The State of the Union Is Not Good

 

In his January 15, 1975, State of the Union address (photo), President Gerald Ford famously declared, "the state of the union is not good". That was 51 years ago - in a very different century in a very different America with a very different kind of president. A lot has happened in between, but the state of the union is again not good, whatever our president may choose to tell Congress and the country on Tuesday..

Donald Trump is by far the least ideological president in my lifetime. Tariffs seem to be among his few strongly held personal beliefs. They have also been central to his second-term domestic agenda, along mass deportations of immigrants. Tariffs, the White House has variously argued, could help rebuild lost American industries, reduce prices for consumers, lower the national debt, and even (a la the 19th century) replace income taxes with tariffs filling the gap in revenue.

Major American companies declined to challenge Trump's tariffs in court. So it fell to smaller businesses, in Learning Resources v. Trump, to argue that Trump’s tariffs went beyond what the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) authorized. That law allows a president to "regulate" imports during a national emergency but makes no specific reference to tariffs. From 1977 untill Trump, no president has attempted to levy tariffs by invoking IEEPA.

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Trump had exceeded his powers under IEEPA and "must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.” Trump reacted typically, telling reporters, “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” In fact, it was a rare rebuke from the Court to a president who has often appeared to be governing as some unaccountable monarch, who needs to be reminded that we have a constitution and that the congress, not the president, is the constitutional organ entitled to impose taxes and raise revenue through tariffs. The Congress can, of course, continue its modern tradition of irresponsibility and delegate tariff-imposing power to the president, but the point of Learning Resources v. Trump is that Congress thus far has not done so, at least not in the manner the president has claimed.

Congress, in fact, has not done much of anything lately. Far from acting like the first and only legislative branch of our federal government and thus a check on a president's authoritarian aspirations, it has both actively and passively empowered this administration to arrogate additional power to itself. 

Perhaps the voters might not mind if the results were lower prices and an overall sense of national well-being. But Trump's tariffs have had the opposite effect. Likewise, his war against immigrants has escalated into a war on American cities and American citizens. And, while it is not uncommon for lame-duck presidents to focus on foreign policy (where a president's opportunities to be effective may often be greater), this is obviously not what Trump's 2024 voters wanted.

Undoubtedly, the President will tell the Congress and the country that the state of the union is good. But, unlike when he tries to tell us grandiose things about himself, what he is claiming about the country is being contradicted by voters' direct experience. Trump might be better served by some of Gerald Ford's humility. But Gerald Ford he is not. And humble he most certainly is not.

The Epstein Class

The recent shocking arrest in Britain of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly HRH Prince Andrew, the 12th Duke of York) illustrates the increasingly serious after-effects of the international scandal surrounding the late sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein. (The charge against Andrew is "Misconduct in Public Office" and refers to alleged official misconduct while Andrew was a UK Trade Representative from 2001 to 2011, allegations based presumably on revelations derived from the recently released Epstein files.) The arrest of the former prince demonstrates how seriously Epstein-related scandalous misbehaviors are being taken in the UK and elsewhere in Europe (e.g., France, Norway).

At the same time, this event also highlights how the opposite seems to be the case in the US at present. While some public figures have suffered loss of reputation, and some have stepped back from certain public positions, this has all happened in the private sector. So far, no American (other than the late Epstein himself) has been held to account in any legal process. Indeed, no American seems to have suffered anything comparable to the  public scrutiny suffered by three British citizens (Ghislaine Maxwell, Peter Mandelson, and Andrew) implicated in various ways in this scandal. (All three, it should be noted, deny any wrongdoing. Maxwell was convicted by a US Court in 2021. Neither Peter Mandelson nor Prince Andrew has been tried for - let alone convicted of - anything, and so both retain a legal presumption of innocence.)

What this obviously highlights is precisely what the contemporary populist critique has long claimed - that there is, in this supposedly anti-aristocratic democratic country of ours, a largely unaccountable elite defined by wealth and cultural power, who hang out with one another, enjoying the myriad benefits that flow from such oligarchic and meritocratic connections,  and go about their amazingly privileged lives with little no public accountability. This suggests a system of shameless apparent contempt for ordinary Americans, who are typically subject to a very different set of standards when it comes to responsibility for one's behavior. It is not just that the very rich may be able to buy themselves out of legal and other troubles. That is bad enough. Rather it highlights a whole alternative culture of meritocratic oligarchy which seems literally to live in a different system from the rest of us. This is the so-called "Epstein Class."

The MAGA movement achieved prominence in part because of conspiracy theories which referenced the Epstein affair. Prior to his reelection in 2024, candidate Trump apparently expressed openness to releasing all the relevant Epstein information. Many of his supporters expected this to happen, and the reactions of the likes of congressman Thomas Massie and ex-congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene reflect their apparent disappointment with how this has been handled since. 

What this sordid affair exposes about the unaccountability of some very wealthy and powerful people is bad enough. The account also highlights how strangely vacuous the lives of many of the rich and famous now appear to be. In what kind of a world would a married Ivy League University president and former Cabinet member, pursuing a relationship with someone who considered him her mentor, seek relationship advice from the likes of Jeffrey Epstein? In what kind of a world would a future Cabinet secretary, having claimed to have previously cut off all ties with Epstein, be shown instead to have visited his private island with his wife, children, and nannies? In what kind of a world would supposedly smart, accomplished people be so attracted to - even seemingly besotted by - the likes of Jeffrey Epstein? What does that all say about the corrupting character of wealth and privilege?

In the 13th century, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) discussing the religious practice of evangelical poverty, noted that wealth poses three obstacles to virtue. They are "the anxiety which often accompanies wealth," second, "love of wealth, which increases with the possession of wealth," and, third, "vainglory or conceit, which is a product of wealth." [Cf. Summa Theologiae II.II, q. 188, a. 7].

Along with the depravity of possibly actionable crimes and many victims' damaged lives, the Epstein files have revealed a long-standing sickness which deeply infects our society, that very "vainglory," which Saint Thomas so rightly recognized as "a product of wealth."

Photo: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, younger brother of Britain’s King Charles III, leaves Aylsham Police Station on Thursday night. (Phil Noble/Reuters)

Lent

 

There is no island, no continent, no city or nation, no distant corner of the globe, where the proclamation of Lenten Fast is not listened to. Armies on the march and travelers on the road, sailors as well as merchants, all alike hear the announcement and receive it with joy. Let no one then separate himself from the number of those fasting, in which every race of humankind, every period of life, every class of society is included.

So said Saint Basil the Great (330-379) preaching about the arrival of Lent in the 4th century. The triumphalist universality of Basil's account obviously no longer describes our contemporary reality in our more globalized and hence more multi-culturally conscious world. It barely even describes what is left of Lent in what remains of the Christian world. But Lent (or, at least, Ash Wednesday) remains one of the most recognized and observed occasions in the Christian calendar, even in our supposedly secularized society.

While Lent (or, at least Ash Wednesday) remains immensely popular, the question remains, why Lent?  There are many pious practices associated with Lent - notably fasting, prayer, and acts of charity. These, of course, are meant as means to an end. Lent and its traditional practices are our means of deepening our relationship with God and consciously and deliberately re-orienting all aspects of our lives accordingly. Our Lenten fasting, our increased prayer, our acts of individual and collective charity all express God's grace at work with in us and open us to ever more grace, to the fullness of life that is our destiny, as we seek through our actions here and now to become the persons we shall be for all eternity.

Lent has its origins in the final preparation of catechumens for baptism and membership in the Church and of penitents for reconciliation with God and the Church. Even prior to the modern 20th-century restoration of the catechumenate, the Lenten liturgy reflected both of these themes, as it continues to do. During Lent, we identify with the catechumens in their journey of conversion and express it in our own individual and communal journey of reconciliation with God and with one another.

Lent, as Pope Leo has written in his first lenten message, "is a time in which the Church, guided by a sense of maternal care, invites us to place the mystery of God back in the center of our lives, in order to find renewal in our faith and keep our hearts from being consumed by the anxieties and distractions of daily life. "

We live in a therapeutic age which prizes comfort and feeling good about ourselves. Yet surprisingly Ash Wednesday - with its sobering message of the reality of human limits and its solemn challenge to repent - somehow still cuts through the poisonous political platitudes and psychobabble of our self-affirmational age to speak spiritual truth against the powerful lies that envelope us.

 

Every Lent, the Church invites us to break our routine and do something we usually seem somewhat reluctant to do – to take an honest and critical look at ourselves - at where we are, where we are going, where we would like to be going, and how we hope to get there. Lent, as Pope Leo has suggested, "means allowing ourselves to be challenged by reality and recognizing what truly guides our desires — both within our ecclesial communities and as regards humanity’s thirst for justice and reconciliation."

The Indispensable Washington

 

Today is Presidents Day, a commercial distortion of an actual legal holiday, which is George Washington's Birthday. Washington's birthday was celebrated on February 22 for most of American history, until the infamous Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968 (effective in 1971) moved several federal holidays to Mondays in order to create three-day weekends for federal employees. (Washington's actual birthdate was February 11, 1731, in the British Empire which at the time still followed the Julian calendar, but it was already February 22, 1732, in most of the rest of the Western world, which had adopted the Gregorian calendar.)

Ken Burns' 2025 series The American Revolution recounts how a German in Pennsylvania labeled General Washington der Landesvater ("the Father of the country") The title stuck. First as commanding General of the Continental Army, then as first President of the United States under the Constitution, Washington has lived on as the Father of our country. Or, better yet, as future Chief Justice John Marshall celebrated him, "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." As importantly, Ken Burns' series also calls him "the indispensable man," which indeed he was - both as commanding General of the Continental Army and then as our first President.

Washington had his weaknesses. He lost more battles than he won. And. of course, he was a wealthy, slave-owning land speculator. Recognizing all that, the consensus remains that Washignton was truly indispensable both to the success of the revolution itself and then as President indispensable to the early success of the constitutional order.

Whatever his military or other limitations, Washington was able to hold the Continent Army together, not small accomplishment given the rebels' lack of resources. He demonstrated genuine leadership is having his entire army inoculated against smallpox. And he notably displayed a commitment to religious toleration, which was far from universal among his compatriots. For example, in his September 14, 1775, orders to Benedict Arnold in preparation for the (ultimately unsuccessful) invasion of Canada, Washington insisted that Arnold (who was otherwise inclined) respect the Catholic faith of the Canadians, warning Arnold to avoid "disrespect or contempt" for the Canadians' religion, arguing that, while fighting for liberty, they must not violate the rights of conscience of others. Likewise, as President, Washington would demonstrate his respect for his Catholic and Jewish fellow citizens.

Of course, Washington's most important act as revolutionary war leader was his surrender of his commission back to the Continent Congress once the war was won. On December 23, 1783, George Washington voluntarily resigned his commission as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army to Congress of the Confederation then meeting in Annapolis. This action, resisting what would prove irresistible a few years later to Napoleon, established the precedent of civilian control over the American military. Having eschewed potential monarchical power, Washington contentedly returned to private life at Mount Vernon.Upon hearing what Washington had done, King George III famously remarked to painter Benjamin West, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world". 

As the first Chief Executive under the new federal constitution fro 1789 to 1797, everything Washington did set precedent for future presidents. Again, his most important precedent was his free decision to depart, not to become a President for life. On March 4, 1797, as the new nation's first ex-president, Washington walked from the Presidents House in Philadelphia to where Congress was meeting to attend - as a private citizen - the inauguration of his successor. Washington's presence highlighted the constitutional legitimacy of the inauguration of our second president - and every president since.

Washington's way of being president provided needed dignity to the new office - a dignity not all his successors have been as willing to maintain. His voluntary departure established the precedent of the peaceful transfer of power, a principle essential to free constitutional government, the practice of which principle all his successors but one have recognized as their essential final responsibility in office.

Now, maybe more than ever in our history, is Washington's example indispensable.

A Revolutionary Life

Saint Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) must surely be one of the Church's most popular saints. But 2026 has been proclaimed a Franciscan Jubilee year (commemorating the 800th anniversary of the saint's death). So even more attention may be expected to be focused on Francis this year. In this expectation, I have turned to an already quarter-century old contribution to the Francis story, Adrian House, Francis of Assisi: A Revolutionary Life (Paulist Press, 2001).

House firmly situates Francis well within the context of the medieval society he inhabited, a society so seemingly (unlike ours) in harmony with its natural surroundings, simultaneously (like ours) filled with conflicts of every kind - class conflicts, social conflicts, political conflicts, military conflicts, and, of course, religious conflicts, (both intra-religious and inter-religious). The reader encounters traditional aristocrats and peasants, as well as the rising urban bourgeoisie, especially the emerging communes in rising Italian city-states, like Assisi. The chronology is complex, as was the era being recounted, an era of big personalities like Pope Innocent III and Emperor Frederick II Stupor Mundi.

For all the secular history, however, the focus of the book remains always on one person Francis - Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (1181-1226) - Saint Francis of Assisi, il poverello, who, having experienced a profound personal conversion and call from Christ to rebuild his Church, adopted a radically poor lifestyle in an extremely intense identification with Jesus, and then attracted thousands of followers, forming the various branches of the Franciscan religious family, which survives today.

The story of Saint Francis is always two stories. It is, first, the story of Francis himself, of his heroic effort to identify totally with Jesus in a life of extreme self-abnegation and service to others. Francis' sanctity seems to have been almost universally recognized in his own lifetime (as well as ever since), and his unique identification with Christ appeared to have been confirmed by the miracle of the stigmata, a spiritual phenomenon which was then new and unprecedented in the Church.

The second story is that of his followers, those who came to form the three orders, devoted to living according to his Rule with greater or lesser severity. There is always a temptation when telling the story of Francis to create an inherent conflict between Francis' radical following of the Gospel in extreme poverty and the Church's efforts to mitigate Francis' extremism through her compromises with the lived experience of human frailty. There is truth to this traditional trope, although of course it is also an oversimplification. House at times indulges in this oversimplified paradigm, while also recognizing its interpretive inadequacy. 

As his contemporaries recognized, Francis represented something unique, a following of Christ so intense that it merited the stigmata, and so extreme that it could only be lived fully by. him. Others - above all his fellow Franciscans - might seek to imitate him, but their imitation will likely always remain partial. But that is not the same as insincerity or falsehood, but rather a recognition of diverse human capacities and Francis' own unique gifts.

House commendably does well at navigating this complicated reality. He concedes that the "decisions to release the friars from their vow of absolute poverty, so as to sustain the momentum of their growth, and to build a monument to Francis which he never would have wanted, may have been wrong. Or, since the order still thrives and millions of people visit Assisi each year, it may have been right." Indeed, he recognizes Francis' "lasting achievement" in the lives of the Friars, the Poor Clares, and the Third Order "dedicated to the aims of the founders all over the world."

The author also desires to relate Francis' story as much as possible to more universal and non-Christian themes. While commendable, this effort seems at times strained and overdone - most especially in the distracting employment of Jungian language and imagery. That quibble conceded, this account is a fine introduction and/or rediscovery of the treasure the Church has received in the ever exciting story of Saint Francis.