Skip to content

The moment we are in.

05-Nov-08

A gift to the country from Tom Toles.

The worst-case scenario.

04-Nov-08

        The worst-case scenario is this: McCain wins, and then dies on election night.  Palin becomes de facto president-elect; but several of the electors in the electoral college declare that they will not cast their votes for her.  Complete chaos ensues, but in the end she squeaks by and has enough electors.  She is a disaster when it comes to governance; but also becomes the most famous woman in American history, with her face on coinage, her story in children’s books, etc., and serves as a perpetual rebuke to identity politics.

         That’s the worst-case scenario.

Abortion: in general.

30-Oct-08

      I’m going to tackle abortion in three parts.  Part one – dealing specifically with abortion and the vote – is below.  As I wrote it, though, I realized that the Church hierarchy’s approach to the abortion problem tells you a great deal about the problems of the Church hierarchy and why we are in for decades more of trouble if they do not change.  That’s going to be part two.  Part three will deal more philosophically with the challenges of all the new reproductive science – in vitro fertilization and cloning and the like – which, I think, stymies the traditional philosophical approach of the Church for very particular and identifiable reasons.  There may be a way to transcend these problems.

Abortion and the vote.

30-Oct-08

            About a week ago, I was alerted to a recent sermon by the Bishop of St. Louis, the purport of which was: vote for McCain or roast in hell (full text here: http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=16208).  He contended that this election (like all elections, as I believe he thinks) is a referendum on abortion, and that Catholics, in order to remain in communion with the source of salvation, must publicly declare their opposition to abortion by supporting the Republican party.  I didn’t think too much of this sermon, until I saw a few conservative Catholic blogs link to it with approval.  I thought to myself, “How could any thinking person, especially a young person, support this kind of thinking?”  Then I heard from a friend that the priest at the mass she attended last Sunday invited any people considering voting Democratic not to take communion!

            I want to write something, I thought, which can explain to 1) how there can be Catholics who do not desire to criminalize abortion; 2) how there can be Catholics who do not always support Republican candidates in elections.  Pro-life Catholics need such an explanation in order to understand that they do not have a monopoly on God’s wisdom, and pro-choice Catholics need an explanation to be able to explain their own intuitions to others.

            First, let us concede the fact that abortion is morally wrong.  I will discuss this further in another article, but let us start from the standpoint that abortion is evil and should be stopped.  It is a sin.

            Beginning from that viewpoint, however, it is not immediately clear that the Catholic response should be to make abortion illegal.  Law is, very simply, not the immediate Christian response to sin.  I am almost embarrassed to appeal to Paul here – as I imagine every Catholic knows, almost his entire ministry was an assault on Law.  “My brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4).  “He has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances” (Ephesians 2:14-5).  “For I through the law died to the law, so I might live in God” (Galatians 2:19).  “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10).  “If you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18).  I could produce many more quotations, but this is enough to prove Paul’s vehemence on this point.  The idea, of course, is not to give oneself up to immorality, freed from any constraint; nor is this merely an attack on Judaism – I can call on any Pauline scholar to back me up on that.  The idea is to be filled with God so much that good behavior is not a duty but your actual inclination and joy – because without that Spirit, as Paul says again and again, you will never be able to obey the law anyway. 

            Consequently, the early Church was not involved in campaigns to repeal or alter Roman laws.  Paul was a great saint and as a Roman citizen entitled to vote, but he never mentions the elections.  The primary focus was on God, and the secondary focus was on what you do; making laws for other people to obey was way down the list.  This should still be the main work of the Church.  This is, I think, what most Catholics expect from their pastors: the “culture war” material can be a portion of the message, but the primary focus has to be falling in love with God first – godly behavior will follow, and the laws will take care of themselves, if our society consists of masses of people who truly know God.

            Let us take adultery.  We agree it is wrong.  We agree it is a sin.  It is probable that incidences of adultery can be decreased if there are civil penalties.  Yet we have the Gospel declaring that the Lord himself prevented, by his words and example, the punishment of a woman taken in adultery!  Again, this points to an entirely different role for the Church of God: the Good News is not about Crime and Punishment.  “‘Vengeance is mine,’ saith the Lord; ‘I will repay.’”  “In Christ Jesus there is no condemnation.”  Criminalization is not a typical Gospel response to social problems.

            But let us say that as members of a democracy as well as Catholics, we have to take a share in the formation of the laws, and that we cannot abandon this responsibility.  Paul himself looked the other way when it came to slavery, but we today like to think of ourselves as better than men like Paul (always dangerous, but that is how most people think today).  Still, even if we take part in the formation of the laws, it is rational to think that there are sins – even mortal sins, the type which will send people to hell – which the government has no place legislating or punishing.  The basic premise is that conceding such broad legislative and punitive powers to a central authority tends to create more social problems than it solves.  The Augustinian wisdom that the sons of Adam and Eve are likely to abuse great concentrations of power has created, in the West, a long tradition of limited government.  There is a trade-off here.  Limited government means tolerating sin.  Even the most totalitarian government tolerates pride, or gluttony, or avarice, or hatred – though these sins kill far more than abortion or murder.  Christianity was born in the cradle of limited government, the Mediterranean, and it is the Christian countries that have most espoused this idea – even the theorists behind the divine-right kings of the Gothic era gave civil law only a small place in God’s plan for humanity.  Limited government goes well with the Gospel.  Government will do what it must to create order, but not take upon itself God’s work of evaluating men’s souls.  Limited government lets God work even through men’s mistakes, “so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).  If that is so, who are we to judge?  Tolerance and nonjudgement – the foundations of limited government – were also part of Christ’s Gospel.

            Let me reiterate: limited government is consonant with the Gospel.  And limited government means tolerating sin.

            That deals with the general, philosophical situation.  There are literally millions of Catholics who agree with one or both of the two main arguments above, and believe that they are reason enough not to make abortion the primary focus of Catholic witness to the Gospel.  Now let us look at the particulars of the American situation.

            The first thing to note is that the attainment of the pro-life movements’ goals will not constitute an overwhelming social transformation.  Criminalizing abortion in America will not mean that the practice will cease.  First, it will move to other localities; then, even if it is outlawed throughout the world, abortions will occur illegally.  This is the reason why the Christian response has to be fuller than criminalization.

            But there is no doubt that criminalization will reduce the number of abortions, and if that is the only Christian goal, then it is worthy.  But there are other ways to reduce the number of abortions which also involve the ministry to souls and real preaching of the Gospel: adopting, loving, and cherishing orphans; parenting and mentoring young men and women in the sacredness of their sexuality; embracing a Gospel that allows people to transcend success-culture (which looks upon children as a thwarting of a woman’s career) and to be confident that no one will judge them for having a child, even out of wedlock.  These things would be transformative.  Criminalization of abortion would not be.  The law cannot outwit sin.

            Beyond this, it is fair to question the means the pro-life movement has settled on in its quest to criminalize abortion.  It is a two-step process: 1) elect Republicans; 2) have them overturn Roe v. Wade.  I question this plan.  Republicans have had the presidency for 23 of the 35 years since Roe v. Wade.  They controlled the legislature from 1994 to 2006; from 2000 to 2006 Republicans controlled both the presidency and Congress.  During that time it has become clear that as a party they are far more interested in maintaining their own power than criminalizing abortion.  The Republican legislature in Illinois passed a law against third-trimester abortions which did not include a provision for the health of the mother specifically so that the law would be overturned by a court.  This way the Republicans could claim that they had done something about abortion, but it had been overturned by the courts, and dammit, you would just have to elect them again and again, and maybe in a few more decades those judges would retire.  This charade has gone on long enough.  Republicans have appointed seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices.  Somehow, it’s never enough.

            If abortion is so crucial to the moral character of our nation, there should be a pro-life party with that one plank in its platform.  This is how the Republican party was formed: as a one-issue, anti-slavery party.  That would be a legitimate political expression of the pro-life movement.  But as it is, the Republican party cannot in good faith claim the allegiance of the Catholic Church.  Its militarism, its “American exceptionalism,” its blatant favor of the class that will have more trouble getting into heaven than a camel would have getting through the eye of a needle, its promotion of money and competition as the solution to the problems of fallen humanity, its rejection of science, and its promotion of heretical forms of Christianity (fundamentalism), are all at odds with Catholicism.  Now don’t get me wrong – the Democratic party has its list of sins as well.  I am arguing for evaluating the claims of parties and candidates holistically and cautiously – I do not want the Church to be either party’s dunce, to be trotted out at election-time.

            Let me deal with one important objection.  Pro-life advocates will say that they agree that many sins do not need to be punished, but murder always needs to be, because it is necessary to afford life itself legal protection.  I think this is good reasoning and I personally support it.  But such reasoning applies equally well to the born as the unborn.  It is fair, I think, to insist on protecting the lives of our enemies in war (a direct commandment from Christ), the innocent in war, those unjustly accused of crimes (and also those justly accused of crimes), the sick, the poor, the stranger, and so forth.  You cannot limit such reasoning to the unborn.  And once you recognize that fact, it becomes far more difficult to discern which political candidate to support.

These are the main reasons, I believe, why many members of the body of Christ will not listen to priests who tell them that they should not consider themselves in communion with Christ if they vote for a Democrat.  It is one thing to commit the sin of aborting a child.  But it is something very different to refuse to criminalize that act.  And further, even if all Christians agreed to try to evangelize through the legal system of this country, there would still be a difference between criminalizing abortion in a strict referendum on this topic and giving carte blanche to one party which pays lip service to the pro-life movement.

            Elections require us to choose between men, and to consider a variety of moral and prudential factors.  The Catholic Church will never make good decisions about leadership until it encourages its members to make their decisions out of their entire selves.  And the hierarchy will never be able to understand the full reality of the body of Christ until they understand some of the laudable opposition, within the body of Christ, to their political alliances.

 

Another good essay on abortion and the vote can be found at: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2355

 

Right Behind My House.

29-Oct-08

Winter comes early in the Catskills.

29-Oct-08

An October Surprise.

29-Oct-08

I wasn’t expecting to get 16″ of snow before I even got to carve my jack-o’-lanterns, but apparently this happens sometimes in the Catskills.  Slide Mountain, just a few miles away, apparently got 20″.  I’ll be on foot for the next few days, until the (unplowed) road to my cabin thaws.

John McCain’s Faith of My Fathers.

29-Oct-08

            The most striking thing about John McCain’s book Faith of My Fathers is how different it is from other political books, such as the works of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  In fact, it is not really a political book at all.  There is no engagement with political issues.  There is no Orwellian talk or political speak.  The book appears to be quite candid.  McCain is not presented as a hero or even as an attractive figure.

            In a certain sense, it is not even really a book.  The better term might be a collection of military anecdotes with biographical observations about three men, all named John Sidney McCain.  It has only minimal unity, save that the anecdotes are all from the perspective of the youngest McCain, the senator from Arizona.  No particular research went into the book, as it appears.  Consequently the portrait of McCain’s grandfather is rather sketchy, limited for the most part to a few anecdotes McCain’s father knew and told his son.  The portrait of McCain’s father is fuller, but appears to be intentionally sparing about all except military details (you get little hints of more, that he drank perhaps a bit too much or wasn’t really all that happy, but a full biographical account is never pursued).  Most of the material is the autobiography of the senator from Arizona, but emphasizing only the military side of his life and not even going until the end of his military service.  The book ends, somewhat disappointingly, with the senator’s release after five years’ captivity in a Vietnamese prison.

            There are several reasons why this is disappointing.  First of all, the thing we most want to know about any great survived trauma is how it transforms normal life.  How does freedom feel after imprisonment?  How does an argument with a friend feel after knowing war and torture?  How do you deal with wife and children when there is so much of your life that they now do not know?  McCain divorced his wife not long after his return (and after she was in a disfiguring car accident); this is often interpreted as callous, but it is also a well-known fact that survivors of serious trauma often need to break with things which remind them of their earlier life.  Does this help explain it or not?  We never find out.  Secondly, we know two things about John McCain: that he was imprisoned in Vietnam and that he became a successful politician and candidate for president of the United States.  The most intriguing part of his life, as it seems to us, is how he went from that terrible low to that amazing high.  Do they have anything to do with one another?  Did he have special powers or insight that could not have been acquired any other way?  Was his life, like St. Paul’s, always divided into before and after? 

            As I say, these questions, unfortunately, are not answered.  But we get other things from Faith of My Fathers.

            Perhaps the most striking thing is how foreign and distant it is.  It is like a chronicle of a bygone civilization.  McCain was born in 1936, and much has happened in the world since then, but my father was born in 1933 and yet even my father would have shared very little with John McCain.  McCain’s life is more reminiscent of Brideshead Revisited than contemporary America.  The navy is, of course, the high-class branch of the American military, with its “officer and a gentleman” code, but it is astonishing how true that stereotype apparently was in the McCain household.  All the qualities of old genteel society are there: money, unquestioned acceptance of military service, emotional aloofness and even frigidity, a constant and sometimes desperate use of alcohol.  After describing the custom at the naval base at Pearl Harbor of calling on other officers’ households and leaving a card, he writes:

 

                        Though the exacting formality of this society seems pompous and

                        excessive today, few who lived within its rules then thought it anything

                        other than normal and appropriate.  Even when they dined alone at home,

                        my father dressed in black tie and my mother in a long evening gown (66).

 

Black tie and evening gown, in a 20th century family, is impressively formal.  Interestingly, the time frame for this is the early 1930s, during the Depression (which is never mentioned in the book).  The impression received is that McCain grew up isolated from the mainstream currents of American existence.

            That is not to say it is not a beautiful life.  In fact, contemplating McCain’s portrait of it fills one with precisely the same wistful melancholy that Brideshead does.  With the high status the family held there was also real learning.  This is McCain’s father:

                        An “outstanding command of the English language,” he often remarked,

                        “will stand you in good stead as time moves on.”  He was an avid reader

                        of Toynbee and Spengler.  He could recite great lengths of poetry from

                        memory.  He loved Edgar Allan Poe, Kipling, Dante, Tennyson, and

                        Lewis Carroll.  But his favorite poem was Oscar Wilde’s ode to the

                        British Empire, “Ave Imperatrix,” which he quoted from at length in his

                        lectures on seapower:

                                    The fleet-foot Marri scout, who comes

                                                To tell how he hath heard afar

                                    The measured roll of English drums

                                                Beat at the gates of Kandahar.  

                           He was a great admirer of the British Empire, crediting it with keeping

                        “a relative measure of peace” in the world for “someplace in the

neighborhood of two centuries.”

  He read and reread the biographies of historical figures whose lives,

he felt, would always be an inspiration to others.  “I heard some man

make a statement one time not so long ago,” he once recalled of a popular

futurist, “that reading the lives of great men was somewhat a waste of

time because this was past history.  Well, this is stupid on the face of it,

because one of the real factors of life is what you learn from reading

about the lives of great men, because there are certain fundamentals of

human relationships that never change.” (104-5)

 

“Somewhat of a waste of time,” “will stand you in good stead” – a gloriously aloof language.  And it is so wonderful to read about powerful men (both McCain’s father and grandfather were four-star admirals) whose lives are inspired and shaped by books:

 

Alfred Thayer Mahan, the great naval historian, author of the seminal

work on the importance of naval expansion, The Influence of Sea Power

Upon History, was my father’s inspiration and his passion.  He quoted

from Mahan’s book often and at length, not only in his seapower lectures

but to almost anyone he thought could profit from Mahan’s wisdom. (105)

                       

This trait even was present in the women, who can be quite impressive.  Look at how he describes his paternal grandmother:

 

                        She had been an instructor of Latin and Greek at the University of

                        Mississippi, where she taught my grandfather.  Bookish and eight years

                        his senior, she won the devotion of the much coarser but widely read

                        naval officer.  Throughout their union, they indulged together their

                        shared love of literature, reading aloud to each other whenever time

                        allowed.  That my father was well versed in the classics is undoubtedly

                        a tribute to both his parents: his mother, the scholarly taskmaster;

                        his father, the rough adventurer who in glamour resembled the fictional

                        heroes who had enlivened the provincial world of his Mississippi

                        childhood (103).

 

                        I spent the summer of 1946 with my widowed grandmother and her

                        daughter, my Aunt Katherine, at their house in Coronado [never identified,

but presumably the one in California, near San Diego].  My grand-

                        mother was a composed, straight-laced woman who kept a formal house.

                        I still recall quite vividly their maid summoning me to tea and supper

                        every day, at precisely four and seven, by ringing a bell.  If I lingered

                        too long at whatever activity I was preoccupied with and arrived a minute

                        or two past the appointed hour, my grandmother would dismiss me very

                        politely from her presence.  She would observe that she had looked

                        forward to dinner with me, but as I had failed to arrive promptly, she

                        would have to forgo the pleasure of my company until the next meal.

                                                                                                                           (105-6)

But McCain’s world was not all formality, as his portrait of his adventurous grandfather indicates: the adventure part was supplied by the U.S. navy.  After the U.S. had taken the Philippines from the Spanish, McCain’s grandfather served on a gunboat voyage to establish American authority:

 

                        They cruised an immense expanse of the archipelago, putting in for fresh

                        water and supplies at various ports, arbitrating minor disputes among the

                        locals, and generally enjoying the exotic adventure that had come their

                        way so early in life.  Both [(later admiral) Chester] Nimitz and my

                        grandfather remembered the experience fondly for the rest of their lives.

                        Nimitz once said of it, “Those were great days.  We had no radio, no mail,

                        no fresh food.  We did a lot of hunting.  One of the seamen said one day

                        he ‘couldn’t look a duck in the beak again.’” (24)

 

The World War II battle stories, in which both McCain’s grandfather, as an admiral, and father, as a captain, commanded, are the best plotted narrative of the book.  They are tense and exciting.  It is easy to see why many men would consider such wartime experiences as among the most intense and important of their lives.  As stories, they have little bloodshed and horror – they focus much more on adventure.

            Another part of the adventure is the sheer glamour of travel, which, when combined with ready money (which Americans had, the McCains in particular), makes an intoxicating combination.  The U.S. navy truly was the governing arm of an empire which embraced the world.  McCain’s father and grandfather go from the Waikiki Beach Club to Casablanca and Midway and Guadalcanal to the USS Missouri in Tokyo harbor. McCain himself emerges as a true navy playboy, having a fling with a Brazilian “supermodel” in Rio, “risking my wages in the casinos of Monte Carlo,” “spending holidays on Capri,” staying at an inn “on a lake in a small German village called Unterdeisen,” having “four days of fun in Montego Bay, Jamaica” – all while on navy duty.  Much of his travel is less glamorous (San Diego, Norfolk, Pensacola, New London, Corpus Christi, patrolling the waters of Cuba, and of course Vietnam).  It’s impossible to tell from the book where McCain is “from” – it’s a concept that has no place in his life.  He was born in Panama.  He seems to spend something of his childhood in Connecticut and California.  But most of the time appears to have been spent in Washington, D.C.:

 

                        My parents kept a house on Capitol Hill, where they entertained

                        leading political and military figures.  My mother’s charm proved

                        as effective with politicians as it was with naval officers.  The political

                        relationships my parents forged during this period contributed

                        significantly to my father’s future success.  Among their friends was

                        Carl Vinson, chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee.  At

                        my father’s invitation, he ate his breakfast, prepared by my mother,

                        at my parents’ home on many if not most mornings when Congress

                        was in session. (75)

 

As is intimated by the above passage, in this world power and command were the prime objects of desire.  McCain refers again and again to his father’s “ambition,” his “singleminded pursuit of four stars.”   It is not surprising, then, to see both father and son drawn to Washington.  When McCain’s father was Navy commander of the Atlantic, they lived in the capital, London, of an earlier great naval power.

            All this power and privilege came with the trappings.  McCain went to boarding school and then the Naval Academy (as so many generations of English aristocrats had gone to boarding school and then military academies).  There were light blue blazers and white pants for yacht excursions.  A navy destroyer was named the USS John S. McCain, after McCain’s grandfather.

            But there is a dark side to all this privilege, which McCain does not shy away from:

                        At a point early in my own naval career, I was stationed as a flight

                        instructor at McCain Field, an air station in Meridian, Mississippi,

                        named for my grandfather.  One day, as I made my approach to land,

                        I was waved off.  Radioing the tower, I demanded, “Let me land, or I’ll

                        take my field and go home,” earning a rebuke from the commanding

                        officer for disrespectfully invoking the family history. (21)

 

McCain never disavows his own immaturity and abuse of power.  They are for the most part discussed in the most general terms.

 

                        On Friday and Saturday nights, after happy hour at the officers’ club

                        had ended, almost every unmarried aviator in Pensacola headed for

                        Trader John’s.  It was a vast, cavernous place that was packed shoulder

                        to shoulder on weekends, as was the back room where local girls,

                        trained as exotic dancers, entertained rowdy crowds of aviators. 

                        Pensacola has since designated the place a historic landmark in

                        recognition of its former infamy when it was the scene of some of the

                        wildest revelry the state of Florida had ever experienced.  (153)

 

                        While I was stationed at Norfolk… a few pilots in my squadron and I

                        lived in Virginia Beach in a beach house known far and wide in the

                        Navy as the infamous “House on 37th Street.”  We enjoyed a reputation

                        for hosting the most raucous and longest beach parties of any squadron

                        in the Navy. (159-160)

 

                        My reputation was certainly not enhanced when I knocked down

                        some power lines while flying too low over southern Spain.  My

                        daredevil clowning had cut off electricity to a great many Spanish

                        homes and created a small international incident. (159)

 

There is nothing truly terrible or even unusual about these kinds of things.  They fall into that category of actions which are usually called “excesses” and hence considered merely a personal matter.  But they do end up wounding people – the reason why almost every distant land with an American military base dislikes the Americans stationed there – and it would be interesting to see more confrontation with this reality.  McCain, for the most part, still seems to be largely in himself.  The one exception – the one time he seems to confront his own power to wound others – is perhaps the best part of the book.  While in prison in Vietnam, McCain lost his washrag, which was a prisoner’s most prized possession. 

 

                        I appreciate how difficult it must be for the reader to understand the

                        inflated value of such an unremarkable article.  But to a man who is

                        deprived of almost all material possessions, who lies day after day in

                        a dirty, oppressively hot cell, glazed in sweat and grime, a washcloth,

                        no matter how undistinguished, is an inestimable comfort. (296-7)

 

In order to remedy the situation, he furtively took a washrag off of a clothesline, only to discover later that it was his best friend’s.  The problem was never fully solved while in prison: McCain’s friend apparently did not forgive him, and apparently the basic problem continued, i.e. McCain had a washrag while his friend did not.  I do not know whether this can be called McCain’s fault or not.  Life is filled with these little injuries we never resolve.  That is why one of the most moving and human moments in the book is this:

           

                        I felt bad about the injury I had done Bob throughout the remainder of

                        our captivity, finally relieving my guilt on our first Christmas as free

                        men by sending Bob a carton of five hundred washrags as a Christmas

                        present. (299)

 

You can imagine Bob weeping to receive them.  And it makes Chapter 22, “The Washrag,” the best bit of storytelling in the whole book.

            But in general, we don’t get enough resolution in this book; the problems all remain unsolved.  Three generations of McCain men get into fights, trash clubs, cuss and womanize, and it is still not clear what they are fighting.

            It is interesting to theorize how much the genteel culture of that time necessitated this rough manhood, as light necessitates shadow, and how much the hard work and discipline necessitated immature outbursts, either in oneself or in the following generation. 

 

                        My father worked every day, without exception.  On Christmas

                        morning, after we had opened our presents in front of the Christmas

                        tree, he would excuse himself, change into his uniform, and

                        leave for his office.  I cannot recall a single instance when he

                        came home from work earlier than eight o’clock in the evening. (70)

 

This fine dedication comes with a cost.  McCain confesses to what is typically known as a “father wound,” the damage which comes when a child’s relationship with his father is more longing than fulfilment:

 

As any other child would, I resented my father’s absences,

interpreting them as a sign that he loved his work more than his

children. (70)

 

                        I had known less of my father’s attention than had many of my friends

                        whose fathers were not as deeply involved in their work or absent as

                        often as my father was.  My father could often be a distant, inscrutable

                        patriarch. (167)

 

These are powerful words.  But McCain does try to resolve this.  He admires his father:

 

But I always had the sense that he was special, a man who

                        had set his mind to accomplishing great things, and had ransomed

                        his life to the task.  I admired him, and wanted badly to be admired

                        by him, yet indications of his regard for me were more often found

                        in the things he didn’t say than in the things he did.

                          He wasn’t purposely sparing with praise or encouragement, but

                        neither did he lavish such generous attention on his children.  He set

                        an example for us, an example that took all his strength and courage

                        to live.  That, I believe, is how he expressed his devotion to us, as his

                        father had expressed his devotion to him. (167)

 

Somehow, however, this approach was not really satisfying to him or to McCain.  McCain is often left guessing at his father’s feelings:

 

                        There were times in my youth when I harbored a secret resentment

                        that my life’s course seemed so preordained.  I often wondered if

                        my father had ever felt the same way.  Neither of us ever misbehaved

                        by design, or purposely threw some insurmountable obstacle in the

                        path of our expected naval careers.  Our antics were much more

                        spontaneous than that.  But did he, like me, occasionally speculate

                        that his troublemaking might disrupt his family’s plans for him, and

                        was he as surprised as I was to discover that the thought did not

                        fill him with dread?  I do not know. (53)

 

These feelings are so normal to young men that it is impossible to judge McCain for them.  But it is hard not to see in them a larger significance.  Because, as with Brideshead, Faith of My Fathers seems to be a portrait of a declining civilization, one that is unable to form its young men to the same standard their elders were formed.  The simple facts are telling.  McCain’s grandfather was an admiral for the Allies in World War II, which may have been the most complicated and successful endeavor in history.  Besides a fine combat record, his contribution was simple but important: he was in charge of “naval aviation,” and personally saw to the increase of airplane production and the training of massive numbers of new pilots, so that every plane would have at least two crews.  The military record of McCain’s father, the supreme military commander for the war in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972, is much harder to be enthusiastic about.  McCain himself did not have a distinguished military record at all.

            This cultural decline is amply demonstrated by the intellectual gap separating McCain and his ancestors.  Despite his father’s averral of the importance of “an outstanding command of the English language,” McCain does not pretend to be able to write even this book, which is disorganized and often awkward (Mark Salter was the writer; he is even given credit on the cover).  It is hard to imagine the hero of the back room of Trader John’s curling up with a copy of Spengler’s Decline of the West.  Nor is it likely that Cindy McCain could ever get a job at Ole Miss as “instructor of Latin and Greek.”

            Current political events only emphasize the plausibility of this reading.  McCain is descended from the old Protestant minority which has supplied this country with all its presidents except one (Kennedy) up until now.  (Even for Obama, half of his family tree is of this lineage.)  But the Bush administration has radically called into question whether these families, and the institutions whose allegiance they can command, have any character or worth left.  The Yale and Harvard degrees possessed by George W. Bush, or the Princeton degree held by Donald Rumsfeld, do not mean that these men have a strong sense of history or can represent our society’s ideal of an educated man. 

            If Evelyn Waugh, or William Faulkner or anyone else, were to write the novel of the McCain family, he would not have to look far to find the symbol for all this.  The family home was the symbol of the gentleman, but also it was the root in the soil that prevented him from overestimating his power.  He was limited by it: he could not simply get rid of it and buy another.  To do so would be to lose all tradition, and have to start all over.  And thereby he learned powerlessness and the terrible hardship of creation: he would know that if he planted an oak he would never see it mature.  He would know that a bushel of wheat only made him a five or six percent profit.  He would know (to use a specific example) that the power lines that came to his house had to be set up carefully and carefully maintained.

 

                        My grandfather was born and raised on his father’s plantation in

                        Carroll County, Mississippi.  The property had been in our family

                        since 1848, when William Alexander McCain moved there from

                        the family estate in North Carolina.  My great-grandmother had

                        named the place Waverly, after Walter Scott’s Waverly [sic] novels,

                        but it was always called Teoc, after a Choctaw Indian name for the

                        surrounding area that meant “Tall Pines.”

                          I spent some time there as a boy and loved the place.  The house,

                        which had once belonged to a former slave, became the family’s

                        home after their first manor burned down, and was a more modest

                        structure than the white-columned antebellum mansions of

                        popular imagination.  But I spent many happy summer days in

                        outdoor recreation on the property in the congenial company of

                        my grandfather’s younger brother, Joe, who ran the plantation.  The

                        house still stands, I have been told, uninhabited and dilapidated,

                        with no McCain in residence since my Uncle Joe died in 1952. (21) 

 

You revere the memory of your grandfather, who has had air fields and navy ships named after him, and here is the place where he was born, on a plantation which has been in the family for a century and a half; and you are very rich, so much so that you do not know exactly how many homes you own – why would you not buy this house, or work with other members of the family to restore it?  You are a nationally known politician and travel all over the United States.  Why would you not stop there at least for a visit to see it, to see where it all began?  It is a strange symbol of the dying civilization McCain chronicles.  Much as the great English families memorialized in Brideshead, war, and power, and time, that destroyer of all things, ultimately consumed these families, rotting their traditions and blotting all their beauty.

 

Barack Obama’s Audacity of Hope.

24-Oct-08

Let me start this review by stating that The Audacity of Hope is not a great book. I spend a great deal of time reading old books, and I am always looking, in modern books, for the quality and depth of thought I find in the old ones. It would be delightful to find the same universal knowledge in a man today that we find in Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia – with intelligent observation on geology, climate, technology, agriculture, and social mores guiding a philosophy of politics and making a philosophical case for man’s place in the universe. Failing that, we might look for a certain prose vigor that reveals deep saturation in political principles, such as we find in Paine, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, or Roosevelt. Barack Obama shows neither of these things, and consequently his book is likely to have the short shelf life of most political books. I write occasional essays on books and authors, as well as on politics; when I saved this essay, I decided to put it in the “Essays on Politics” rather than the “Essays on Literature” section.

That said, The Audacity of Hope is a good book, and it is the only political memoir I know which merits that distinction. Once you get past its terrible title, which has almost nothing to do with its contents, the book is very easy to read. It is filled with common sense about modern life. It mixes politics skilfully with mundanities, and we are left with the impression that a senator’s life is like the life of any other well-paid white-collar professional. It is never profound, but it is deeply felt and is able to evoke emotion in the reader. Its style is literary in a way that appears to be the result of a real liberal education: conflict in Jerusalem is called “wars and rumors of wars,” he asks “righteousness like a mighty stream” to descend on our race relations, Ben Franklin wrote an “almanack,” with a ‘k.’ These allusions are so frequent and appropriate that they appear to be Obama’s. This book, taken with the previous one, make it clear that Obama is the best writer to vie for the presidency since at least Teddy Roosevelt.

Like most bestsellers, the book’s value depends mostly on its author. Any of the book’s sentences could have been written by almost any thoughtful, articulate person of the American upper class with an interest in politics. It probably would not have been published had its author been an otherwise unknown public defender or prosecutor or community organizer; and it really does not contain any thoughts which would have been out of place in such a book. Of course, it is in part about being in the U.S. Senate, and so there are some scenes which are outside of the normal pale of experience – getting personal advice from the president, or personal sketches of some of the senators. Part of the book’s appeal is that it contains such scenes – part of the reason we read books is to approximate the sensations of people who have different experiences from us.

In this, Obama is very successful. His descriptive prose is generally good, his detailing is superb, and he has the memory for phrasing of a novelist. The meetings with people that are included in the book always have an insightful edge. On the other hand, they are extremely subtle – the insight is already contained in the presentation, as with good fiction. The encounter with President Bush is an excellent example. It is preceded by a number of details which have an effect on the reader – the flat-screen television which now adorns the Lincoln Bedroom, the president’s aide squeezing a “big dollop of hand sanitizer” into his hands after shaking hands with all the new senators, the older black butler – the only other black in the room – taking away Obama’s plate. As the others were about the leave, Bush called Obama aside.

But before I could turn around to go, the President himself appeared in the doorway and waved me in. “Obama!” the President said, shaking my hand. “Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours – that’s one impressive lady.”

The dialogue seems so right, you imagine that Obama remembers it word-for-word. And shortly afterwards comes the president’s advice:

“Come over here for a second,” he said, leading me off to one side of the room. “You know,” he said quietly, “I hope you don’t mind me giving you a piece of advice.”
“Not at all, Mr. President.”
He nodded. “You’ve got a bright future,” he said. “Very bright. But I’ve been in this town awhile and, let me tell you, it can be tough. When you get a lot of attention like you’ve been getting, people start gunnin’ for ya. And it won’t necessarily just be coming from my side, you understand. From yours, too. Everybody’ll be waiting for you to slip, know what I mean? So watch yourself.” (46-7)

Obama does not say much more about the encounter, but he puts so much into the portrait he does not need to. The reasons why Bush was elected, and the sadness of his tenure, are all there – his folksiness, his simplicity, his humanity, his lack of comprehension of his own role in creating opposition. Bush seems to see himself in Obama – a deeply significant and probably somewhat accurate assessment. It seems to have its root in the similarity of their families – competent, serious wives and two daughters – but it probably goes beyond that. Both men were sent by voters to Washington because of what they were rather than what they had done. Both seemed to imagine that they would be able to transcend the political-adversarial culture. Now the older man was, in some sense, confessing his failure to the young idealist.

But this exchange is important not because of its content – again, any two people might be the interlocutors here – but because we are interested in these particular historical men. The exchange itself is quite normal. This is one of the curious qualities of Obama’s book. Everything in it seems so very normal. He himself seems like a normal man, not like a Senator from the most powerful country on Earth, but just a normal person. He goes shopping. He drives his car alone with a map on the driver’s seat. He flies coach. He goes to soccer games and parent-teacher conferences. Sometimes he feels shut out by his wife. One time after a major bill had passed her only comment was an order to buy ant traps to kill the ants in their house.

Of course, here we run up against the problem of political bookwriting. It is considered important in democratic politics to seem normal, and so this could be merely the politically correct façade. I know well that when you ask people what their income level is, they all say “middle class,” though we know that there must be some rich people somewhere.

But it so happens that I believe Obama here. First of all, much of the narrative of his political life refers to his experiences before he became a political superstar. But even now I believe that he has to play modern, involved father while he also plays the role of active senator; I believe that his wife is jealous of his time and resentful of the sacrifices she has made in her own career, and that this makes him feel guilty. I believe that they do “normal things” because they were raised that way and, while wealthy, are not so rich that they can have others do all their living for them.

The curious thing about this is that the normalcy is always told with a slightly melancholy lilt, a little cadence of sorrow in his own smallness that is most curious in a politician. It is strange, but I would say that the dominant tone of the book is melancholy, despite the title. This melancholy can be found from the first few pages, and it does not dissipate.

Some of it was just a function of my getting older, I suppose, for if you are paying attention, each successive year will make you more intimately acquainted with all of your flaws – the blind spots, the recurring habits of thought that may be genetic or may be environmental, but that will almost certainly worsen with time, as surely as the hitch in your walk turns to pain in your hip. In me, one of those flaws had proven to be a chronic restlessness; an inability to appreciate, no matter how well things were going, those blessings that were right there in front of me. It’s a flaw that is endemic to modern life, I think – endemic, too, in the American character – and one that is nowhere more evident than in the field of politics. Whether politics actually encourages the trait or simply attracts those who possess it is unclear. Someone once said that every man is trying to either live up to his father’s expectations or make up for his father’s mistakes, and I suppose that may explain my particular malady as well as anything else. (2-3)

This passage is typical of the style of the book. Interspersed with the personal reflection related to broader human phenomena are three unresolved antitheses (genetic or environmental, encourages or attracts, expectations or mistakes), four qualifications (I suppose, almost certainly, I think, I suppose), and a host of words indicating uncertainty (some, may, unclear, someone, anything). The tone of the book is reflective and even aporetic, to a degree that goes beyond the typical breezy politico-book’s caveat at the beginning or end of every paragraph, “These are complex issues which won’t be solved overnight.” This seems to be instead of kind of Hamlet-like philosophical nature. It is easy to argue against this being a good thing in a president, but it certainly would be a change from previous presidents.

Together with that melancholy and reflectiveness we find a powerful impulse to autobiography. Although this is usually a sign of egocentrism, in Obama this impulse is very complicated. Many of his stories are rather uniquely self-deprecating: not the “I was born in a ditch” kind of false humility, but a real self-deflating movement back towards normalcy. After his election to the Senate, he gets an apartment (without his family) in Washington. He looks forward to enjoying the pleasures of bachelorhood while still having his family. The first morning he is there, as one of the hundred men governing the most powerful nation on Earth,

I realized I’d forgotten to buy a shower curtain, and had to scrunch up against the shower wall in order to avoid flooding the bathroom floor. The next night, watching the game and having a beer, I fell asleep at halftime, and woke up on the couch two hours later with a bad crick in my neck. Take out food didn’t taste so good anymore; the silence irked me. (72)

This appears to be something different from false humility. It’s not mere flattery for his wife either; in fact, the portrait of her in the chapter “Family” is not entirely sympathetic and its detaling is perhaps mildly embarrassing.

“You only think about yourself,” she would tell me. “I never thought I’d have to raise a family alone.” I was stung by such accusations; I thought she was being unfair. After all, it wasn’t as if I went carousing with the boys every night. I made few demands of Michelle – I didn’t expect her to darn my socks or have dinner waiting for me when I got home. Whenever I could, I pitched in with the kids. All I asked for in return was a little tenderness. Instead, I found myself subjected to endless negotiations about every detail of managing the house, long lists of things that I needed to do or had forgotten to do, and a generally sour attitude. (340)

This is why people don’t like being part of the lives of writers. And perhaps why people prefer fiction to nonfiction, when it comes to recording emotions. The intimacy is uncomfortable. That said, the honesty is powerful and refreshing in a political book. Obama seems committed, whether you find this impulse admirable or not, to living a public life.

The book begins, in the chapter entitled “Republicans and Democrats,” with an overview of the current American political situation. While this overview is not profound, it seems accurate and certainly is levelheaded. In fact, this levelheadedness is pleasantly unusual in itself.

When democrats rush up to me at events and insist that we live in the worst of political times, that a creeping fascism is closing its grip around our throats, I may mention the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, or a hundred years of lynching under several dozen administrations as having been possibly worse, and suggest that we all take a deep breath. (21-22)

I will note that this is not quite the same tone Obama has at his rallies (“Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril.”). But despite his refusal to preach political apocalypse, he does acknowledge that he feels a kind of national malaise in the air: “Still, I am not immune to distress. And like most Americans, I find it hard to shake the feeling these days that our democracy has gone seriously awry” (22).

His diagnosis of this malaise forms the philosophical foundation of the book:

It’s not simply that a gap exists between our professed ideals as a nation and the reality we witness every day. In one way or another, that gap has existed since America’s birth. Wars have been fought, laws passed, systems reformed, unions organized, and protests staged to bring promise and practice into alignment. No, what’s troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics – the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem. (22)

He then goes on to list the usual problems – education, health care, international order, and religion’s interaction with politics. He says that the national debate on all of them has been brought to a standstill within the political process. Republican and Democratic positions on all of them are clear and not open to negotiation.

He notes that this was not always the case; there is apparently general consensus in Washington that the generation which fought together in World War II did not act this way. Obama then lauches into a mini-history of American politics since World War II, which is certainly worth reading and probably correct in its broad outlines. Few things indicate character quite so well as a retelling of a well-known story, and Obama shows his personality quite clearly. He acknowledges himself as a “product” of the 1960s, and that his mother, who was born only a few years earlier than Hillary Clinton, was an unabashed liberal whose marriage to a black man would have been significantly more difficult (and in many places outright illegal) in an earlier era. But this liberal upbringing and liberal era brought him into personal trouble, his period of drug use:

Eventually, my rejection of authority spilled into self-indulgence and self-destructiveness, and by the time I enrolled in college I’d begun to see how any challenge to convention harbored within it the possibility of its own excesses and its own orthodoxy. I started to reexamine my assumptions, and recalled the values my mother and grandparents had taught me. (30)

This brings him to the Reagan era, whose “appeal” he admires:

It was the same appeal that the military bases back in Hawaii had always held for me as a young boy, with their tidy streets and well-oiled machinery, the crisp uniforms and crisper salutes…. by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, and loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster. (31-32)

Obama’s relationship with Reagan, whom he resembles in many ways, is quite intriguing. He has already drawn rebukes from Hillary Clinton for his admiration of the fortieth president. While Bill Clinton surfaces only a few times outside of Obama’s historical survey, Reagan returns multiple times in the narrative, and it is clear that what Obama admires so much about Reagan is his political vision, what I will call “landslide politics”: he was the last person to win a dominant majority for the presidency, and to dedicatedly govern according to an American, as opposed to partisan, policy.

This brief discussion of liberalism and self-indulgence versus the straight-backed patriotism and hard work of Reagan is a paradigm of Obama’s outlook. He sees all things, including his own person, as thesis and antithesis; and his goal is to personally and politically realize or forge synthesis. Everything is plural. He never gives one explanation for a phenomenon. He never cites just one example. Wherever there is light, he fills in the shadow. He follows his brief history with a chapter called “Values.” The thesis here is individualism, the antithesis community:

If we Americans are individualistic at heart, if we instinctively chafe against a past of tribal allegiances, traditions, customs, and castes, it would be a mistake to assume this is all we are. Our individualism has always been bound by a set of communal values… (55)

He goes on to make it clear (especially in the following chapter, “Our Constitution,” that he thinks that holding this creative tension between thesis and antithesis is the basic form of America as a nation:

In every society (and in every individual) these twin strands – the individualistic and the communal, autonomy and solidarity – are in tension, and it has been one of the blessings of America that the circumstances of our nation’s birth allowed us to negotiate these tensions better than most. (55)

Obama gives this tension and this contradiction an almost ontological significance:

It’s not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the Jihad. (93)

It’s hard not to be sympathetic with this main thesis of the book, especially when it is so thoroughly and consistently advocated; it is deep in our nation’s history (“e pluribus unum”) and it appears to be deeply and profoundly felt by Obama. He finds tensions everywhere in the country: power versus service; economic opportunity versus government intervention; religious versus secular; white versus black; isolationism versus empire; parent versus worker. These tensions are, fundamentally, the topics of the remaining chapters: Politics, Opportunity, Faith, Race, The World Beyond Our Borders, and Family. The endless antitheses in his writing become tiresome, but they are, indeed, revealing:

Attendance varies at these meetings [town-hall meetings he held as senator]: we’ve had as few as fifty people turn out, as many as two thousand. But however many people show up, I am grateful to see them. They are a cross-section of the counties we visit: Republican and Democrat, old and young, fat and skinny, truck drivers, college professors, stay-at-home moms, veterans, schoolteachers, insurance agents, CPAs, secretaries, doctors, and social workers. They are generally polite and attentive, even when they disagree with me (or one another). They ask me about prescription drugs, the deficit, human rights in Myanmar,
ethanol, bird flu, school funding, and the space program. Often they will surprise me: a young flaxen-haired woman in the middle of farm country will deliver a passionate plea for intervention in Darfur, or an elderly black gentleman in an inner-city neighborhood will quiz me on soil conservation. (102)

Obama sees Illinois as an emblem of the contradictions of America, and indeed this may be one of the reasons why he ultimately chose to live there. He is clearly an urban creature, but the three people that raised him were all from Kansas. Illinois helps him to go more deeply into the country and himself:

Outside of Washington, though, America feels less deeply divided. Illinois, for example, is no longer considered a bellwether state. For more than a decade now, it’s become more and more Democratic, partly because of increased urbanization, partly because the social conservatism of today’s GOP doesn’t wear well in the Land of Lincoln. But Illinois remains a microcosm of the country, a rough stew of North and South, East and West, urban and rural, black, white, and everything in between. Chicago may possess all the big-city sophistication of L.A. or New York, but geographically and culturally, the southern end of Illinois is closer to Little Rock or Louisville, and large swaths of the state are considered, in modern political parlance, a deep shade of red. (48-9)

The obvious conclusion is that Obama is intrigued by these supposed tensions and contradictions because he embodies them. He is progressive and conservative, secular and religious, oppressed and powerful, normal and extraordinary, American and African, black and white. From his other book, Dreams From My Father, we learn of his experimentation with identity politics, which almost always meant the partial solutions of absolutism. He seems to have resolved the contradictions by accepting them: trying to be neither too much of one or the other, but both at the same time. And he seems to have learned that most other people are doing the same thing. Yes, they are conservative Christians, but also have gay family members; yes, they hunt and live in a trailer, but they were born in Queens; yes, they are white racists, but their son married a Mexican woman. Everyone is composite.

This worldview not only applies well to a country as huge and disparate as America, but makes for good writing. It is probably the philosophical engine behind the extremely rich texture of the book. It’s hard to believe how many things get a mention in the book, and how rich and varied the phrasing is: Dijon mustard, cone hats, “paunch-bellied gladiators,” Hamilton’s industrial visions for America, “marijuana puffing,” twist-ties on bread, the Third Way, Sportscenter, strict constructionism, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Martin Luther, private Jets, “the jagged Rockies,” Google, the Meat Inspection Act, a Maytag plant in Galesburg, Norse mythology, self-flagellation, “WHAT ABOUT THE WHITE GUYS?”, Cyprus, a history of Indonesia, Henry Cabot Lodge, “goody bags,” Alan Keyes, and all those other details that have already appeared in this essay: flaxen hair, hand sanitizer, the Lincoln bedroom, a naked Barack Obama pressed into a corner of the shower. Very little of this detailing is undigested cataloguing: it is absorbed into a coherent whole. This whole is not necessarily profound. But it does seem like a portrait not only of one man but of a nation.

America famously lacks a great embodying novel, partially because it has lacked titanic literary figures, and partially because it is so vast and complicated. Similarly we have had very few truly national men, emblems of the entire nation. But whenever we get one, they frequently rise to the presidency. Washington was one: he was equally at home around a campfire at Valley Forge and in the best society, though his America was much, much smaller than ours. Lincoln was both brilliant and lowly; Teddy Roosevelt was both sophisticated and strenuous. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and “the man from Hope;” George W. Bush was a trailer-trash former-alcoholic evangelical and the son of a president. We need images of our own broadness as a country in order to assimilate the vast contradictions of who we are. Barack Obama’s Audacity of Hope is a kind of resume for precisely that kind of symbolic relationship with his nation.

History.

23-Oct-08