World War II (with Tom Hanks)

 

It requires no special insight to observe that our appetite for World War II stories seems insatiable. That may be a good thing. World War II was, after all, the defining conflict (the "Trojan War," so to speak) of the 20th century, although itself part of a larger "war" which began with World War I in 1914 and ended - sort of - with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991). World War II created the world I grew up in - and more specifically the America I grew up in. It created an international order that lasted more or less for some 80 years. It created the most prosperous period in human history. It offered a focus for national identity and patriotism for second and third generation heirs of immigrants, like my own relatives and a whole generation of postwar political national leaders (including Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I), who fought in that war and learned some of their most fundamental lessons from that experience.

The series spans 20 episodes. They are only loosely chronological, as each episode focuses on a specific aspect of the war (e.g., Italy). This approach allows for added attention to aspects of the war's story that seldom get as much attention in a strictly chronological account, especially accounts which frame the war almost entirely in terms of an American victory story. For example, episode 15 is devoted entirely to the very different ways in which Germany and Japan related to their own citizens on the domestic front. Episode 16 is devoted entirely to the resistance movements in occupied countries, in France (with a largely very successful outcome) and in Poland (with a totally tragic outcome).

With the passage of time and the decline in the quality in American education, it must be assumed that actual knowledge of World War II has diminished and will continue to do so. Hence, the civic value of programs like this that can remedy some of our increasing collective ignorance. We need to remember World War II - how it happened, the colossal mistakes that led up to it, the terrible damage it did as largely a war against civilians, and the leating impact of the Holocaust and other World War II genocidal actions.

Of course it is likely those who already know something about World War II in the first place that will tune in to watch a program like this! That said the History Channel and Tom Hanks are to be commended for this very valuable effort!

World Cup Summer in the Land of More

There is a telling scene in The Americans (the 2013-2018 FX series about two Soviet KGB agents, posing as an American married couple, Elizabeth and Philip Jennings, living in a Virginia suburb of Washington. DC, while spying for the U.S.S.R. and raising their American-born children), in which Elizabeth struggles with Washington's heat, while her husband cones to the rescue by turning on the air-conditioner. Air-conditioning is but one of many benefits of American prosperity that Philip (more than Elizabeth) would come to appreciate during the series. It is but one of many benefits of American prosperity and our consumer-oriented culture that we Americans increasingly just take for granted - like large portions and free refills for drinks in restaurants.

Given the ubiquity of American popular culture abroad, one might have assumed that foreign visitors to America would already know a lot about American life - certainly more than most modern Americans know about life elsewhere. And yet, if media reports are to be believed, for the legions of 21st-century de Tocquevilles experiencing the U.S, for the first time this World Cup summer and posting about it on social media, the many material benefits of American prosperity and our consumer-oriented culture have been something of a revelation - a happy one, apparently.

That many foreign tourists coming to America for the World Cup like what they see and experience here is a good thing. Our country can use all the good press it can get these days!

Before the World Cup began there was some anxiety that tourists and soccer fans would experience "sticker shock" at the price of everything - especially World Cup tickets and train tickets to the New Jersey stadium. If so, that has been more than counterbalanced apparently by the sheer consumerist joy of shopping in American big box stores and eating in American restaurant and fast-food outlets. It is not necessarily the quality of the products being consumed that has been making such an impression. It is the sheer amount of stuff available for purchase and the size of the portions to be consumed.

A friend of mine likes to observe that, in the lottery of life, the luckiest outcome is to be born in the U.S. Never perhaps has that been more true. That is not to deny that there have been other periods, such as the 20 years after World War II, when the material benefits of our living in this country were more equally shared and there was a greater sense of unity, more shared prosperity, and a more commonly shared popular and civic culture. There is much more malaise - material and spiritual - now than there was then. And, for many Americans right now, their material situation is genuinely precarious, despite the wider picture of prosperity.

If tourists stayed long enough they might well pick up on more of that malaise. but the first image of America in every age has always been its abundance - from its amber waves of grain and its purple mountain majesties to its skyscrapers and highways to its supermarkets and department stores.

Of course, living in our air-conditioned comfort and consumerist gluttony, we may ask ourselves whether this is all there is, whether this is all we want to be about. Such concerns have likewise plagued us throughout our history. Religion used to offer answers to such questions. As fewer people respond to religion's answers, fewer may even be able to formulate the right questions. These are real problems, which sensitive souls still struggle with.

When communism collapsed in eastern Europe, there was a brief hope in some quarters that there would be a widespread spiritual revival and renewal of European Christianity. It quickly became clear, however, that prosperity proved more popular than virtue.

So it certainly seems here, this World Cup Summer, living in this abundant land of More.

As Maine Goes

 

For Democrats this midterm election year, retaking majority control of the U.S. Senate has suddenly seemed a real possibility - not yet a probability, but at least a possibility. But any path to Democratic control of the Senate almost certainly has to go through Maine, the only "Blue" state which voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 but which still has a Republican Senator. Susan Collins, Maine's formidable Republican Senator, has served five terms in the U.S. Senate, representing that state since having first been elected in 1996 and regularly reelected in 2002, 2008, 2014, and 2020. There was a time when states routinely voted for presidents from one party and senators from another - and even two senators from different parties. In our present polarized politics, however, when all politics is increasingly nationalized, such situations are increasingly anomalous, and so Susan Collins has become an outlier.

In Graham Platner, Maine's Democrats thought they had found a populist "outsider," who appealed to progressive voters alienated from Collins but also alienated from the Democratic "establishment." Despite considerable personal baggage, Platner easily won the June 9 Democratic party primary. Since then, however, subsequent revelations regarding his alleged personal behavior have cost him his endorsements and financial support, and his campaign has collapsed. 

How did this happen? American politics has long had an affinity for "outsiders." (The most notorious example, perhaps, was Jimmy Carter, who ran as an outsider, never having previously met a Democratic president. Carter won in 1976, but his presidency was a failure, in large part precisely because of his having been such an outsider.)

There is no doubt that many Democrats are alienated from their party's established leadership  - for having lost to Trump in 2024, for their anemic opposition to Trump, for their association with moneyed interests, etc. Hence, the appeal of Platner (an "outsider" who had never been a politician) and other putatively "populist" candidates to the young, college-educated progressives who inhabit the party's left wing. But there is also no doubt that those who promoted Platner's candidacy starting a year ago somehow failed to vet him adequately, which - whether progressives like it or not - is one indispensable task that the traditional establishments do relatively well. There may be some populist wisdom in the widespread distrust of elites, but the gatekeeping function of elites is not to be too casually dismissed either. If, for example, the Republican party's establishment elites had been more powerful, Donald Trump would likely never have gotten his party's nomination. 

The Democratic party establishment is also to blame, however, for the Platner fiasco. Instead of encouraging more plausible candidates to challenge Platner in the party's primary, the Washington-based Democratic party establishment threw its support to the incumbent 78-year old Governor, Janet Mills, whose age alone made her an avatar of the gerontocratic establishment many Democrats, especially young progressive Democrats, rightly or wrongly believe to be increasingly out of touch with their interests. Mills' campaign went nowhere; and so, with no serious opposition, Platner achieved an impressive victory in the primary.

The irony is, of course, that any reasonably good Democratic candidate should in theory be able to win in Maine. All he or she would have to do would be to convince those who voted for Harris in 2024 to vote "blue" again in 2026. There was no real need, therefore, to find an "outsider" to appeal to non-Democratic voters. Platner's oysterman persona and troubled past with PTSD were for some reason expected to appeal to "working-class" voters, who have been culturally alienated from the Democratic party. In fact, however, his support was always strongest among college-educated progressives. Indeed, it seems somewhat condescending if not outright insulting, to so-called "working-class" voters to assume that they would somehow see themselves in Platner's problems or would necessarily want to be represented by someone like him.

Moreover, the more extreme Democratic candidates who have won in primaries against incumbents in New York and elsewhere have almost all won in very safe "blue" seats. The Democratic left's populist insurgency has been almost entirely directed at defeating other Democrats, not at defeating Republicans. In this, it mirrors Trump's apparent prioritizing his internal control over the Republican party more than maintaining Republican control of Congress in the midterm elections. 

That said, Platner's support in Maine was very high. He had energized significant support, which the Maine Democratic party cannot afford to alienate - lest an internal party conflict cause Susan Collins to win and guarantee continued Republican control of the U.S. Senate. A lot will depend on the process the Maine Democrats employ to choose Platner's replacement and whether he or she can retain the support of most Maine Democrats and make the Senate race what it really should be - a referendum on Trump and Susan Collins' empowerment of Trumpism.

Image: Norman Rockwell Paints America at the Polls (November 4, 1944).

Young Washington (The Movie)

 

In theaters just in time for July 4, Young Washington is a new historical drama, released by Angel Studios, about the early life and preliminary military career of our future Revolutionary War commander and then first President of the U.S., George Washington (played by William Franklyn-Miller). It focuses especially on Washington's military experiences in the French and Indian War.

The film highlights the young George Washington's ambition and his frustration at the limitations of his social status in Virginia society and his consequent lack of prospects for advancement in the British army's officer corps because of his colonial origins and lack of English education. It has often been observed that, had Washington received the commission he had originally sought in the British Army, history would likely have been very different. Instead, Washington had to settle for becoming a Colonel in the Virginia militia, in recognition of his heroism in the French and Indian War after the death of General Braddock. The film focuses on his heroism and steadfastness, but also emphasizes his resentment at the British, a resentment which only grows as he experiences repeated slights because of his provincial origin and colonial status.

The film is heavy on battle scenes, which ought to cure anyone watching of any romanticized images of 18th-century warfare! In addition to highlighting his growing military prowess, however, the film portrays young Washington's personal growth, intellectually, morally, and relationally. The important part played by his older half-brother Lawrence (who teaches him that "even a pawn can take a king") in Washington's development is emphasized, as is that of his mother who teaches him to learn from failure rather than repeat it.

The film also illustrates the complexity and moral ambiguity of rival claims in colonial America. Washington's big break becomes possible because of British colonial ambitions in the Ohio territory. His military blunders on the Ohio frontier follow from the competition between the British and the French for the same land. The two great European empires were in constant conflict over territory which, of course, had until then belonged to the native Indian tribes, whose complex relationship with the settler communities is also an important part of the history and well portrayed in the film.

That Washington wanted a commission as a British officer, was denied it, and resented that is beyond question. How long-standing and deep-seated were his other feelings and expressions of colonial identity and assertiveness may be more debatable historically. Young Washington repeatedly refers to the new situation created by America and especially by the frontier (the Ohio Valley) where anyone can become someone. Ironically, Washington's greatest social advance, which is not portrayed in the film (having come after the point at which the movie's story stops) will be his advantageous marriage to a rich widow - an instance of his advancing according to the established norms of society's set patterns.

The British and American victory in the French and Indian War would create the wider world context that would make the American Revolution possible. Alongside that, the film emphasizes Washington's internal war with the stratified structures of the British Empire and his awakening to the fact that his real country was Virginia more than Great Britain, a realization that would also transform colonial American history and help create a new country.

Independence Day

Today, the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, when (as we just prayed in the collect) “our country claimed its place among the family of nations” - an occasion for giving thanks “for what has been achieved” and asking divine help “for the work that still remains.”

On Independence Day, we honor the great legacy left for us, often at great sacrifice, by generations past - indigenous Americans, enslaved Africans, and generations of immigrants, to whom we remain linked in a great social compact, bounded to one another, both past and present, for the sake of the future. We remember our past history as a nation, we celebrate our present life together, and we commit ourselves to hope for our common future.

As Pope Leo has written in his special Letter on the 250^th Anniversary of the Founding of the United States: “This anniversary stands as an invitation not only to celebrate the nation’s remarkable journey, but also to reflect upon the responsibilities that the sons and daughters of this country bear to one another, and to the generations who will inherit the nation that is being shaped today.”

As Americans, we share in the benefits bequeathed to us by our country’s founders, whose legacy we receive with respect and celebrate with gratitude. We are – so many of us - the heirs of countless immigrants, so many of whom came to this country in response to its promises of economic opportunity and political freedom. Catholic immigrants brought our faith to this land and enriched this society with a strong network of Catholic institutions, which have served Americans of all backgrounds, contributing a distinctly Catholic sensibility to the American experiment.

Last Sunday, I told the story of Annie Moore. When 17-year old Annie Moore crossed the threshold of the New World as the first immigrant to pass through the new Ellis Island immigration Facility on January 1, 1892, she was welcomed by, among others, Father Callahan of the Mission of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, who blessed her and gave her a silver coin, an expression of the historic role of the American Catholic community  in providing hospitality and welcome  to generation after generation of new arrivals, in this land and nation of immigrants.

Earlier this week, many of us honored that tradition and celebrated our nation’s unique heritage with a Pilgrimage to the Statue of Liberty, ending with a reading of Emma Lazarus’ famous poem, which transformed that monument into a global beacon of hope welcoming generations of immigrants to America. To quote again from Pope Leo’s Letter: “In every generation, those who have arrived seeking freedom, opportunity and a place to belong have helped to shape the nation’s character. To receive them with passion and generosity is not only an act of charity, but also a recognition of the dignity that belongs to every human person.”

As we celebrate today with hot dogs, tall ships, Times Square Ball Drops, a celebrity wedding, and, of course, fireworks, we are also aware of the many difficult and divisive issues facing our country, along with the contentious arguments that command the news and dominate social media. In response to the pervasive political polarization of his own time, the founding pastor of this parish, Servant of God, Isaac Hecker hoped that Catholicism could “act like oil on troubled waters” and so “sustain our institutions and enable our young country to realize its great destiny” [Letter, December 22, 1857, The Paulist Vocation, p. 46]. Today, our faith challenges us to make Hecker’s hope a reality in response to the multiple challenges of our time, to address our disagreements in a morally serious way that transcends simplistic sloganeering, emotional appeals to narrowly defined secular or religious identities, and the vilification of political opponents.

As our American bishops reminded us over a decade ago: “Catholics may choose different ways to respond to compelling social problems, but we cannot differ on our moral obligation to help build a more just and peaceful world through morally acceptable means, so that the weak and vulnerable are protected and human rights and dignity are defended.” [USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2015), 20].

Homily for Independence Day, Saint Paul the Apostle Church, NY, July 4, 2026 (adapted in part from my homily for last Sunday).