Trust (The Book)

Former South Bend Mayor and presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, whose 2019 memoir, Shortest Way Home, sold more than 100,000 copies, has written a second book, Trust: America's Best Chance. Since he is not presently a presidential candidate, one wonders whether his second book may sell as well. Certainly the subject warrants attention as the country continues to careen dangerously down the path of increased division into mutual incomprehending tribes, defined primarily by their distrust and hatred of the other. “Presidents after the Trump era will need to return to the basics when it comes to trust and credibility," he notes, perhaps suggesting a job description for a post he might yet someday hope to fill.

Buttigieg effectively brings his own autobiography into the discussion by highlighting how important trust was for him and those he served with in Afghanistan. Given the salience of personal stories in American culture, these may be the most memorable sections of the book.

Buttigieg begins with the obvious "So far," he says, "this young century of ours has a lot of explaining to do." He intends his book not s "a sweeping account of how we got here, or a full assessment of what it is to be alive and American in 2020," but instead "is written in the spirt of what must come next."

A personal historical note: One could certainly have expressed similar sentiments in 1920 in the aftermath of the "Great War" and the Influenza Pandemic. It took a while, but in time - and with good leadership - this country came back quite successfully. The question for today ought to be do we still have it in us to do that again, and can we elect leaders to bring that out in us?

Buttigieg, I believe gets that. Hence his argument about the centrality of trust. Our ability to meet this moment, he argues, depends 'on our ability to cooperate to achieve anything at all. And that will largely depend on our levels of trust." With his Afghanistan battlefield experience in mind, he contends "the cost of too little trust is even higher than the cost of too much."

Unsurprisingly, writing in 2020, he recognizes racism as "America's most pernicious form of distrust ... responsible for more death, more destruction, and more despair than any other force in American life." As importantly, he recognizes and highlights the consequences of the disastrous election of 1980, which resulted in "a new level of effort, even presidential effort, to sow doubt across America in some of our most important institutions."

One ultra-important American institution is, of course, the constitution, whose flaws and democratic deficits are very much on display today. Buttigieg reminds his readers that the constitution was designed to be amended. "This feature of the Constitution was itself an expression of trust: trust in future generations." Our founders "built into the system a way for it to become bigger than their own biases." But in recent decades we seem to have lost our appetite for amending the constitution. "We seem to have lost a level of ambition or imagination that was much more common in virtually every stage of American history but our own." Buttigieg goes on to address other particular policy proposals from voting to taxes, but I think his reminding us that the constitution is meant to be amended and that it has been amended almost continuously in American history until until about 50 years ago may represent his most important policy proposal.

In 2020, "we have reached a stage in which America has little to gain from denying that we, too, are a war-torn country with commensurately deep wounds still open." Indeed, we are. It will take a lot to repair our divisions and heal our wounds, and this book may be one small but helpful step in setting us on that path.

An Absurd Process

Putting aside for the moment the more fundamental issues of democratic legitimacy involved in the Barrett nomination in the very middle of an election, let us look instead at the absurd process by which the Senate gives its "advice and consent."

Committee hearings are obviously nowhere specified in the constitution. Of course, that is not the problem with committee hearings. The problem is that the present process presumes, indeed requires, the nominee to feign open-mindedness concerning upcoming cases. Like those supposedly "undecided" voters, one wonders whether there really are any such open-minded candidates out there. But, if there were such, it is fairly reasonable to suggest they would have little chance of being nominated. Of course, there have been Justices whose eventual rulings on the bench have turned out to be a surprise. But that was not why they were chosen. In the past, justices have been chosen for all sorts of reasons, including ethnicity, race, and gender. In the current condition of American politics, justices of the Supreme Court are picked primarily because of how they are expected to rule. Whatever Judge Barrett may say during the hearings, everyone knows that the only reason she was nominated was the reasonable expectation that she will rule reliably the way her Republican party patrons want her to. The same would presumably be true of anyone nominated by the next president if by some miracle the process were to be delayed, as it should be, until after January 20. And, given the hyper-political character of the contemporary Court, could it be otherwise?

In her pre-released statement, Judge Barrett said "Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try,"

If only that were true! I agree completely that courts are neither designed nor equipped either to solve all our problems or to right every wrong. The problem is that courts have claimed this role for themselves and, absent any willingness on the part of Congress to check the Court's increasingly unbridled power, society as a whole has come to share that same expectation. In any case, given the reality that the Court consistently behaves that way and as consistently gets away with it, is it any surprise that virtually everybody, anywhere on the political spectrum, supports or opposes judicial nominees largely in the hope - or fear - that they will advance particular policies and values, regardless of the actions of "the political branches elected by and accountable to the People"?

It was, for example, the political branches that enacted the Affordable Care Act in the first place. Despite repeated promises to repeal it, the Republican Congress failed to do so. Yet, in spite of those obvious actions on the part of those elected by and accountable to the people, a group of Republican Attorneys General, supported by this Administration, have sought to circumvent the political process and enact an alternative policy via the judiciary. Of course, absent a crystal ball, no one can with certainty predict how a Justice appointed by this Administration might rule on that case which will be heard on November 10. But one can do so with reasonably probable certitude (i.e., without fear of error). Were this not the case, would there be any reason for this rushed appointment, this unseemly haste, literally in the middle of an election, not to mention the willful ignoring of more immediate issues in the midst of a deadly pandemic?

Of course, courts could act as Judge Barrett describes in her statement. In that case, judicial appointments would matter much less. Her own appointment might then be much less controversial or, more likely, might never have been made. But that is not the world we live in, thanks largely to repeated congressional failure to check the Supreme Court.

Congress could, of course, as it has in the past, act to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction in certain cases, in accordance with Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution. It could, of course, as it has in the past, alter the number of justices on the Supreme Court and on other federal courts, in accordance with article 3, section 1. (The Judiciary Act of 1789, for example, established a six-member supreme Court. It rose to seven, then nine, then ten, and has been nine since 1869.) And, of course, the Constitution could also be amended to set specific terms for Justices, which could be staggered in such a way as to give each president one or two appointments per term, which would automatically diminish the sense that everything is at stake every time there is a vacancy..

In the absence of such reforms, however, this indefensibly anti-democratic institution stands ready on a regular basis to nullify the popular will on everything from universal access to health care to the role of money in elections. So, of course, court appointments are occasions for periodic national freakouts, exacerbated by a hypocritical and absurd confirmation process.

Columbus Day

Today is Columbus Day, a federal holiday, which has long been a legal and school holiday in certain states, among them my home state of New York. It has been observed in one form or other in the United States since at least the 300th anniversary of Columbus’ expedition in 1792.  Historically, it commemorates Christopher Columbus' landing at San Salvador on this day in 1492, an event experienced very differently by the colonizers and the colonized but an event of enormoous historic import.

In terms of who observes it and how it is observed, Columbus Day has two distinct but not completely unrelated meanings and constituencies. For me and probably for most observers of Columbus Day, it is primarily a celebration of Italian heritage and the Italian-American experience. New York City has the largest Italian-American Columbus Day parade, preceded (at least back in the early 2000s when I was there) by a Mass at the Cathedral in Italian. (On the Sunday before, there is also another parade for the Latino community, commemorating el  Día  de la Hispanidad.) 

If Columbus is primarily a symbol of Italian heritage and the Italian-American experience, Columbus himself long has had a broad appeal among Catholic immigrant groups, for whom he functions as a complement to the country's otherwise predominantly Protestant and English  founding story - a wholesome reminder that groups other than English Protestants were also involved in exploring and settling this continent - and accordingly have as clear a claim as they to be here.

In 1901, the infamous Edward Alsworth Ross, future President of the American Sociological Association, popularized the white-supremacist term "race suicide" and warned "That the Mediterranean people are morally below the races of Northern Europe is as certain as any historical fact." Likewise, after the notorious lynching of 11 Sicilians by a New Orleans mob, The New York Times wrote about "sneaking and cowardly Sicilians, the descendants of bandits and assassins." Such elite bigotry eventually led to the 1924 law which severely restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe.

In contrast, the celebration of Christopher Columbus' foundational role in American history - an Italian Catholic in the service of Spain's Catholic monarchs - has always served as a counterweight to our country's cultish veneration of its English Protestant "Founding Fathers" and a resounding rebuttal to nativist anti-Catholic and particularly anti-Italian prejudice. The fact that some contemporary politicians may now feel free to demean or diminish Columbus Day is an obvious testimony to the decline of Italian-Americans' political influence and the perceived irrelevance of their immigrant struggles in the new narratives employed by contemporary cultural elites.

Obviously, all this presumes some prior consensus on Columbus as a significant figure for that period of exploration and colonization. It is this aspect of the Columbus story that has, especially in recent years, become even more controversial than it always has been.

Of course, the claim that Columbus "discovered" American was always disputed by others who highlighted the activities of earlier explorers - e.g. Leif Erikson. The historical significance of Columbus lies not so much in his being the "first" European to land here, which he manifestly was not, but that his voyages made a difference in ways that those of previous explorers had not, and that his arrival began the period of sustained European colonization of this continent - the encuentro between the "Old" and the "New" worlds. Religiously, it also marked the beginning of a sustained effort by Christian Europeans to evangelize the indigenous peoples of this continent. That this continent is now what it is, a mixture of people from all parts of the world, is the long-term legacy of what happened on this day in 1492.

How all this happened - how the encuentro between peoples was also a collision with frightful consequences for many, a cause of great suffering among the indigenous peoples, and the occasion of many injustices perpetrated against them - all this has long been recognized. Indeed Columbus himself was faulted for some of his own behavior even in his own lifetime. It is a modern moral conceit to think that only our contemporaries can recognize the moral failings and sins which we as a society have benefited from.

The Dominican friar Bartolome de las Casas (1484-1566) was famously a passionate defender of the indigenous peoples, whose sufferings at the hands of Spanish conquistadores he documented as he traveled back and forth between America and the Spanish Court exposing and condemning the crimes he had witnessed against the native peoples. 

Acknowledging that the colonization of this continent and the evangelization of its inhabitants were carried out by sinners does not negate the historical significance of the encounter between the "Old" and "New" worlds, which made possible the one world which we now inhabit. There is no "right side of history." there is only history, with its inevitable mix of good and bad. Whether our ancestors came 500 years ago or are recent immigrants, their immigration and therefore our very existence as their descendants are all consequences of the actions and accomplishments of those Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English explorers, settlers, and missionaries who followed the path opened up for them by Columbus.  It atones for no ancient evil and does no present-day service to pretend otherwise..

(Photo: The Statue of Christopher Columbus at Columbus Circle, New York City)

The Eternal Wedding Feast

 

In a world where resources were scarce and the food supply limited, what better image for the kingdom of heaven than the abundance suggested by a joyful wedding feast – a royal one at that! That said, the parable leaves us wondering about a number of things. Most obviously, we wonder why did those originally invited guests refuse to come to the feast?

In ordinary life, who turns down an invitation to a royal wedding?  On the contrary, people go to great lengths to get themselves invited to such occasions and are more than willing to rearrange their schedules as needed. In this parable, however, some ignored the invitation and went away, while others (even more strangely) aggressively rejected the invitation. Of course, this was not any ordinary royal wedding, but a parable about the kingdom of heaven itself. Throughout history, there have always been people who have aggressively resisted God’s kingdom. (That’s why we’ve had so many martyrs in the Church’s history – more, incidentally, in the last century than in any previous one!) Even so, I suspect, many more people probably fall into the less aggressive category of those that just ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. It really is very easy to become completely preoccupied with the small stuff of daily life, with one’s own daily affairs – whether one is constantly climbing up some social or economic or political ladder or whether one is just getting by and making do. If this parable is, on the one hand, a great illustration of God’s great desire to have us all participate in the abundant life of his kingdom, on the other hand it also realistically recognizes how easily the ordinary business of daily life can, if we let it, confuse our priorities and get in the way of our experiencing all that God has in store for us. Of course, the small stuff of daily is important. The question is how important when compared with something that is even more important?

Now, obviously, we who are here today will want to identify ourselves with the second group – those gathered in from all over the place.

The parable makes it clear that those in this group were no better or more deserving than those who turned down the initial invitation, but they were willing to give God a try.  And, for those who follow through, that readiness to respond makes all the difference! Certainly, it has to be quite consoling for us to hear that God’s kingdom is not some kind of closed shop or private club, that there’s plenty of room for even the likes of us!  

But, unlike a classic fairy tale the parable lacks a classic “happy ending.” In Jesus’ world, as in most societies, even a last-minute addition to the guest list for a formal occasion would presumably know enough to dress for the event - unlike in our society where many seem to have completely forgotten (or maybe never learned) how to dress appropriately at any time for any event. Even so, I suspect even a last-minute addition to the guest list for, say, a State Dinner would want to fit in and would want like he or she belonged there. But when the king came in to meet the guests, he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.

That’s what happens, some skeptics might say, when you just open the door and let anyone and everyone in. The story says both bad and good alike, so the king can’t say he wasn’t warned! Just because the door has now been opened to all, it does not follow that the king has abandoned all expectations about how guests are supposed to behave. Being inclusive doesn’t mean anything goes. Responding to the invitation represented an initial option for the kingdom. But, as we all know, people don’t all always follow through on their commitments. Sadly, even of those that do in fact show up, not all will follow up!

When challenged, the casually dressed guest was reduced to silence. He had no excuse. If there is one thing we are usually very good at, it is finding and making excuses! But on Judgment Day the time for excuses will be over.

As already noted, the kingdom of heaven is not a closed shop or private club. It extends a wide-open invitation to all. That invitation having been accepted, however, membership in God’s kingdom - from the initial invitation to the final judgment - is intended to be taken in all its awesome seriousness,  lest we too be found with no excuse, reduced to silence for all eternity.

Homily for the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Immaculate Conception Church, Knoxville, TN, October 11, 2020. The entire Mass may be watched on the Immaculate Conception Parish Facebook page.

The Veep Debate

Historically, voters rarely, if ever, base their vote on the vice-presidential candidate. Hence the vice-presidential debate does not generally rate the highest interest. Classically at such a debate, the expectation of a new veep nominee is to show that he (in this case, she) can look and act presidential, which she did. Both candidates established their serious standing to be possible presidential contenders in the future.

Of course, one unusual reason for watching the veep debate last night was simply to see something like a normal discussion of the big issues confronting our country, unlike the sorry spectacle put on by President Trump last week. Obviously that was a very low bar to meet. As always, the candidates evaded the issues and avoided answering the exact questions, which is one of the reasons I increasingly see so little value in such debates. That said, this exercise was for the most part happily dull - unlike last week's scandalously high-spirited performance. Even so, although no voices were raised, Vice President Pence set a bad tone by repeatedly taking more time than he was entitled and ignoring the moderator, perhaps aware his boss was watching and would want to see that. In that sense, Pence, with his persistent talking overtime and not really answering the questions, was a milder version of Trump's bad manners.

Moderator Susan Page struggled all evening with his continued contempt for following the rules. She began by asking about what is obviously the pre-eminent moral and political issue facing our country - the coronavirus pandemic. Unsurprisingly, Vice President Pence provided evasive answers tainted by Trumpist fantasies and the remnants of a discredited conservative ideology completely inept when it comes to public health or any public good. Basically what we saw all evening was Pence pretending, by talking calmly, that this is a normal presidency and the issues are normal issues, when what the pandemic in particular has highlighted is how that is simply not the case.

On the second set of questions concerning the role of the veep and presidential health and possible disability, the candidates ignored the questions even more blatantly, although Harris did at least express a commitment to transparency, something which has been notably absent in this present instance of presidential illness.

On the economy, Harris highlighted the fundamental differences between the two sets of candidates - measuring the health of the economy by the strength of workers and families vs. measuring it by its benefits for the rich. Pence, perhaps to please his boss, interrupted Harris, while unsurprisingly falling back on the old Republican talking point about taxes and the Trump tax cuts.

By the time, they got to the environment and climate change, anyone watching probably could have recited their predictable answers in advance. The problem, of course, when the debate is increasingly between assertions of alternative sets of facts, how does the audience adjudicate between such completely incommensurate fact claims?

Harris seemed very strong when talking about foreign policy, using the helpful imagery of relationships. Pence suffered from a compulsive need to show that everything the Obama Administration did was a total disaster, which got in the way of making any kind of positive case for his own administration. The question for today, as Ronald Reagan famously said, is whether we are better off now. Making tedious comparisons with a previous administration does not speak to today. It was almost as if he preferred not to have to talk that much about the present.

It might have been too much to have expected Harris to explain the merit of increasing the number of seats on the Supreme Court - what Pence derisively dismissed as "court packing ' which sounds a lot scarier than it is. Sooner or later, however, Democrats need to explain why the concept is not so scary at all. That said, Harris did a good job of highlighting how the Republicans have in their own fashion been "packing" the courts with their own ideologues.

On the crucial question of a fair election and a peaceful transition of power, instead of answering Pence repeated Trump's complaints about the 2016 election and subsequent events. Again, one wonders if he felt that he had to say that to please his boss.

In general, the discussion improved over time. But the talking past the time limit continued to the consternation of the hapless moderator - and the growing boredom of the audience. Gradually Harris became more assertive about claiming time for herself. It will be interesting to see how that is received - a woman asserting for herself the traditional male prerogative Pence practiced so effortlessly of interrupting and talking over others.

Harris did a good job of highlighting the threat to so many people's health care posed by this administration and their Supreme Court nominee. She might have served her cause even better by talking about it even more every chance she could.  After the issue of the president himself and the survival of constitutional democracy, health care is the Democrats' strongest issue.

When all is said and done, it is unlikely that many minds - or votes - were changed, or that we will even be talking much about this event much beyond today.