former Manhattan DA pause the investigation, and why did the Federal Election Commission and the US District Attorney not bring charges? The argument to charge this rests on the assumption Trump did what he did to win the election. This makes the payments into campaign contributions, which were not reported properly. Which raises the counterargument: did Trump do this to win the election, or to avoid embarrassing his family? After all, this was a man who said “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” This was also a man who gave the infamous Access Hollywood interview with Billy Bush, wherein he was heard bragging he could “grab ’em (women) by the _______” and get away with it. He showed utter disdain for proper candidate conduct, and while he is beyond suffering embarrassment, he is very protective of his family. As always, motive is a difficult thing to prove.
The strongest parts of DA Bragg’s case are in the Statement of Facts. Here the DA relates the prior cases of Trump making hush money payments to Karen McDougal (a playboy bunny with whom he allegedly had an affair) and to the doorman of a Trump building (who thought Trump had an illegitimate child, but was incorrect). These actions, not part of the indictment, establish a pattern of behavior. Also, Bragg reportedly (no evidence has been released) has e-mails indicating Trump wanted to delay the payments to Daniels until after the election, and indicated he might not pay it then. This suggests the payments were about the election, not the family’s embarrassment. Both Cohen and David Pecker (CEO of a media conglomerate who owns the National Enquirer) were involved with and can testify to the payments and the overall scheme.
Beyond the novel legal theory, the weakest parts of DA Bragg’s case are first that Trump made the payments in 2017, after the election, regardless of what he may have said in an e-mail. So he still acted on the possible scandal when it could no longer affect the election, but could have embarrassed his family. Second, Cohen and Daniels are both poor quality witnesses: Cohen pleaded guilty to lying under oath (to Congress), while Daniels had to pay Trump’s legal fees after he won a civil decision against her.
Some are crowing “No one is above the law” and that is true. However, the law has always treated American Presidents differently. The Constitution specifies that Impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate is the way to bring charges against a sitting President. Thus the Department of Justice (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) still holds that a sitting President can not be indicted under federal law; but the Constitution and the courts have never ruled whether this prohibition applies to state courts. Trump is a former President, not a sitting one, so this case is different, but the concept was the same: in America, we treat Presidents differently under the law.
Even history is illustrative here. Richard Nixon committed several felonies within the Watergate affair. After he was forced to resign pending a successful impeachment, newly-installed President Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon for all crimes related to Watergate, ending the possibility of years of trials and appeals. Note that although Nixon was certainly guilty, and the pardon only applied to federal crimes, no state or local prosecutor sought to bring charges. While most people were outraged by Nixon’s amorality, this case exemplifies how America used to handle such things.
Some claim this is all political: a vendetta by a Democratic partisan against a Republican former President. It is true that Bragg campaigned on bringing charges against Trump, and while that may have been wise as a campaign tactic (he won, after all), it was foolish in practice. Bragg claims he has new evidence, suggesting he has more or better grounds for the indictment; we shall see. I don’t see this trial as political. Bragg is not indicting Trump because he’s a Republican, or a candidate for President. Truth be told, most Democrats relish another Trump candidacy since they feel he will not only lose, he will drag down the GOP with him (probably true). So this is not political, it is personal. Which is a whole ‘nother problem.
In addition to the claim “no one is above the law,” another putative principle of American jurisprudence is “justice is blind,” meaning the law treats all individuals the same: rich and poor, powerful and weak. The personal nature of this prosecution makes it unwise. Tell me honestly, if the defendant in this case was John Smith, that the Manhattan DA would be tying up the resources, stretching the statutes, and breaking the precedents. You can’t.
To further the point, note the glee with which the indictment has been received. The left in general hoped for a perp walk, a mug shot, maybe handcuffs. Notice how few mention that as a non-violent first-time offender, the most likely sentence even if he is found guilty is no jail time. This is about how Trump ‘needed to be got, and was got’ as one New York Times journalist said. Pamela Paul’s article revels in the karmic justice of the indictment, echoing morning talk shows and late-night comedians.
What are the likely outcomes? If you forced me to list them in order of probability, most likely is the judge will dismiss the charges for insufficiency, perhaps telling the DA to refile as misdemeanors and seek a settlement. Next likely is a trial resulting in a guilty verdict overturned on appeal. Least likely is trial and upheld conviction. But in any case, the damage will have been done. What we are talking about now is not a slippery slope; it is precedent.
We now know the answer to a famous trivia question: who was the first former US President indicted for a criminal act? Donald J. Trump. But we also know the answer to another trivia question? Who was the second such President? Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The third? His successor, regardless of party. The family Biden (Joe & Hunter & James) better get real good lawyers, and many, as there are vast swaths of Red America ready to play this game.
Ford did the the right thing; in our system, it is better to put even something as serious as Watergate behind us. It cost him re-election, but it was still correct. We have lost that lesson. Now it is all about blood lust. Perhaps New York Governor Kathy Hochul could end all this tomorrow by issuing a state pardon. Silly me, that would take thinking what’s best for the country. Something about Trump forces otherwise reasonable people ON BOTH SIDES to act crazy or against their interests. Think I’m wrong? Look at the Capitol on January 6th, or Manhattan, April 4th.
No doubt my well-informed friends have kept up with the news of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine. The major media sources have done a fair-to-good job of reporting on this conflict, which has involved more public information than any previous conflict to date. I’ve refrained from blogging about it (except in passing), but perhaps it’s time to visit it with an eye to what’s really going on on the ground, and what it all means.
I must admit to some professional regret about this war, or as Putin calls it, his “special military operation.” I began my short military career facing off along the Iron Curtain in (then-West) Germany, and specialized in analyzing first the Red Army and second Soviet military doctrine. So I spent undue hours reading what the Soviets wrote, watching their military exercises, and preparing how to defeat them. Alas, I was blessed to not have to use my skills and expertise in actual war, the Soviet Union climbed aboard the dust-heap of history, and I moved on to other things.
What I learned about the Soviet Army remains true about today’s Russian Army. First, they are excellent theorists. In the 1960s, when computers weren’t really a thing yet, Russian military thinkers devised a concept called the reconnaissance-strike complex: an integrated set of command, sensors, and weapons which would enable immediate, accurate fire on any target. They were spot on, but never had the technology or leadership to attempt it. They were planning to employ the concept against Ukraine.
Second, when the Russians had tried to emulate the concept by discarding their mostly conscript force, they did it on the cheap, and kept the brutal discipline, lack of initiative, and willingness to suffer casualties which were their hallmark. There were signs that nothing had changed (Chechnya, for example), but there were successful campaigns, too, like those in Syria and later in Crimea. In the end, you can’t just add some technology to a rotten force and expect miracles.
The real wild card in the war was (and remains) the Ukrainian military. Now it evolved from the same Soviet sources, with similar equipment and doctrine. But in the most recent years, it had been acquiring western military equipment and training. How much had changed? How willing would they be to die (everybody is willing to fight; what matters is who is willing to die)? Most observers (myself included) didn’t give them much of a chance. All I can say is “Slava Ukraini!“
The result? Russia sought a coup de main (in current US military parlance, a “thunder run“): a bold, lightning-fast strike at Kyiv, which would paralyze the Ukrainian forces, decapitate the government, and result in the enemy’s collapse. It sounds great, if it works. Instead, the Ukrainians fought, the Russians diddled, and it resulted in a slug-fest continuing still a year on.
The facts? Russia controls most of the Ukrainian territory where people consider themselves ethnically Russian or speak primarily Russian. This includes most of the Black Sea coast and a land corridor to Crimea (which Russia previously annexed: more on that later). The Ukrainians not only defeated the initial strike on Kyiv, they pushed several of the routes of advance back to the Russian border, but progress in the main battle area near the Don river is measured in meters, not miles. Both sides have settled into a grinding war of attrition using artillery and small infantry tactics. Which is to Russia’s advantage in the long run.
And this war will be a long run. In fact, I would argue it’s wrong to call it a war. It’s really a long, single campaign in what I would call Putin’s Infinity War. Putin began this war twenty years ago after speaking and writing about NATO’s betrayal of Russia. He was fundamentally wrong: NATO owed Russia nothing, and nothing NATO ever did threatened post cold-war Russia. But Putin could not stand the loss of Russian prestige which resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union (he called it the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century”), and he seized upon that to seek multiple opportunities to re-assert Russia’s prerogatives. Putin violently put down separatist movements and threatened neighboring Georgia. He sent military forces to prop up client states in Central Asia and Syria, support an ethnic Russian nationalist uprising in the Donbas (a region in Ukraine), and occupy the Crimea. The West never noticed, or when it did, it responded with desultory political moves. Putin told the Russian people that NATO was waging war against Russia, and now he has used NATO support for Ukraine as proof for his lie.
It is a lie, but it is a useful one. Putin acted the bully and when the West refused to respond to his provocations, they became worse (shades of Hitler, 1938). Putin sensed weakness in Western leaders: Germany’s Angela Merkel sought Russia’s gas via the Nordstream pipeline. France’s Macron wanted to negotiate Ukraine’s future. Joe Biden was Vice President to President Obama when Putin occupied Crimea and nothing happened. Putin misjudged Western resolve: Biden has done very well pulling NATO together, the Germans have done a verbal about-face (although they have yet to begin rearming), and even the French are staying in line.
Does the US have a vital national interest in a free-and-independent Ukraine? Yes. There is nothing wrong with questioning “why?”, “for how long?”, or even “with what?” about our support, but the answers are still convincing. America built an international system with a series of rules that served to keep the world largely free of interstate conflict during the very tense Cold War. This worked to our national advantage: fewer deaths, more development, better quality of life. Putin has directly challenged that system, and if his challenge stands, we return to a world where China thinks it can invade Taiwan, North Korea thinks it can invade the South, Iran thinks it can attack Israel. All of which would cost American blood and treasure. It’s our system, and we must be the leader in defending it.
I was very critical of President Biden’s initial policy regarding the invasion, as I saw it as too timid, and I believed it would only grow more lukewarm over time. During a long Washington career, Biden had the unique standing of having been wrong time-and-again on foreign policy: he was against the raid that killed Bin Laden (“better to wait”), he was against the first Gulf War (“What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?”), and he was for the second (“taking this son of a bitch down was the only way.”). I had ample evidence, but I was wrong. He has consistently responded with appropriate, increasing support, while deftly handling the NATO accession of Finland and Sweden, and not providing Putin the provocation he desires.
As to the sanctions, they are responsible, targeted, and meaningful . . . but not decisive. The shock which destabilized the Ruble has subsided. While the vast majority of UN member states vote with the US and against Russia on this issue, most of the world does not abide by the sanctions. China ignores them, as does India, North Korea, Iran, much of Africa and South America, even Mexico. They will hurt Russia, but in the end neither the Russian Army nor the Putin regime will fail because of sanctions.
Putin has been fighting us for twenty years; only last year did we realize it. Putin’s entire reputation as a strong leader is based on his continuing to enlarge the Russian sphere of influence, not whether he keeps McDonald’s in Moscow or even minimizes casualty lists. He has no fall-back plan: it is victory or death (for him literally, for Russia figuratively). He can pause, negotiate, even reduce his immediate goals, but only for a short time. The challenge is that NATO will never enter the conflict formally, so the actual battle for Ukraine is between Moscow and Kyiv. Ukraine will run out of ammunition, soldiers, and money before Russia does, even when including all the support the West has given Ukraine. That would not be the case if all current trends continue. But at some point, the costs (real and imagined) will begin to outweigh the benefits. If you doubt this, remember that the US withdrew from Afghanistan after twenty years, knowing what would inevitably happen (although we were surprised at how fast), and all because of military casualty totals which were less than the number of servicemen and women we lose annually to training accidents. National will is a fickle thing.
Where does that leave us? Russia’s current human-wave assault on Bakhmut has stalled, and now we await Ukraine’s promised counterattack. Whether they have the equipment, training, and manpower for a major attack is simply beyond telling right now. They proved resourceful by surprising the Russians last year, and they’ll need to do it again. They have fewer options now: the front line has settled along the Russian-Ukrainian border in some places, and do the Ukrainians dare attack across it? Elsewhere, the Russians have learned one lesson from last year and prepared defensive lines and belts behind their forward troops, to assist in repelling any Ukrainian incursions. Attacks are generally more costly for the attackers, and exploiting initial success requires even more forces. I would expect some tactical victories, but no major operational ones for Ukraine this year.
My prognosis? Remember, this war started years ago, and it will continue for years to come. Ukraine is not strong enough to end it, and Putin can’t and won’t. Putin still believes he has time on his side: Moscow is calm, the economy still functions, and there is no shortage of draftees, contrary to some reports. He was certainly surprised by the strength and resolve of NATO, but he still believes it will wane. Putin only needs a decline in NATO support, not a collapse. Ukraine requires complete commitment. Will Ukraine end up being like South Korea, where America (and the UN) still stay the course seventy-three years later? Or Afghanistan, where a mere twenty years was sufficient to cause a loss of affection (despite the certainty of the evil which would and did prevail)? I don’t know, but Putin certainly is not mad to believe it is the latter case.
Finally, what to make of Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling? Much of this is for show, intended to scare the Western public (and thereby freeze NATO) more than anything else. But as I noted earlier, Putin’s Infinity War is an existential one for him. If the Russian army were to collapse, I would not put it past Putin to use some tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. If his government looked set to fall, I would not rule out his lobbing a nuclear armed missile or two at the West (Berlin and New York, for the record). In his eyes, smoldering rubble would salvage a draw in the contest between East and West.
Twenty years back, I was involved in the Washington, DC, policy process. This was in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the ongoing sanctions aimed at containing Saddam Hussein, and the controversy over Iraq’s (imagined) weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Yesterday the New York Times published a series of retrospective articles, including one entitled “20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the U.S. Invade?” It is not bad as far as it goes, but fails to review where-we-were-when the decisions were made, so it repeats certain myths. For example:
Certain GOP neoconservatives saw the US as the sole remaining superpower, free to remake the world as it willed
Others imagined a nefarious link between Saddam and al Qaeda
President Bush knew there were no WMD, but insisted there were as an excuse to invade Iraq (hence the progressive pop chant “Bush lied, people died!”)
Sanctions successfully contained Saddam, so there was no need for an invasion
American leaders expected the Iraqis to welcome the US military as liberators and were surprised by Iraqi antagonism
and most ridiculously, the US invaded to control Iraq’s oil. I won’t dignify this charge with any further comment. There never was any evidence to this theory.
Like all good myths, there is an element of truth to the rest of these. But they miss the point when asked to explain “why we invaded?” and they hide other far more important points.
Let’s set the way-back machine to early September 2001, years before the invasion but just days after the terror attacks. No one, not even the most neo-conservative conservative, saw the US as so powerful it could do as it pleased. Perhaps on September 10th they did, but America was a wounded animal on the 12th, angry and suspicious and hurt.
Some (including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) immediately suspected that Iraq was behind 9/11 somehow, as it was widely believed no ragtag group of terrorists could have mounted such coordinated attacks. But al Qaeda did, and while some policy-types continued to suggest Iraq was involved, they never succeeded in convincing any of the senior policy-makers. What they did succeed in doing was raising suspicions: even if Iraq was not involved, would Saddam be willing to share his WMD with al Qaeda now that they were a proven threat to the West? People forget how justifiably paranoid America was after 9/11, and it was no stretch to assume Saddam might do something as dangerous as pass along WMD. After all, he has used chemical weapons against both Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war, and against Kurdish civilians during a revolt! In retrospect, this all seems outlandish, because we know now that Saddam had no WMD. But we didn’t know that then: not the United Nations, not the Five Eyes Intelligence Services, and not President Bush.
Bush ’43 was an avid consumer of intelligence analysis and reporting, and he had a great deal of trust in the US intelligence community. He inherited that relationship from his father, Bush ’41, who had led the CIA and was perhaps the most knowledgeable intelligence consumer ever to sit behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. For the variety of reasons well-studied and explained in the Select Committee Report On Iraqi WMD, everyone (and I mean everyone) assumed Saddam had WMD when in fact he did not. It’s easy to forget that now, and to reason as if everyone should have known he did not have WMD.
Which is not to say the imaginary WMD did not play an important role. Because everyone thought he had them, and yet Saddam refused to admit to it, WMD became the best argument for removing him from power. And Bush ’43 didn’t need much of an excuse. He had explicitly campaigned on a promise to remove Saddam. Why? Because Saddam’s continued rule had frozen US Middle East policy in an untenable position. We had stationed protective US military forces in Saudi Arabia–the Muslim holy land. Radical clerics like Osama bin Laden had always pointed out the hypocrisy and corruption of the House of Saud, but now they had direct evidence of apostasy: inviting the hated crusaders into the land of Mecca and Medina. What once seemed like a lunatic raving from a cave now seemed more like a prophet to thousands of Saudi believers, especially nineteen who agreed to do something about it on September 11th, 2001.
The problem of US troops on the Saudi peninsula was well understood in policy circles. We did everything we could (build bases, preposition equipment, give the Saudis advanced weapons and training) to prepare if the US needed to fight a war there, but we always avoided sending troops, because all the experts agreed it would be a casus belli for jihad. Bush ’41 finally sent troops to evict Saddam from Kuwait, but he thought the Kurds and Shi’ites would revolt and overthrow Saddam after the First Gulf War back in 1991. It didn’t happen. Saddam’s longevity despite revolts and sanctions left the US with a decades-long troop presence in the one place they couldn’t be: Saudi Arabia.
The other forgotten element is that sanctions were not working, they were dying. The French had publicly called to end them in 1999. The Russians were circumventing them. The Oil-for-Food program undercut the other sanctions. Finally, well-meaning humanitarian organizations around the world cited bogus statistics provided by Saddam about the effects of sanctions on the poor people of Iraq. It was only after the war ended and Saddam was gone that authoritative studies showed that Saddam had simply made up the claim that half a million Iraqi babies died due to sanctions. So sanctions were in the process of ending, not succeeding.
Did the US expect to be welcomed with open arms? While they did not expect the degree of hostility which resulted, few thought the US troops would be universally welcomed. For starters, there were thousands of committed Ba’athists (Saddam’s party) who had everything to lose. Iran was glad to see Saddam neutralized, and welcomed the chance to incite Iraqi Shi’ites (coreligionists) to rise up and kill Americans. Average Iraqis had a wait-and-see attitude which quickly soured on the American occupation. Only the Kurds really wanted us there, even though we had left them to their fate once before, and would do so again.
Did the occupation have to go as poorly as it did? No. The factors I just listed could have been neutralized if the US (1) did a proper job of de-Ba’athification, (2) and deployed sufficient forces for occupation duty. The American government had great examples of how to run the occupation, rebuilding, and construction of an enemy territory. We literally wrote volumes of books on it based on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Both were far more destroyed and far more hostile to the American occupation than Iraq ever could be, and yet modern Germany and Japan stand as grand testimony to doing things right.
What our experience told us was we needed to distinguish between those Ba’athists who were truly evil people and the larger majority who simply went-along-to-get-along (the same problem we faced with the Germans and the Nazi Party). It also told us we needed a sufficiently large occupation force to ensure people felt under the control of the occupying power: a visible presence in the streets, re-assuring the populace that they were safe while intimidating anyone thinking of rising up against it.
We ignored our own experience. Partly this was based on the notion we had to get US troops out of the area quickly (a real issue, but after twenty years, one that should have been more carefully considered.) Unfortunately, some senior Defense Department officials had bought into the US Air Force’s notion of a “Shock & Awe” campaign. This theory, which had been put forward in different terms by air-power enthusiasts since the dawn of human flight, suggested that Iraq could be conquered by a short, unrelenting and precise campaign of aerial bombardment that would kill Saddam and his sons, paralyze their military and lead the Iraqis to quit resisting. Air power had never accomplished this before (not in World War II, nor in Korea, nor Vietnam), but it had come close in the First Gulf War, and all it needed was another chance with the proper emphasis and the improved technology the US now had. Not only that, but a Shock and Awe campaign solved the occupation problem: no need for massive amounts of troops. The US could raid Iraq like a store-front smash-n-grab: smash the army, kill Hussein, and be off in an instant, with no lingering troop commitment. Voices like Secretary of State Colin Powell, a distinguished Army General who said “you break it (Iraq), you fix it” were ignored.
So the US government went in with a light military ground force, capable of defeating and ousting Saddam but not occupying Iraq. They accomplished the military mission quickly and efficiently, but chaos soon reigned as all the forces I mentioned earlier came out to play. Meanwhile, the political officials sent over to stabilize the situation issued a blanket de-Bat’athification order, making anyone associated with the movement ineligible for further government service and eliminating the Iraqi army, removing any reason for them to cooperate, and overnight turning them into the biggest insurgent force in the country. Finally, back in Washington, policy officials who were still angry about the many countries (including US allies) who refused to support the invasion made the intemperate decision to restrict Iraqi rebuilding (and its profits) to those nations who participated in the invasion. There was a moment there when Russia, China, France and many other countries could have been enticed to participate in the occupation, if given the chance to benefit from the reconstruction. Instead, we shut them out, guaranteeing it was all on us, just as Secretary Powell had warned.
So, why did the US invade Iraq? Because “containing” Saddam required US military forces in Saudi Arabia, which had brought about a worse situation in the form of a popular Islamic Jihad we still face today, twenty years later. Sanctions had restrained him, but international will to continue those sanctions was greatly weakening. Saddam’s WMD proved a useful excuse to the world, but in the end, was the ultimate MacGuffin. Was the US involvement destined to fail? It succeeded in the near term and accomplished its military objectives. The US ignored its own successful experiences in favor of an unproven theory, then compounded the error with bad political decisions regarding both the Iraqis and reconstruction. Even with all that, American casualties had stabilized at a low level by 2008.
Red: invasion and occupation Orange: Troop Surge Blue: Post-surge
We’ll never know the counterfactual case if Saddam had not been hanged, had outlasted sanctions and rebuilt his WMD (he absolutely admitted his intent to do so). Certainly we would still have tens of thousands more US troops in Saudi Arabia, and the threat of what Saddam might do next. To my mind, it was the right policy decision, poorly executed, rather than a lie, a hoax, or a colossal failure.
Mary Eberstadt is the senior research fellow at the Faith & Reason Institute and an insightful conservative observer of all things Americana. Her numerous books have outlined the increasingly evident (in hard data, not to mention public anecdote) paradox between the freedom Americans crave and the unhappiness which results when they get it. Her 2012 book Adam and Eve after the Pill rested squarely on broad sociological data that the economic freedom women gained with reliable cheap birth control (i.e., the Pill) had come with concomitant costs in terms of relationships and happiness. Her latest work reviews the continuing data supporting her hypothesis (more on that) and extends her analysis to the implications for the family, the nation, and the Church.
Eberstadt is no throw-back conservative polemicist pining for the golden age of the 1950s. She simply accepts that the Pill was perhaps the greatest change-agent in recent human history, then goes on to show “to what effect?” While some feminists reject anything other than worshipful consideration of birth control, Eberstadt puts forward the data and the stories (or narratives if you prefer the modern term), which are damning.
The Pill made the world safe for casual sex. Without the consequence of pregnancy, both premarital sex and marital infidelity rates rose. Accelerating infidelity undermined existing marriages, sparking a wave of divorces and ushering in “no fault” laws to streamline the process. Men were relieved of the quaint (but historical) need to take responsibility for their actions, since it was “her body, her choice.” Likewise, there had to be a fall-back in case contraception failed, which necessitated legalized abortion; after all, an unwanted child was the worst possible outcome for all concerned. All of these trends and repercussions undermined traditional family formation (i.e., a married husband and wife raising their biological children). Men questioned the need to get married in the first place, reminding all of the eternal joke about “free milk and a cow.”
Eventually, divorce rates decreased, but only because marriage rates collapsed first. Alternative family structures developed (so-called “chosen families”) to replace the traditional model. Most of the advantages accrued by traditional families (e.g., more resources, less poverty, better educational attainment, less truancy, less drug use, less unintended pregnancies, less self-harm, less suicide, etc.) were greatly reduced in the “chosen” models, regardless of composition. Women seeking motherhood increasingly did so in the absence of a stable male relationship, so much so that this is as common a parenting situation today as not.
Now all the chickens have come home to roost, with men reporting an unwillingness to have relationships other than for casual sex, and unhappy even then. They also complain about a lack of purpose, or of being unclear when their masculinity becomes “toxic.” Women report a lack of acceptable male life-partners and more fear of violence in their personal relationships. People in general are more unhappy and having sex less often, with the latest battlefield being the notion of “sexual consent.”
Eberstadt connects the dots from the Pill to the collapse of the family, the ongoing war between the sexes, and the decline of organized religion in the United States. Her style is witty if at times biting. The footnotes and links are all there if you want to dig deeper into the data. She rarely pronounces judgments since the data is convincing on its own. The exception is perhaps her section of the fate of “Christianity Lite”, the American Protestant sects which chose to jettison Biblical, historical, and moral opposition to contraception in favor of siding with the Spirit of the Times. Eberstadt cautions Catholic proponents of a similar rapprochement that all of these sects are on a steep and accelerating decline which means there won’t be any Episcopalians, Methodists, or Presbyterians around in America in five decades or so. The Spirit of the Times is a harsh god, indeed.
Regardless of how you view contraception (or religion), Eberstadt’s work demands your attention. So many of my friends and acquaintances look at the world around us and think “how did we get here?” Since time immemorial, successful society has linked sex with marriage and monogamy; those that didn’t perished. One fine day in the 1960s, science made it possible to change all that. It seems cognitively dissonant to suggest that this change didn’t play a major role in “how we got here.” It’s worth it to consider the possibility.
Many of you might have felt Part Three sounded pretty good, so what are we doing in Part Four? I’m going to argue that Parts One through Three are necessary but insufficient for Smiling Retirement. Part One is essential, because if you don’t understand the concept, you’ll get it wrong for sure. Part Two removes the greatest friction: resources. Part Three puts you in the right position, but just. By Part Three, you’re existing (as a retiree), but you’re not living. You can’t get to the smile until you’re living.
So what’s the next step? It’s the hardest one, I’m sorry to say.
Many people go through their whole lives just existing, not living. They work to provide shelter, food, and some degree of comfort. They rest to recharge and resume work. They recreate for the same reason. They procreate (or not) because, well, that’s what we do. This is consistent with all animal life on the planet. Whether you think what differentiates us from other animals is a soul or higher intellect (or both), there is a difference. What’s the purpose of the difference? It gives us the opportunity to consider the big questions that the higher intellect inevitably raises.
Who are you in particular? We often answer that question in terms of relationships (“I’m a father, a husband, a son”) or associations (“. . . a former official, a Catholic, a fan of . . . “). But who are you essentially?
Why are you? Not in contingent terms of “when your dad met your mother” but why you, why now? For what purpose?
These are tough questions, easily avoided while working to live (i.e., existing). But you understand the concept of retirement. You have prepared financially. You have vacay-ed and experimented to a place of comfort. You can ask those questions, and better yet, you can start to find answers!
What are those answers? Yours might be different from the ones I would share. Mine are based–as you no doubt have guessed–in the Gospels and my Catholic Faith. I believe in Truth (the capitalization is important here), and truths. The latter is contingent and personal, but must in the end lead to the former, if they are indeed “true.” So there is no reason to fear them. The search itself is satisfying.
Is it possible to just continue existing, and never address the hard questions? Sure. Birds do it, bees do it, even dogs do it. And billions of people do it too. Retirement as I have described it is a rare blessing, an opportunity not to be missed. And what an opportunity! Because seeking those answers (whether you find them or not) leads to a certain satisfaction. And that satisfaction generates a smile.
What’s with the emphasis on the smile? It’s a simple gesture, universally recognized. It’s a moderate emotion, not a belly-laugh. It’s pleasant. There is a degree of amiability, knowledge, and just plain old friendliness in a smile. And it’s genuine. It makes life easier, for the one smiling and for everyone who sees it.
Here’s hoping you not only retire, but you get to be a smiling retiree!
