Category: Commentary

In many previous posts, I focused on the problems of anger and resentment in today’s political discourse. Some may respond it’s okay to be angry when the other side is so evil, and there is a point there. But even in those cases, being against something is not the same thing as solving the problem. In fact, it often leads to more, even worse problems. How so?

Exhibit one is the Biden administration and immigration. Remember how incensed people-on-the-left became over what they called the “Muslim ban” and the effort to “build the wall” during Trump I? It all seems so quaint now, doesn’t it? They were so secure in what they were against (i.e., Trump’s racism), they ignored the problem, which was increasing levels of illegal immigration at a time of economic and social insecurity. Democratic strategists, including some who were pro-massive immigration, warned the incoming Biden administration that there was a huge wave of people waiting to enter the United States one way or another. But being seen as “against” Trump’s policies was more important. Biden figuratively opened the flood-gates, and when the threatened wave materialized, he temporized. Biden and others first claimed those objecting were simply racists, and when the numbers kept increasing (and the videos becoming more and more disturbing), they suggested there was no problem. Remember Secretary Mayorkas assuring us the border “was secure?”

Then they tried to redefine the issue, to one about processing illegal immigrants. They tried to pass a bill which mainly meant to create more immigration judges to address the backlog, and then an app to regulate the flow of people to eliminate the crowds surging across the border. It was only after everything else failed that they enacted policies which largely stemmed the flow: an option always available to them, but one which they ignored because it admitted that perhaps Trump had correctly identified the problem. And they suffered an ignominious electoral defeat as a result. I still contend that even Biden’s disastrous debate performance was not as important as the complete loss of credibility around the immigration issue. What he (or later, she–Kamala Harris) said didn’t matter, because they clearly had no clue.

Lest you think this is a partisan affair, consider exhibit two: the Trump administration and prices. Trump attacked the inflation which the Biden administration tried to downplay, going a step further and claiming he would reduce prices. This was an impossibility, but played very well, especially when the Biden administration was claiming (again) things were going much better. I don’t know what Trump was thinking, perhaps he reasoned that “drill, baby, drill” would result in very low oil prices which in turn would reduce the Producer Price Index (PPI) and make things cheaper. Oil prices do have a strong effect on the PPI, but so much of the US economy is in services and not related to products it was unlikely to drive down prices overall. Trump was so against Biden’s inflationary initiatives that he made promises he couldn’t keep!

And that was before he attacked Iran, which he (and everybody else) knew would increase oil prices, at least in the near term. Now the Trump administration is reduced to various ridiculous claims: citing some products which are less expensive, or highlighting the stock market (which is booming due to Artificial Intelligence), or claiming it’s not even a war. These feeble excuses will garner the same electoral effect, I imagine.

Nor is the “anti” problem strictly American; it’s gone global! You may have heard that the Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) Partei in Germany recently won a state-level election. AfD is a right-wing party, which is automatically suspect in Germany due to its history (i.e., the National Socialist or Nazi Party took power democratically–mostly–which made postwar Germany virulently suspicious of right-wing movements). AfD began in the former East German (Communist) states as an anti-Euro (the currency) movement. If you know one thing about history, recall this: nothing is more certainly anti-Nazi than a Communist. Despite this historical fact, all the other German political parties and the government bureaucracy joined together to shun the AfD as a neo-Nazi threat. The intelligence services labelled the AfD as extremists. All the other parties, including those on the right, agreed to create what they call the Brandmauer, or firewall. No one will cooperate with the AfD regardless of policy or situation.

For years this kept the AfD on the political fringes of power, even in the former eastern German states. Funny thing about that “anti” Brandmauer: it meant the AfD was outside the system, the power structure, which made them the only political movement untainted by the system, and therefore, an alternative in name and reality. As Germany went through the convulsions of Merkel’s “Wir shaffen das” (we can do this) welcome of seven million immigrants, then economic dislocation due to Germany’s reliance on cheap Russian natural gas, then the ongoing China shock of massive automobile imports, an alternative is exactly what Germans are looking for.

Now is the AfD a neo-Nazi party? There are neo-Nazis who support it. It is anti-immigrant, in much the same way the Trump administration is, as AfD supports re-migration. It is much cozier to Putin’s Russia than any other German party. But Nazi? Not even close. By way of analogy for those who don’t follow German politics, there are avowed Communists in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who are welcomed in the Democratic Party. Is the Democratic Party therefore a Communist party? There are white-supremacists who support the Republican party stances on immigration: is the GOP therefore white supremacist?

Setting aside those arguments, the Brandmauer has made the AfD more outside the mainstream and therefore more successful. Instead, the Germans should have looked south to how Italy handled the Brothers of Italy movement. That group had similar right-wing positions and tenuous ties to earlier Italian fascist groups. But there was no firewall, as Italian politics admits no permanent friends or enemies. Brothers came to power, and found that running government is a moderating influence. I recall a visit to Italy no long after Giorgia Meloni became Prime Minister. A gypsy-cab driver in Naples regaled my wife and me on a drive up Vesuvius with a textbook, MSNBC view on the dangers of “the female Mussolini” (i.e., Ms. Meloni). According to him, it was only a matter of time until the brown shirts were goose-stepping past the Colosseum. Today, Meloni is the longest (continuous) serving Italian Prime Minister in postwar history, and widely considered one of the shrewdest, most successful European leaders. Brown shirts were optional, apparently.

My final exhibit is trivial, but shows just how ridiculous an “anti” mindset can become: witness the Trump Ballroom. I worked in Washington, DC, for thirty-straight years. I had a few occasions to visit the White House, and I always had the same two impressions. First, a sense of awe at what had transpired there, from Roosevelt to Reagan. And second, a feeling of disappointment because the place was, frankly, a little shabby. Nobody wanted to change or fix anything because “LBJ may have pissed in that urinal” (hypothetically) or because any change would be opposed bureaucratically (endlessly) or it could open the incumbent to charges they were tinkering with history or self-aggrandizing. Imagine that.

I never attended one, but I knew several people who did go to White House banquets, and they all had a consistent opinion: it was equal-parts memorable and embarrassing. Anything larger than a small dinner party had to be moved into tents on the White House lawn, with porta-potties (not kidding). Now these were very nice porta-potties, but seriously, for the British Royal family? Everybody knew it was a problem, but nobody was willing to fix it. Along comes Trump, a man so shameless and uninhibited by the rules he literally tears down the East Wing and builds a ballroom. I tend to agree with Chief Justice Roberts who characterized the entire effort as “likely unlawful.” If I said it, that would be one thing; it’s another thing altogether coming from the mouth of the Chief Justice, even in a minority opinion.

What’s this got to do with an “anti” mentality? Trump was able to pull off this so-called renovation through a series of maneuvers. He started demolition/construction without approvals, claiming he had the authority. When challenged, he stacked the deck of the various boards to post-facto approve his moves. There really was no way to stop him, which is what Chief Justice Roberts was referring to. Here’s the truly crazy part: The National Historic Trust sued to stop him, but to have standing, they had to show a “concrete” damage they suffered. They offered on the grounds that it damaged one woman board member’s “concrete and particularized interest in physically viewing, appreciating, and studying a historic building as it is.” There are some precedents along this line, but the Supreme Court was unwilling to buy it (neither did a lower court). The 5-4 decision found the plaintiffs had no standing, that is, no right to bring a case. Think about this, for a moment. To stop a ballroom which was necessary and was already well underway, and to which all other obstructions had been dismissed (even though those dismissals were dubious-but-legal), the “anti” crowd was willing to ask the US Supreme Court to establish a precedent that anybody could sue anybody else if it changed how they viewed a physical object. Living somewhere that law is more capricious and lawsuits infinitely less frequent, it is stunning such an argument was even put forward.

“Anti” politics is not even politics, which is the art for the possible. “Anti” politics is simply vengeance, mindless of the consequences. The good news is the punishment often fits the crime. It can usually be avoided. Biden had control of both Houses of Congress and could have put forward comprehensive immigration reform; he decided to posture instead. Trump could have relied on experts to develop policies (beyond more oil) to reduce inflation, but who needs experts? German political parties could have cooperated and moderated the AfD (they still might). And the ballroom? Let it be built, and after Trump is gone, name it for Obama. Problem solved.

Most politicians and pundits characterize the US-Chinese relationship as some sort of rivalry, with both sides seeking to dominate the other. You’ll hear references to the Thucydides trap, the notion that when there is one great power falling and another rising, there is often war between them. Some argue the US is falling and China rising, hence the trap; meanwhile, China-watchers point out China may have peaked, which is even more dangerous. There is undoubtedly a rivalry between China and the United States, but too many are keen to fall back on the Cold War as the paradigm to explain it.

For some time at the start of this century, America and its allies sought to integrate China into the global economy, based on the notion that such economic integration would inevitably lead to political liberalization. Most of the proponents of that policy now admit it was a dismal failure. China accepted the invitation, ignored the rules, and won convincingly. Why was the policy wrong, and how did China pull this off at a moment of US dominance? You can’t understand the Sino-American relationship without first understanding of few historical facts about China.

Start with the obvious: among nations, China has a unique combination of strong culture, vast territory, huge population, and plentiful resources. If you surveyed the world circa 1000 CE (Christian Era), the Song Dynasty was by far the greatest power, and you might have assumed the coming millennium belonged to them. They had a functioning central government, great schools, advanced technology (gunpowder, printing press, magnetic compass, printed money) and had surrounded themselves with client states that could not threaten them. This established the first lesson in Chinese history: when China is united, it is strong and respected.

The coming millennium was not theirs, however. They went through periods of internal disunity and external hubris which weakened them greatly. In the first decade of the 1400s, the Ming dynasty sent huge so-called treasure fleets to visit Africa, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and throughout Southeast Asia. When Columbus was desperately seeking to build and man a three-ship voyage to America, Chinese admiral Zheng He took 250 ships out in the treasure fleet. His ships were six-times longer, nine-times wider, and carried ten-times the load! Filled with precious gifts and thousands of emissaries (doctors, teachers, envoys, etc.), the fleet was designed to show the world that China needed nothing, but would deign to give the rest of the planet a taste of China’s superiority! Unsurprisingly, when money got tight, China simply stopped showing any interest at all in the rest of the world (lesson #2)

By the end of the millennium, the last Chinese dynasty was a large, sick empire picked over by small, distant, and powerful European states. To the Chinese, this was the Century of Humiliation, with foreign nations occupying important ports and setting up trading outposts, dictating to the Chinese the terms of peace and trade. This developed the third lesson for China: the world envies China, and will always try to minimize and weaken it.

Finally, the end of the Century of Humiliation only happened with the arrival of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is the sole authority of China (final lesson). Mao Zedong may have initiated the CCP’s authority with his statement that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” but the CCP has only increased its credibility since then. While the CCP inflicted severe pain on the populace (the Cultural Revolution, the Tienanmen Square massacre), it also moved the largest number of desperately poor peasantry out of poverty in human history, and made China into a scientific and industrial powerhouse. That goes a long way in the minds of the Chinese people.

What does China want? China believes there is always a great country which is the center of power in the world. It seeks to be that power. It recognizes the United States is currently that power, but China believes America is gradually fading from the scene, and China wants to replace it, not necessarily fight it. China’s ascent ignored previous attempts by countries like Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia to become preeminent. Instead, China chose the American model: become powerful by competing using the resources (personal and national) available to it, not militarily dominating your rivals. Mind you, under a Communist government, that includes subversion (TikTok), intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, massive espionage, and economic strong-arming.

There is one other Chinese desire: to re-take the rebel island of Taiwan. China has reclaimed all the other territorial possessions lost during the Century of Humiliation (Manchuria, Macau, Hong Kong, etc.), but the anti-communist forces remain free on Taiwan. It is hard to explain the depth of this desire to Westerners, but here’s an analogy. Imagine the last Confederate hold-outs retreated to Texas, and refused to surrender. Washington decided it was best to leave them to their own devices, and so a rival “America” existed in Texas, constantly claiming to be the real America. The discovery of oil would only have exacerbated the relationship, much like Taiwan’s earlier economic growth and subsequent mastery of advanced microchips worsens the China-Taiwan feud. For the CCP especially, Taiwan is one last domino that must fall, or remain a reminder of an alternative the Party simply cannot stomach.

Unlike the Soviet communists, China does not have a model to export to the rest of the world. Rather, they prefer a world remade to accommodate China’s preeminence. There is a native Mandarin phrase which best describes this, and it is one which has entered into the English language, too: kau-tau, or more familiarly, kowtow. It means “head-banging” literally, but figuratively applies to the deep bow (forehead to the floor), which in ancient China represented an extreme form of submission before a superior. In such a world, China would not care what happened in New York, or London, or Paris, as long as it did not interfere with China’s wishes. China would control the world’s currencies, its means of production, its world governing bodies, its scientific and medical advances. It would all be for the best, as Beijing decides. After all, China has always been the “middle Kingdom.”

China would argue that its ascent as a great power has been within the rules of international law, as it were. They were invited into the World Trade Organization, and their massive exports, initially of low-value consumer goods, were welcomed as a cheap alternative to domestic production throughout the developed world. But they learned how to produce things, and there is a unique value in developing a chain-of-production (think cars, for example) where they master each step, innovating along the way, and eventually producing high quality products at competitive prices. Add into that the ability to ignore pricing or profit (it’s a command economy, after all), and China can simply rout entire industries in foreign markets. They did this to the US in the 2000-2010 period (the “China shock”), but now President Trump’s tariffs have turned China’s sights on Europe, with the same result.

In addition to unfair trade practices, China engages in rampant intellectual property theft. China invited the world’s best leading companies to build facilities in China, if they wanted to sell in China. Those companies (like Tesla, Volkswagen, Apple) trained Chinese managers and workers. Then those same people left the firms and started new companies with heavy government investment, eventually besting those who trained them, based on their insider knowledge. There is no such thing as a non-compete agreement in China. This is also evident in the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI). China has several AI start-ups that produce new models just slightly less capable (but much less expensive) than the leading American ones. How do the Chinese stay just behind but never get ahead? They engage in “distillation,” a practice where they secretly use the public-facing side of US models to train new Chinese ones. It’s almost as effective, but much cheaper.

Chinese President Xi can see the finish line of China’s quest to be the preeminent power. But he knows that China is rapidly aging (demographically), and its population is shrinking, so the youth dividend period of economic development is over. China has vast resources, but it did not become rich before it grew old. And he must purge his military leadership regularly due to rampant corruption, while they have not fought a war since 1979. Because he has total control over the Party and the State, he also knows China has enormous economic dysfunctions (ghost cities, no social safety net, huge government debts and a necessity to export due to poor domestic consumption) that must eventually be addressed.

Unlike those who worry about China surpassing the US, I’m more concerned with how the US manages the beginning of Chinese decline. This is the most dangerous period, when China’s leaders realize they might not ever achieve their goals. Decline has already started, and only a system-wide reset (i.e., the end of the CCP) can arrest it. Sino-American military rivalry boils down to one spot on the globe (Taiwan), and recent events in Ukraine and Iran suggest China is nowhere near prepared to fight its way onto the island. Some form of Chinese intimidation or blockade could work, so the issue is not settled. But all the rest of the issues between Beijing and Washington can be negotiated.

The initial western policy of normalizing China failed, but that does not mean war is inevitable. China has developed into a major economic force, and can still be normalized. You saw some of what that looks like at the May summit between Trump and Xi. There was no significant development: just two leaders talking. Why? Xi feels he has backed off Trump’s worst tariff threats, and made it known he is willing to use his dominance of the Rare Earth minerals as his own “Trump” card. This leaves him free to focus on Taiwan and the other domestic issues he needs to tend to.

American policy must deter the Chinese from invading or blockading Taiwan, while securing allies and resources in the global economy for the long-haul competition. America and Europe must resist succumbing to the siren song of inexpensive Chinese production, even when it is better, for it is the result of unfair competition, and will only lead to inevitable dependence. China is not a reliable partner, nor is it the new “Evil Empire.” It is a long-term economic and diplomatic rival, and the West has the means necessary to best it. If we find the will.

The phrase “at sea” connotes deep confusion, where someone or something is completely lost. The USS Abraham Lincoln is literally at sea, but many choosing to voice opinions about it are figuratively at sea, too. It seems that aircraft carrier has been deployed for 250+ days, and now tales of stress, poor rations, and unsanitary conditions have reached the home front, along with at least one attempted overboard. I say attempted, as I am not sure what the point of jumping off a ship is: is it successful if you just hit water, or it failed if they simply pluck you back up and put you in the brig?

Let’s start with those who leap from these conditions (more on that, you betcha’) to alleging the President is mismanaging the war with Iran. Now there is a briefcase load of evidence of mismanagement in this war, but this is hardly the piece of evidence you want to settle on before the court of public opinion. Let’s review the facts.

Accepting that the allegations about food and sanitation are true, why is this happening? The main US supply base for operations in the region is in Bahrain; it opened in 1995. Look at the map.

Why our most important supply base is so close to our biggest regional threat is, frankly, a question I would love to hear the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) answer. There’s hubris, then there’s, well, this. The Iranians bombed and destroyed the base at the start of this phase of the war, but the Navy was smart enough to relocate the Headquarters and the sailors beforehand, so there were almost no casualties, but the facilities were lost. Meaning our resupply efforts have been ad hoc since. So there’s a good reason there might be supply problems. And our replacement depot is at Diego Garcia, a long way away. Funny thing, that: Iran fired two IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) at Diego Garcia . . . you know, the missiles it claimed it didn’t have, like its nuclear program.

But why are the problems only on the Honest Abe? There have been two other carriers deployed, and numerous smaller ships. Seems like we should hear more than just one set of voices. Unless, of course, the issue is the command climate on the Abraham Lincoln. So question number two is: Why is this specific ship having the problems it is experiencing?

Now to the specific complaints. Here are social media (alleged) pics of the offending food:

Show me an army in the field (or a navy at sea), and I’ll show you a soldier griping about the chow. That doesn’t mean the gripes are illegitimate, but they better be pretty strong before you get excited about them (the gripes, that is). I was an Army officer in 1983 in West Germany, during the Able Archer period (for those unfamiliar, this was when the Russians became convinced Reagan was about to unleash a nuclear blitzkrieg). I was in the field for more than 200 days that year, mostly living in tents attached to the back of my tracked vehicle. We had a guaranteed hot breakfast, C-rations after that. As an officer, I ate last, and I often got a scoop of (cold) green scrambled eggs, a single strip of bacon., and unlimited (cold) toast. It is what it is. And that was just near wartime. Those plates don’t show me anything at all. As to that gray mystery meat on the right, it’s practically a right of passage in the military. If you don’t believe me, believe Chef from Apocalypse Now:

“It was turning gray!”

Now the complaint about sewage backing up is more serious. Ships are complex systems-of-systems, and a breakdown in something as fundamental as waste removal can indicate even more serious problems. But it still happens all the time, even on cruise lines that depend on providing total comfort to their passengers. Given the length of this deployment, systems failing is a probability, not a possibility.

What about that deployment length? 250+ days sounds impressive, and in some ways, it is. But the carrier that was first on the scene during the air war, the USS Gerald R. Ford, completed 326 days deployed, with no such problems. The Lincoln has had about 60 days of actual combat operations during that period, much less than the carriers that supported Operation Desert Storm. Now it’s not like the non-combat days are days-off. Any stray missile or drone can send the ship to General Quarters (or “man your battle stations” as they say in the movies). But the Lincoln is far out in the Indian Ocean, and true strikes against it are rare.

Lack of mail service? Unfortunate but not really surprising. How about the Navy wife who complained she can’t reach her sailor husband on the internet? Does this mean sailors have ready access to the internet at sea during combat operations, and why? It’s not a “small ship, big ocean” challenge to find a carrier if it’s broadcasting its location. I marveled at the Russian soldiers who live-streamed their deployments prior to the invasion of Ukraine. “How unprofessional!” I thought. Question three: should someone check what constitutes professionalism in today’s Navy, at least with respect to EMCON (Emissions Control)?

The chief gripe seems to be the total length of deployment, with all the stress of combat operations (however long), without a port call. All military leaders understand the necessity of giving the troops a break, whether it’s a three-day pass in the Army or shore-leave for a port call in the Navy. The Marines prefer to continue their sadomasochistic ways and refuse leave, while the Air Force isn’t sure how it is different from, say, everything else.

Now I want to say something truly contentious: there is nothing inherently stressful about being at sea board an aircraft carrier. I’ve toured a Nimitz class carrier (The USS John C. Stennis). There’s a separate Officer’s Mess. There’s a gymnasium. There’s a library, a hospital (and a dentist), a barber shop, a laundry, and a chapel. There’s rudimentary climate control (mostly for the computers, but if you keep the hatches closed, even in the bunks). There’s a multipurpose room which can show movies or host ping-pong tournaments. There’s unlimited power provided by a nuclear reactor. You can go outside and take deep breaths of the sea air. It will never be confused with even a bargain cruise ship, but it’s very different from a submarine, a tank, an aircraft, or even a spacecraft. They’re called floating cities for a reason. Their very purpose is to provide sustained aerial combat power in the absence of land bases. And they do that very well.

So yes, the war is being mismanaged. And maybe the USS Abraham Lincoln is too. But let’s keep our opinions within the bounds of reason, shall we? A good friend recently gifted me a copy of Bill Mauldin’s Up Front. For those too young to know, Mauldin drew comics about and for front line soldiers in World War II. He lived with them and captured their dark sense of humor, publishing his works in spite of many complaints from the brass (higher-up officers).

The conditions he witnessed are incomparably worse than those discussed here. I’m not arguing we should accept those conditions, just that our complaints say more about us than about anyone else. Or how we might use something to score political points.

If there is a deep rumbling beneath the soil near Oak Ridge Cemetary in Springfield, Illinois, it might just be ol’ Honest Abe turning in his grave.

The Holy Father Pope Leo XIV just published his first encyclical, entitled Magnificent Humanity (in Latin, above). It’s a long read, coming in at 42,000 words, so here’s a few things I’ve gleaned from my initial study of the document.

It is worth noting the provenance of both the Pope’s choice of Leo as his Papal name, and the subject of this encyclical. Robert Francis Prevost has confirmed he chose the name Leo in part to recall the last Pope so-named, Leo XIII. That Pope published a very important encyclical entitled Rerum Novarum (“On New Things”) in 1891. That document decried the atheistic, inhumane end-states of socialism, communism, and laissez-faire capitalism. It demanded a living wage for the working class, humane working conditions, and support for families, while decrying all forms of exploitation. For those wondering what effects a Papal encyclical can have, the modern concerns for the working class can largely be tied back to his authoritative document.

In his encyclical, Leo XIV consciously cites his predecessor’s work, and calls out the technological challenges facing humanity today, much as the industrial revolution challenged the earlier world. To illustrate the challenge, Leo offers twin biblical analogies: the tower of Babel and the restoration of Jerusalem. In the first circumstance, men chose to honor themselves and become self-sufficient, masters of their own destiny, resulting in division and disorder. In the second, the Jews returning to the ruins of Jerusalem worked together to jointly rebuild their city in a display of common good. Technology is only a tool, to be used for good or evil: what type of future do we want to build with AI?

Pope Leo begins with a review of Catholic Social Doctrine from Rerum Novarum to the present. Those who see Catholicism as a set of cultural “don’ts” will find this part of the encyclical an eye-opening list of Popes, documents, and teachings that directly affect the lives of the common man and woman: the absolute necessity to freely associate (ie., unionize), to keep one’s earnings (private property), to care for those less fortunate, to be treated fairly and not simply as a consumer or producer, but as a human being. While the Church explicity rejects socialism or communism, it likewise counsels that unregulated markets or simple majoritarian democracy can produce their own evils.

From this review, the encyclical recalls five principles of Catholic Social Doctrine which must drive our approach to the AI technological challenge:

• The common good, that is rules and actions which allow all to flourish
• The universal destination of goods, to be shared by all
• Subsidiarity, described as solving issues at the lowest, or most local, level first
• Solidarity, or the responsibility for all to be involved
• Social justice, allowing all to lead dignified lives.

Only after all this does the Pope begin to address how this well-developed set of doctrines apply to the artificial intelligence revolution.

“So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom.” –Chapter III, Section 99

Pope Leo specifies that AI and the larger technological revolution must be harnessed for the good of mankind, not exploited for the few at the risk to the many. Here he highlights:

• the search for truth in public life. Everyone must commit to the development of shared truth, since truth is the basis for community. Truth is neither relative nor personal, but a basis for communication and communion.
• education in the digital environment. Youth must come to understand education is not a series of tests or qualifications to pass, but an extended period of hard work and experience leading to knowledge. Families, schools, and communities must work together to ensure the real education of our youth.
• the transformation of work. Work is not a necessary evil, but a fundamental aspect of human life necessary for dignity. Charity to the less fortunate is a necessary but insufficient response; work is the path to maturity and dignity.
• the fragility of families. The family is the first and foremost common good. Technology must not undermine the family or it will damage the social fabric of the community.
• new forms of slavery. The digital age poses new challenges where technology is directly optimized to enslave its users, or the system itself demands slave-like conditions for the materials necessary for its maintenance.

“More gravely, the pervasive technocratic paradigm in which we are immersed, and that is amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control. When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.” –Chapter III, section 112

In the final section, the Pope turns to the issue of international relations in the AI era. He criticizes the return of “political realism” in the notion that power, not charity, is the ultimate determinant between peoples and states. He insists human beings must not pass along the immense power of life-or-death decisions to autonomous systems. In a seemingly throw-away line that has received much attention, he states, “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the ‘just war’ theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated.” Leo is not rejecting the Just War theory first promulgated by Saint Augustine; Leo is an Augustinian, for Heaven’s sake. He is decrying the manipulation of Just War doctrine to provide a justification for any war. To further the point, he just put Just War theory on the table as a discussion topic at an extraordinary consistory of the College of Cardinals later this month, so stay tuned!

This encyclical does not contain specific policy proposals for the topics it covers. Those proposals are rightfully the realm of our elected representatives; in Catholic terms, they are prudential, not theological issues. Rather, it introduces the principals all should invoke in developing our policies and rules for artificial intelligence. Like Rerum Novarum so many years ago, it is clear-eyed look at the promises and dangers of technology in a rapidly changing global environment.

Let’s pray Magnifica Humanitas has as great and lasting effect as its predecessor.

In parts one and two, we addressed the feeling that the American dream is unaffordable, while demonstrating the data doesn’t support that feeling. So what gives? Hidden in that data are some points which illuminate the challenge. First, everyone is better off over the last fifty years, but some groups are “mo-better” as they say than others. While the data are conflicted whether there are some more poor or lower income people, all data agree that the rise in the upper-income or rich tier is much greater than the rise in poor or lower income one. Both come at a cost to the size of the middle class.

Now take that data and compare it to the population and the economic environment. Younger people are blissfully unaware of the economic challenges other generations faced, just as they are unaware of history in general. When confronted with the inflation, unemployment, or Treasury rates I witnessed when I was their age, they simply stare: it doesn’t compute. Setting aside whose fault that is, the fact remains: they feel cheated, and also feel distinctly put upon by “the system.”

What younger cohorts are aware of is the life-styles of the rich & famous or at least the influencers. Consider this: Back when I was growing up, if anybody bought something expensive or showed-off with something ostentatious, my mother would refer to them as “wanna-be Rockefellers” or just “Rockefellers” after the famously rich and famous New York clan. She had no experience with the Rockefellers and probably couldn’t name one of them; she just knew “about them” and viewed them as the epitome of rich people who no longer needed to care about money. It was a useful, if envious, metaphor.

Today, every young person has social media providing a nonstop drip of addictive examples of the lifestyles of everyone who has more than they do. And social media only highlights the more and better. And given most young people are just starting out, while the largest generation of baby-boomers is atop the population pyramid (with more time, more resources, just more), that’s just about everyone. Everyone is doing better than you are, with the subtext of “what’s wrong with you?”

Which is not to say everything is rosy. Gas prices really are high . . . but just as high as they were four years ago. Rents are high, but only in the most sought-after neighborhoods. Mortgage rates are up above the last decade, but about where they were in 2008. There have been spikes in gas, dairy, meat, chicken, coffee, but there have always been such spikes, and nothing today is different about that. What accounts for the fatalism among the younger generations?

“I thought getting a college degree was the answer to everything,” said Lucy Kinyanjui, 22, a senior at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. From a NY Times article on the bleak job prospects for college graduates.

One thing that is different is student loan debt. Nobody ever graduated with multiple decades of student loan debt payments back in the day, except doctors or lawyers; others were happy to finance them, and they were willing to pay. There weren’t too many defaults by those groups. Now it is common, and includes graduates with no useful skills. America rushed to push people into college, because college graduates earned more than non-college graduates, so if more people attended and graduated, everyone would be better off, right? No, because what made college graduates more financially successful was not the certificate, but the education. As universities competed to enroll this increasing stream of admissions, they (1) raised their tuition to astronomical rates (showing that even people with no formal economic education understand supply and demand), and (2) catered to their students with bespoke curricula that allowed them to avoid challenging knowledge in favor of comfortable pablum. The result was a sheepskin not worth the cost of a good wool sweater, and a ton of debt service.

But that’s only a small, if very vocal, part of the electorate. What about the vast majority who didn’t go to college, didn’t rack up debt, but still feels precarious? They feel precarious because they are. Part of the reason is the continued movement of blue-collar (and now white-collar) jobs out of the country to other places where they can be done just as well but at much less cost. It came for the auto workers first, but it’s after the paralegals now too. Add in advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and even more info-tech jobs are precarious! The trend is not necessarily fewer jobs, but different types of jobs. The introduction of the calculator didn’t do away with jobs requiring calculation, it made them more productive; the introduction of the car certainly spelled doom for buggy-whip manufacturers. This trend is obvious across multiple industries and professions: foreign competition and automation in general tend to create winners (who get very rich) and losers (who lose their jobs), and it’s rarely clear who will be who. That’s real uncertainty. But we’ve been through this before, with the sure-thing of a college degree, a Masters in Business, Law as a profession, coding, etc. And there are jobs and growth potential in health care, but that doesn’t interest younger generations. I don’t blame them: nursing the aging, entitled baby-boomers wouldn’t be my cup of tea, either.

This is why the AEI data in my last blog post was so revealing: there you see the growth in the rich and upper income groups, which grew faster than others, while the Treasury data shows they also accumulated more wealth (not just income) at the same time. Does the fact that Elon Musk exists, and controls a bazillion (technical term) dollars do anything to you? No. Perhaps it irritates you, or did once his politics changed. He didn’t inherit his wealth, didn’t extort it, didn’t win the lottery. He quit a PhD program to found an early internet company, making him rich when he sold that company for US $22 million at age 27 in 1999. His politics aside, he revolutionized how we launch satellites, took on and beat NASA, and is in the process of changing how we access the internet, anytime, anywhere. Maybe he is overvalued as they say in the stock market. But maybe he just did some remarkable things and monetized them. His wealth has no effect on you, though. Unless you want to compare yourself to him. Musk and others like him are that thin, light blue line on top of the AEI wealth chart. How much can they make? If they keep innovating, it is practically unlimited. How little can The Biggest Loser make? Zero. The difference only grows.

How does all this play out in the upcoming elections? Poorly for all sides. I contend President Trump won re-election because the electorate–especially low information people who vote infrequently–got fed up with the Biden administration’s wild economic policies (an Inflation Reduction Act that increases prices?) and decided to give Trump another try despite his well-known downsides. Team Harris did trot out some wild ideas to address the cost of living (remember the minority set-aside for black men to sell legal marijuana?), but there was no there, there. Trump and his team promised to reduce prices with no explanation. Promises beat incoherence.

Trump’s agenda-less approach to high prices has been ineffective and made those key swing voters very upset. If nothing changes in the next few months, they will swing once again in the mid-terms, giving the Democrats the House and perhaps the Senate. Promises beat incoherence again. Before liberals and progressives raise a cup of cheer, two cautions. First, whatever majorities they achieve will be small, and neither filibuster- nor veto-proof. Leaving them with the burden of addressing their promised fixes to affordability by either compromising with Trump (fat-chance) or simply performing legislative protest (my, how they do love chanting and singing). Neither is a good start to the 2028 Presidential campaign. But what if the Democrats put forward a progressive Abundance agenda? That’s the second caution. They don’t have one. Even after Abundance (the book) came out last year, it caused as much conflict as excitement on the left. The only thing that unites the left is hatred for Trump, which will be enough for the legislative elections, but bodes ill for presidential politics.

Which is a shame, as parts of the progressive abundance agenda could resolve some issues (like housing and energy production/distribution). I don’t see any quick or easy national solutions to “affordability.” More likely, the problem will ease over time. First, because younger generations realize the complaints aren’t having an effect. Second, people become inured to higher prices over time. I’ll always think a new car should cost US $2000 because I remember the VW Bug ads at $1999. I don’t like it, but I don’t expect to find new cars at that price anymore. Third, individuals will take matters into their own hands, by moving to less expensive areas, accepting longer commutes, taking less-exciting, more stable jobs. Fourth, believe it or not Millennials, the Boomers will die off, creating the largest wealth transfer in human history. Behave yourselves, and there might be a pot o’ gold at the end of their rainbows. Just don’t expect Uncle Sam to fix it in the next election cycle. Oh, and beware estate taxes. If you support them as a way to soak the rich, you just might find you taxed away your pot!

You might have heard the President and the Pope were openly feuding recently. Let’s observe factually what happened, then how it was covered. The main points?

• The United States and Israel engaged in offensive military operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• The Pope gave his “Urbi et Orbi” speech.
• The President made several comments on TruthSocial disputing the Pope.
• The Pope responded to press questions about the President’s remarks.
• The President and Vice President made several more comments about the Pope’s comments.
• Several American Cardinals defended the Pope and further criticized the American administration.

These are simple statements of fact, without editorial comment. How they played out, and how they were played by the media, are more like a remake of Mean Girls. For reasons we shall see, the facts are important, because they show how the truth was distorted for various political perspectives.

From the top, the US and Israel engaged in offensive military operations against Iran. While they achieved surprise, it was neither a surprise attack nor the beginning of the war, which as I detailed in an earlier blog post, has been going on for forty-seven years. The fact the US never responded to Iranian provocations is the reason they were so surprised this time. Whether the war is just, and whether it is wise, are questions which can be debated.

Around Christmas and Easter every year, the Pope gives his state-of-the-world speech, entitled “Urbi et Orbi” (Latin for “to the city and the world”). The speech is actually a blessing, and the tradition goes back to the 13th century. In the modern era, Popes generally highlight the need for peace, as there are almost always some form of warfare afoot. Recent Popes even took to listing each and every conflict, specifically condemning such violence.

In a different take this year (you can read the whole message here, it’s quite short), Pope Leo XIV decried war in general without naming conflicts. Pointedly, he said, “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace!” and “We are growing accustomed to violence, resigning ourselves to it, and becoming indifferent. Indifferent to the deaths of thousands of people.” There is nothing in this statement that directly attacks the administration, and it is not political. In fact, by the standard of such messages, it was quite plain.

Interestingly, just after the Pope issued his message, a news story broke that the Undersecretary of War (a Catholic) had summoned the Papal Nuncio (the Pope’s Ambassador to the United States) back in January and threatened him to “get on board” with American foreign policy. I’ll skip detailing the reasons I called this one fake immediately, and sure enough, the participants quickly and totally demolished the “controversy.” Both the administration and the Vatican have termed the report “highly distorted” and a “fabrication.” Yes, they met, and yes, they argued. They even had a frank-and-earnest exchange as they say in diplomatic terms. This story died a quick death, but we’ll return to it later.

On April 7th, President Trump issued his infamous “a whole civilization will die tonight” text; the Pope responded the next day, calling the threat “truly unacceptable.” Once again, President Trump ignored the dictates of wisdom and decorum in issuing such a statement. It was unwise because it was flippant, and a leader should be unmistakably clear when issuing threats. For example, Truman and Churchill issued the Potsdam declaration in 1945, explaining what “unconditional surrender” the allies demanded of the Imperial Japanese regime, and they ended it with this statement: “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.” In a historical note, Truman knew the atomic bomb had been successfully tested days earlier; this was no idle threat on his part. Nor is a threat a war crime, but that’s a blog for another day.

The Pope was of course correct in criticizing the President’s language, and the matter should have stopped there, as a ceasefire was shortly thereafter announced. But the Pope had also called for a Peace Vigil on April 11th, and there he sharpened his criticism, but still without naming President Trump or the United States. He did say, “Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power! Enough of war!” and “Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death” adding that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” Press and some Vatican sources highlighted that these last statements were directly targeted at comments from War Secretary Hegseth.

Never one to take a deescalatory ramp on social media, President Trump vented in full fury, first saying the Pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible” and suggesting Leo is only the Pope because Trump is the President. As if to move from the sublime to the ridiculous, Trump posed an AI-generated comic depicting himself in a pose eerily reminiscent of the Risen Lord, healing the sick and giving hope to all. After massive criticism from Christians of all stripes (including MAGA), he deleted it without apology, and said he thought it depicted him as a doctor (spawning even more great memes).

Not to be left out, Vice President Vance took up station as Trump’s “Catholic” wing-man, suggesting the Pope needed to be careful in talking about theology and should focus on morality rather than political strategy. All those involved would be wise to be careful in their pronouncements here, friend, but sadly that’s not the case. And all political strategy is eventually about morality, dontchano? And as if to prove both points, the three most-prominent American Catholic Cardinals suddenly appeared on 60 Minutes, defending the Pope and rebuking the US President and Vice President. But they couldn’t stop there, as Cardinal McElroy went on to declare the US action against Iran is “not a just war.”

Phew. And those are just the facts, with a few observations of my own thrown in. What are we to make of it? First off, all press coverage of the Vatican is highly suspect. Most of the media view religion as some sort of weird throwback, and they don’t even have the language to describe what is happening when they cover it. If you watch the press cover a Papal conclave, they treat it like a political convention, which is just odd. Second, the timing coincidence of the Pope’s messages, the manufactured story about a Pentagon confrontation, and the 60 Minutes follow-up are at the very least suspicious (I’ll explain). Finally, one would think political leaders would have learned by now it is unwise to mess with the Pope.

The Press. Media love confrontation, and they rushed back and forth between the Pope and President figuratively asking “did you hear what she said about you?” If you believe Pope Francis said “who am I to judge” about a homosexual priest, you probably fell for one of the media’s biggest mis-characterizations. Yet they continue to repeat it. They fanned this latest controversy and made it worse than it ever was. They are the ones reporting “Vatican sources” explaining what the Pope meant, when the Pope said what he said. You need only note that when things got really touchy, the Pope said he “never attacked the President” and “doesn’t do politics,” just “proclaims the Gospel.” Period. End of sentence. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need spin.

The Coincidences. It’s probably not a true conspiracy, but I would love for an investigative journalist to pull on these threads. The FREEP (Free Press) story about the Pentagon confrontation happened in January, but suddenly broke public right after the Pope’s Urbi et Orbi message at Easter. The story was flogged nationally by Christopher Hale, a proud Democratic National Committee member and former candidate for Congress with zero Vatican expertise, who nonetheless writes a blog entitled “Letters from Leo.” Oh, and those “Vatican sources” made sure and point out that the Pope had just met with David Axelrod, Obama’s eminence gris, before this current back-n-forth. It is not a secret there are those in the Curia (the Vatican permanent bureaucracy) and even the US church hierarchy who detest President Trump. It is not at all outlandish to suggest some of these coincidences were not, well, coincidental.

Which is not to say the Pope and the President don’t have real, serious differences of opinion. The Pope has remained non-specific, sticking to the Gospel, and avoiding direct criticism of the President or the specific US military activity. How do I know that? If the Pope had indeed determined the US action in Iran was an unjust war, he would be duty-bound to declare it as such. He would not be beating around the bush or speaking elliptically: prophets (ie., people who see and tell the truth) must do so. The Almighty does not take kindly to prophets who don’t do their job, Jonah! And that would entail the twenty-five percent of the US armed forces who are Catholic–including even more of the senior military and intelligence ranks–having to choose whether to refuse orders or violate their faith. It’s the theological equivalent of the nuclear option, and not only does the Pope solely wield it, he is required to use it. And he hasn’t.

Meanwhile, the press continues to beat the confrontation drum. Legacy media headlines (NYT: ‘Woe to Those Who Manipulate Religion,’ Pope Says Amid Standoff With Trump, Washington Post: Pope Leo decries ‘tyrants’ ravaging world, days after insults from Trump) highlight a few lines from an address the Pope gave to a war-ravaged area in Cameroon which has somehow found a way to make peace among neighbors. Again, he never mentions Trump or the US war in Iran. It’s another off-ramp, even if the press would prefer it was a crash test. Trump may take this off-ramp: today he said “I’m not fighting with him” about the Pope, while claiming he (Trump) is “all about the Gospel, I’m about it as much as anyone can be.” I guess that’s a Trumpian step in the correct direction.

Finally, the Apology. Back in Ye Good Ole Days, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV got in a feud with Pope Gregory VII about who got to appoint bishops (Pope or King). Gregory excommunicated Henry (threatening his legitimacy and thus his crown), then made him wait in the snow barefoot for three days before pardoning him. In our era, asked whether he might do something for Catholics in the Soviet Union as a sop to the Pope, Josef Stalin asked, “The Pope? How many (military) divisions does he have?” Decades later, Pope (St.) John Paul II metaphorically answered the question by helping liberate Poland with nary a soldier, beginning the process that dissolved that “Soviet Union.” When Popes speak, they often do so gently, but that doesn’t mean they are “WEAK.” The Pope may speak softly, but he carries a big . . . cross.

I agree with Bishop Robert Barron, who said Trump owes the Pope an apology. I doubt it will ever happen. But that’s all there is to this in the end. The President thinks he’s ending a fifty year nuclear threat. The Pope wants all to live in peace, not war. Some people who don’t like Trump will do anything to poison the well, and some on the MAGA side would just as soon worship Trump as Jesus. The press loves a good fight. Are you not entertained?