A Rematch But Not Really a Rerun

 

Back from the sacred sublimity of a monarch's coronation to the moral disaster that is modern electoral politics!

As the country inches closer to 2024 and a projected Biden-Trump rematch, it may be more important to imagine what will be different this time than to obsess about what will be the same. Obviously, if the top two candidates are the same, that is an important continuity. But a rematch is not necessarily a rerun, and there are important differences this time around.

In 2020 Trump was obviously the incumbent president, and so the election was inevitably in some sense a referendum on him personally. This was, of course, exacerbated by the unique way in which Trump had been the virtually uninterrupted center of national attention ever since his 2016 campaign against Hilary Clinton. The media proved to be obsessed with Trump not just because he was uniquely newsworthy but because he provided precisely the entertainment value that the media prefer. (We all remember, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”) As the breathless, minute-by-minute coverage of Trump's NY indictment illustrated, the media's addiction to Trump continues.

But, if the media's commercial obsession with Trump has not changed all that much, the country's perception of him has. In 2020, Joe Biden ran primarily against Donald Trump the man, Trump the exceptional outlier in normal American politics, someone who seemingly singlehandedly had stolen the soul of America. Obviously, if he is the candidate, Trump will be the face - and the voice - of the opposition to Biden. But Biden seems to have grasped, as has much of the country, that what Trump has come to represent is no longer the peccadilloes of a particular personality but rather a potent political movement with an extreme authoritarian agenda. It is no accident that Trump's supposedly principal Republican rival, Ron DeSantis, has tried to distinguish himself as being a Trump without Trump - and, in some respects, a more venomous Trump at that.

After years of avoiding as much as possible even mentioning his predecessor, Biden is now vocally campaigning not just against Trump as some idiosyncratic outlier but against the bigger MAGA movement. He seems to recognize that the danger - the cultural, moral, and political dangers - are even more so this time. His goal must be to make MAGA the focus, to make it a referendum on MAGA rather than on Biden the incumbent.

On the other hand, Biden suffers from the perennial problem of unreliable constituencies, characters who could conceivably decide to vote for a third party or just stay home because they are insufficiently enthused by Biden and have no qualms prioritizing their self-absorbed disgruntlement over the threat of Trump back in the presidency. Meanwhile, one of the particularly problematic aspects of the politics of our era is the prevalence of a widespread generalized disgruntlement. If it really were the case that "It's the economy, stupid," then things might be different, given that the economy is actually doing rather well. But instead of "It's the economy, stupid," it may be more like "It's the anger, stupid." And, in today's politics, the anger is almost always directed at the incumbent. 

All of which means that Trump's chances of moving back into the White House - while still not overwhelming - may be more likely than many Democrats think. A rematch is not guaranteed to be a rerun.

"It’s never going to get any better than today."

Speaker of the House John Boehner famously announced his plan to retire from the Speakership the day after Pope Francis' 2015 visit to Congress. That was not a coincidence. According to his own account, the day of the Pope's visit was the happiest in his 25 years in the U.S. Capitol. “Now later on in the afternoon, I thought, ‘You know what? It’s never going to get any better than today.’” This confirmed his decision to quit what had become an increasingly frustrating, practically unmanageable job.

I have no special insight into the thinking of Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby, but he too has had to manage an apparently unmanageable, frustrating job as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of the Church of England and Primate of the worldwide Anglican Communion, who since 2013 has been trying to hold the increasingly fractious Anglican Communion together against seemingly insurmountable odds. Tomorrow, however, he will get to do something that only an Archbishop of Canterbury can do, but which none of his five immediate predecessors has had an opportunity to do, namely to crown a king. When it is over, well might he echo John Boehner, "It’s never going to get any better than today”!

The Coronation liturgy originated in the complex interconnection between religion and society in the early Middle Ages. It represents history on a grand scale, a celebration of being a nation in time. But that historical time has been formed and animated by faith. The Coronation is the U.K.'s primary constitutional ritual and a showcase of pageantry and splendor, but at its heart it is - and remains - a religious rite, in which the central player, apart from the King and Queen themselves, is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has been the principal Bishop of the English Church ever since Pope Gregory the Great sent Saint Augustine to evangelize Anglo-Saxon England, and Augustine established his See at Canterbury in Kent in 597. Since 1066, Westminster Abbey has been the site of every English (and later British) coronation, every one of which has been performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Thus, it will be the Archbishop who will greet the congregation and introduce the ceremony. He will then present the new King to the assembly for the first time for their recognition of him as their "undoubted King." Then he will invite the King to take the oaths prescribed by law to govern the peoples of his 15 kingdoms "according to their respective laws and customs," to "cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed" in his judgments, to maintain (in England) the settlement and special status of the Church of England, and to secure the Protestant succession "according to law." In keeping with the character of Anglican liturgy, the Archbishop will also preach a sermon, after which the Veni Creator will be sung and the Archbishop will anoint the King's hands, breast, and head, "as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet." Then, after presenting the King with the Spurs, the Sword, the "Bracelets of sincerity and wisdom," the Orb, the Ring, the Glove, and the Scepters, the Archbishop will finally place Saint Edward's Crown on the King's head, accompanied by the ringing of the Abbey bells and the firing of Gun Salutes in London, throughout the U.K., and around the Commonwealth. 

After the newly crowned King has been enthroned, the Archbishop will address him with words that have been used since King Edgar's coronation in 973: "Stand firm, and hold fast from henceforth this seat of royal dignity, which is yours by the authority of Almighty God. May that same God, whose throne endures for ever, establish your throne in righteousness, that it may stand fast for evermore." Following the acts of Homage and the Coronation of the Queen, the Communion service will continue as usual, setting the event squarely within the context of Christian worship, as almost all coronations have been set throughout history. Listening to him proclaim the Eucharistic Prayer, the congregation will have little doubt what the Archbishop represents. Seldom does any prelate get to enact the Christian story's this-world significance so vividly before so many people.

And, when it's all over, the Archbishop of Canterbury may indeed say, "It's never going to get better than today."

Our Loneliness Epidemic

According to the U.S. Surgeon General's Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, "The world is just beginning to recognize the vital importance of social connection" (p. 45). 

Well, not quite! After all, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) considered friendship indispensable and said that no one would choose to live without friends, even if one had all other goods (Nicomachean Ethics, VIII, 1). So what is at last being recognized in this Advisory is actually just being rediscovered. And in that lies an important part of the tale!

That said, the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, has produced a must-read warning about the importance of social connection and the harmful health and other consequences of our increasingly diminished social connectedness, in which "loneliness and isolation are more widespread than many of the other major health issues of our day."

Given the Surgeon General's public role, it is unsurprising that the Advisory focuses on a lot on the health benefits of human connection and the harms connected with a lack of or a diminished degree of connection for both for our physical and mental health. The fraying of our social fabric also has consequences more broadly in society, corresponding with near historic highs of levels of polarization. Meanwhile, more hours are being spent alone and fewer engaging with friends (a decline starkest among young people 15-24).

In 2022, single-person households account for 29% of all U.S. households, more than double the 13% in 1960. At the same time, only 47% of Americans claimed church membership in 2020, down from 70% in 1999. The document rightly recognizes religious groups' social benefits as a source for regular social contact and a community of support, providing meaning and purpose, creating belonging around shared values and beliefs, and reducing risk-taking behavior.

Unsurprisingly, those most at risk for loneliness and isolation include those in poor health, the financially insecure, those who live alone, and the young and the old. Of course, technology is one of the culprits. Americans spend an average of six hours per day on social media, of whom 1/3 report being online "almost constantly."

Given what we have all experienced and observed in recent year, none of this seems all that surprising.The same might be said of the document's analysis of the individual health risks associated with diminished social connection, which emerges as an independent risk factor for disease and death. This includes depression, cognitive decline, and dementia.

And, then, of course, there is our increasingly frequent focus on social and political polarization. According to one survey, some 64% believe people are incapable of constructive and civil debates about issues they disagree on.

If anyone still has an optimistic take on the way we live and where we are heading, this document is an accessible, much needed, excellent corrective. Perhaps, it might have been asking too much to have expected it to delve deeper into the long-term trends which have caused and exacerbated our present predicament. Perhaps, highlighting such problems as the breakdown of the family and the decline of religion in the wake of the so-called sexual revolution and other cultural devaluations of traditional human institutions in recent decades would have been ideologically too difficult for a document of this sort to face. All the more reason, therefore, why such considerations so very much need to be confronted in connection with their very visible consequences.

Throne and Altar

Modern states sometimes struggle over the optimal relationship between "church" and "state," more broadly between "religion" and "society." History provides many models. Until relatively recently, however, some sort of organic (and often institutional) connection was generally taken for granted. The original U.S, Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing a Church, but that did not undo the arrangements already existing in some states which still had established Churches, and it said nothing about what the relationship between religion and society should be in individual states. 

Karl Marx (On The Jewish Question, 1843) famously characterized the U.S. as an "atheist state," in the sense that its citizens had emancipated themselves from religion politically through the intermediary of the state. Even so, Marx recognized, with Alexis de Tocqueville, the ubiquity of religion in America and so considered Americans' political emancipation from religion to be "roundabout," "abstract," "narrow," and "partial." In fact, the only societies to have tried to establish themselves as truly atheist states were the Communist states of the 20th century. Of those, only one, Albania, actually went so far as to try to abolish completely all traces of religion within its borders. With the subsequent collapse of communism in Europe and its relatively vestigial survival in Asia, it would seem that the 20th-century experiment in creating a completely irreligious society cannot be alleged to have seriously succeeded.

That said, contemporary societies, outside the ambit of the Muslim world, have largely opted for increasing secularism - however religious or secular their citizens may actually be. In Europe, there exists a continuum of relations between "church" and "state," and more broadly between "religion" and "society" - everything from French laïcité to formally established Churches in England and Scandinavia and intermediate stops in-between, e.g., the German bi-confessional ("Church Tax") regime.  The reality of Europe's Christian origins,  ideologically denied by some, nonetheless remains a reality at the heart of all European nationhood.

This week, with the coronation of King Charles III, the distinctly English experiment in inherited religious establishment combined with contemporary pluralism is on display for the world to admire. (One British publication has called the coronation "the United Kingdom's central constitutional ritual, and the cornerstone of tis political traditions.") Like the British constitution itself, the existing religious arrangement seems to try to marry the best of both worlds - public religion for the dignified dimensions British public life, alongside religious tolerance, pluralism, and even secularism for the private lives of ordinary Britons. It is the ultimate institutionalized expression of what was said decades ago that, while the average Briton might personally be content to stay comfortably at home on Sunday morning, he was nonetheless happy that the King and Queen should go to church on his behalf.

To some that may suggest hypocrisy. Better, it suggests a certain division of labor in society, which recognizes (albeit in a "roundabout," "abstract," "narrow," and "partial" way) the real benefits a society still derives from its formal profession of religion. The fact that it has lasted so long and survived so well, while the 20th-century's more extreme experiments in formal political atheism have proved so much less successful and so unsatisfactory, ought at least to give contemporary religious establishment's critics some pause - notwithstanding the loud noises made by religion's contemporary "cultured despisers."

The Church of England's official commentary on the Coronation Liturgy states: "behind the pageantry lies another message which the words and ceremonies to come will demonstrate - our King commits himself, through prayers and oaths, to follow the Lord he serves in a life of loving service in his role as Monarch."

For the first time in history, the religiously pluralistic character of the modern United Kingdom will be reflected in the official inclusion of other Christians and of non-Christians in ritual roles at the coronation. At Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1953, the kingdom's historic religious pluralism was acknowledged by the participation, for the first time, of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. A lot has happened since then, and the changed religious landscape is reflected in the participation of the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and other Christian leaders in the formal blessing of the newly crowned King and in the participation of others who are not Christians. Among the latter will be the Prime Minister (a Hindu) who will read the Epistle - in keeping with the modern custom, already seen at other state ceremonies, of the Prime Minister's performing this role. And, at the very end of the ceremony, before leaving the Abbey, the King will receive formal greetings from Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Buddhist representatives. 

If the Anglican form of the coronation rite itself reflects the historically Christian character of the country and the personal religious commitment of the monarch, the participation of other Churches and faith communities highlights the universal relevance of religious consecration in expressing unique and irreplaceable meaning for serious human commitments and relationships, including and particularly the political pursuit of the common good of all citizens.

Photo: St. Edward's Crown, the crown used at the actual moment of coronation and never worn on any other occasion. The present St. Edward's Crown, modeled on the crown associated with England's only canonized King, St. Edward the Confessor, was made for Charles II in 1661, as a replacement for the medieval crown which had been destroyed by the Puritan revolutionaries in 1649. 

"Zadok the Priest"

Among the multiple burdens associated with old age and its attendant infirmities are the therapeutic exercises recommended for one's back or knees or general mobility and to which, in my own case, I am sometimes faithful and sometimes unfaithful. In addition to the difficulties and discomforts that may be associated with such exercises, another associated problem is their sheer boredom. Thankfully, on one's iphone one can access everything from All things Considered to classical and contemporary music as possible backgrounds to alleviate the inevitable tedium.

So this week, in anticipation of Saturday's coronation of King Charles III, I am listening to Georg Friedrich Handel's famous coronation anthems, above all most glorious of them, Zadok the Priest. Handel (1685-1759) composed Zadok the Priest for the coronation of King George II in 1727, and it has been sung at every British coronation since then.

The anthem's proper place in the coronation service is as the monarch is being prepared for his or her anointing with holy oil. That is the most sacred part of the ceremony, the rite in which the monarch is ritually consecrated to God for the service of his or her people. The text (based on 1 Kings 1:34-35) refers to the anointing of King Solomon:

Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon king.
And all the people rejoiced and said:
God save the King! Long live the King! God save the King!
May the King live for ever. Amen. Hallelujah.

Handel's anthem expresses the religious and historical significance of Solomon's consecration as Israel's king and thus analogously captures the religious, political, and cultural significance of the consecration and crowning of a Christian king.

The anointing of Christian kings in conscious imitation of Old Testament practice became a regular religious rite in the early Middle Ages. In England, it goes back at least to the ceremony devised by Saint Dunstan for the coronation of King Edgar at Bath Abbey in 973 A.D., which itself drew upon the rituals already used for the Frankish kings beginning with Pepin (the father of Charlemagne) and the rites generally used for the consecration of bishops. Since Harold II in 1066, all English monarchs have been consecrated in Westminster Abbey, the church associated with England's one canonized King, Edward the Confessor. Prior to the union with England, the Scots originally crowned their monarchs at Scone Abbey on the so-called "Stone of Destiny" or "Stone of Scone." (Scottish monarchs' right to be crowned and anointed was eventually recognized by Pope John XXII in 1329.) 

One especially nice novelty at the coming coronation will be the new processional cross made from Welsh silver and containing relics of the True Cross sent to the king as a coronation gift by Pope Francis. Inscribed on the Welsh Cross are words from the final sermon of Saint David (the patron saint of Wales): Byddwch lawen. Cadwch y ffydd. Gwnewch y pethau bychain, that is, “Be joyful. Keep the faith. Do the little things” - good advice not just for a king but for all of us as we struggle through life. 

While virtually every coronation incorporates some novel features, it is its traditional character that dominates. That of Elizabeth II was simultaneously a very religious, standard C-of-E ceremony, celebrated (via TV) as a lavish spectacle on the world stage. The only thing remotely comparable to it in my lifetime was Pope Saint John XXIII's coronation as pope in 1959, a glorious ritual, which the puritanical Pope John Paul I subsequently eliminated - to the Church's and the world's loss. The coronation of King Charles III, while suitably adapted to today's altered circumstances, still promises to be more than sufficiently traditional in order to still express in ritual form that unique combination of sacred kingship consecrated to God and the social contract between king and citizens which has long been the ceremony's special purpose and significance to combine and celebrate. 

Photo: The newly handcrafted screen intended to conceal the king during the sacred anointing rite. It depicts a tree representing the 56 member countries of the Commonwealth. Its design was personally chosen by King Charles and is inspired by a stained-glass window in the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace. The screen is a gift of the City of London Corporation and City Livery Companies and was produced by the Royal School of Needlework and other expert craftspeople.