"What Would Life Be, If Christ Had Not Died For Us?"

The Easter Vigil is truly the pinnacle of the Church year, the single most significant celebration in the Catholic Church. In this liturgy, the Church presents itself for what she is: the Body of Christ in which the crucified Jesus is risen, alive, active, sanctifying, energizing. If you wonder what the Church is, and why we exist, share prayerfully in the Easter Vigil, and you may see and understand. 

We begin in darkness outside, reminding us of the spiritual darkness in the human soul without the light of Christ. Apart from Christ, we experience sin and death. The Easter candle, symbolizing the Risen Christ, is lit, and Jesus is proclaimed as “Christ our Light.” The faithful process into the church building to share in the feast of Christ’s word and Sacramental presence. Christ is alive and LORD, present in us, with us, for us. We represent all of humanity, for whom Christ died. Adult converts are received into the Church on this night. We renew our vows to be faithful to Christ unto death, and receive His promise for each of us to share eternally in His love and life. What more, or what better, could be offered to us in life? “Apart from You I want nothing on earth; God is my portion forever.” 

The Easter celebration continues on Sunday morning, then through the entire Easter season, and indeed, on every Sunday of the year. “Christ is Risen from the dead. Alleluia, Alleluia.” That means, “Praise the LORD!” “O give thanks to the LORD for He is good; for his mercy endures forever.” For you. For me. For all. We are not members of a cult, a select group of “the elect,” of “saints.” Rather, we are individually and together representatives of all of humankind, created and now restored in Christ Jesus. And each of us is a unique creation of God, requiring our free participation in God to find fulfillment and happiness now and beyond the reaches of death. 

The Easter Vigil and Masses represent to attentive minds what is experienced within the Christian soul: the presence of God in Christ, breathing renewing life into us. When the Pascal (Easter) candle is placed in the darkened church on the night of the Vigil (Holy Saturday night), and we are assembled in low light, we hear the message of Christ Risen proclaimed in the words of the ancient prayer known as the Exultet. Preferably this hymn of praise should be sung, but this priest will read it to you instead, so that you may concentrate on the meaning of the words, and not on the poor quality of my voice. We are not trying to offer you a performance, but a presentation of Christ alive and LORD. 

In the Exultet we hear tantalizing words: “O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam! What would life be, if Christ had not died for us?” (Or, in the contemporary translation, “Our birth would have been no gain, had we not been redeemed.”) Truly, what would you be, who would you be, if Jesus Christ were not alive and dwelling in you? What would your life be, without God’s life-giving presence? What would your life amount to, if you lived self-enclosed, entombed in your own dying self? How would you endure the trials of life, if human life were not only very fleeting (which it is), but essentially meaningless? Apart from Christ, what could you know but passing pleasures as the sands of your hourglass ran out? “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Such is a life apart from the Resurrected. 

“Now I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” So writes a man who experienced Christ flowing into his soul, living within his consciousness. Christ is divine Life in the mind and spirit of a human being. And “this Life is the light of men,” “but human beings loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” To the one acknowledging his or her betrayals, sins, lies, emptiness, one hears by faith the voice of Jesus: “Come to me, you who labor and are heavy burdened, and I will refresh you.” Those who prefer darkness to light are too busy making money, or “having fun,” or planning some evil stunt than to drop whatever they have at hand and welcome the rising Son of God, illuminating one’s heart and mind.

“May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, keep your heart and mind in union with Christ Jesus our LORD.” Amen. 

Blessed Easter one and all.

Holy Week: The Best The Church Has To Offer

We have been proud of our parishioners at St. Mark’s, St. Mary’s, and Holy Trinity for their high rate and quality of attendance at our Holy Week liturgies in the past five years. Fortunately, most of our people seem to understand that Holy Week, if properly and prayerfully celebrated, is the best that the Catholic Church has to offer the faithful. Whereas every Mass centers on the death and Resurrection of Christ, and the presence of God in the faithful by he Holy Spirit, it is during the liturgies of Holy Week that the mystery of Christ is carefully and quite fully presented, from the reading of the entire Passion narrative on Passion (Palm) Sunday, through the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, the remembering of the death of Jesus for all of us on Good Friday, and then the announcement of the Resurrection of Christ at the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday night. Easter Masses conclude the celebration, continuing for weeks. For the faithful who attend, they hear the entire Passion narrative from Matthew, Mark, or Luke, and then on Good Friday, the Passion according to St. John. We listen, we think about what we are hearing, we prayerfully respond, we give thanks to God for what He has done for us in union with Christ Jesus.That is the core of Holy Week. 

Today we worship God through attentively hearing the Gospel according to St. Luke read on Passion (popularly called Palm) Sunday. The drama of God acting for us in Christ, and humanity suffering in and with Jesus, is presented by the convert, St. Luke, a master story teller. The conniving, power-loving rulers of this world have their day, and deliver Jesus over to have the flesh torn off his body (scourging), and then spikes driven through his wrists and feet, until he bleeds to death or suffocates. We know the truth of Christ, and yet must witness how our Lord is tortured, and how much he bears willingly for each of us, and for all. The story is agonizing for those who love Christ—and it is liberating for the faithful. Jesus offers himself on behalf of all—not just “for many”—even for his torturers, and for the Roman and religious leaders who conspired to have him brutally murdered. For you. For us. 

Holy Thursday, the Mass of the Last Supper, allows us to hear and to see acted out Christ’s own interpretation of his suffering and death. By the eucharistic meal and by the Lord washing his disciples’
feet, we see God giving himself to us in Christ. We see what true faithfulness looks like: not ideologically loaded teaching, not digressions on social problems, but direct speech to your heart: “This is my body, for you.” Here Christ interprets for us what he achieves on the cross: he brings us into the covenant God made with the Chosen People through Moses, now deepened and broadened as every human being is invited to “come to the feast,” to “enter into the joy of the LORD.” On Good Friday no Mass is celebrated in honor of the death of Jesus. Instead, we listen to the reading of St. John’s Passion, we show our gratitude for Christ as we venerate the cross, and we receive the sign and instrument of Christ’s all inclusive, eternal covenant through holy communion.

The Easter Vigil is truly the climax of the Church year, the single most significant celebration inthe Catholic Church. We begin in darkness outside, reminding us of the spiritual darkness in the human soul without the light of Christ—a human being trapped in sin and death. The Easter candle is lit, Jesus is proclaimed as “Christ our Light,” and the faithful process into the church to proclaim the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. For us. For all. Adult converts are received into the Church on this night. We renew our vows to be faithful to Christ unto death, and receive His promise for each of us to share eternally in His love and life. What more, or what better, could be offered to us in life? “Apart from You I want nothing at all; God is my hope and my joy.” 

The Easter celebration continues on Sunday, then through the entire Easter season, and indeed, on every Sunday of the year. “Christ is Risen from the dead. Alleluia, Alleluia.” That means, “Praise the LORD!” “O give thanks to the LORD for He is good; for his mercy endures forever.” For you. For me. For all. Our common reading assignment for this Holy Week will be to read slowly, in quiet at home, the Passion narrative in the Gospel of St. John, chapters 18:1-20:31, which includes a brief account of resurrection experiences. For as we hear at the Easter Vigil, “if Christ had not been raised, what good would life be?” 

“May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, keep your heart and mind in union with Christ Jesus our LORD.” Amen.

Do We Need One Leader To "Bring Us All Together?"

A very brief note on a rather unpleasant matter. One keeps hearing of “anger” and “division” in the body politic. Some folks express anger. We can all think of examples. Watching one of my favorite segments on a Fox News show today, called “the Political Insiders,” the former Republican congressman from New Hampshire, John, was visibly angry. (The two former Democratic pollsters were not visibly angry).The Republican was very angry, and focused on Trump. He has never manifested that kind of anger in my viewing, and the host asked him about it. It seems obvious to note that the Republican establishment is besides itself, “having a cow,” so to speak, about the possibility of a Trump nomination. 

And I keep hearing some establishment figures—including this Congressman John—talk about “another candidate who will yet emerge.” Hints of a “contested convention” and floor fight after the first ballot, when most delegates are free to vote as they want. And most delegates are party regulars from each state, by the way, not necessarily fans of the person they must—by Republican rules--vote for on the first ballot. They are members of the Establishment. And that leads me to what particularly interests me today: This John has mentioned for the past few months that the decisive candidate for the 2016 Presidential election “is not in the race yet.” Again today, he said that it will be someone who brings R’s, D’s, and independents together. I really do not know whom or what he has in mind. Then I have heard Democratic experts speculate that neither Clinton nor Sanders will be the Democrat nominee, but possibly Biden. His name keeps recurring, as in a Biden-Warren ticket. And then the big one today, the most puzzling comment. Ms. Peggy Noonan was on some news show, a clip of which I watched on Realclearpolitics.com, in which Noonan said that the country needs a single person to bring us all together. 

Here is part of my thinking on the Noonan wish: her desire seems laudable, but it also sounds rather messianic to me. Americans have a history of looking for a political messiah to “bring us all together,” especially in times of crisis or severe stress. Several generations ago, FDR had the appeal of a political messiah when most Americans were anxious, many on the edge of starvation. Reagan had such an appeal, to an extent, for much of the electorate. Obama presented himself that way (“no more red states and blue states,” etc), and the media hyped him into that role of being “the One.” As much as I admire Peggy Noonan, I think that it is wishful thinking, and not even healthy. Or is it? Can any of you think of a single American who could truly bring us together as a people? I mean this as a genuine question, as a thought exercise. No one comes to my mind. And remember, I am not persuaded that it is possible, but it sounds like a messianic dream. The best we may be able to do is to find someone to appeal to half to 2/3rds of the electorate. In all honesty, who could possibly satisfy “Black Lives Matter” and the KKK, or a similar group? Who could even satisfy both Socialists and conservatives, or nationalists and internationalists, free traders or protectionists? I can think of no one who appeals to such diverse groups, can you? Not even our past Presidents who are still alive—Carter, the elder Bush, Clinton, W Bush, or Obama. Is not Peggy Noonan really just dreaming this time, and not facing reality? We are not only diverse, but highly divided, whether we like it or not. It may be the case that there is no political solution to divisions that have spiritual-intellectual-psychological roots. Perhaps we need to deal with the spiritual wasteland? 

I wish our country and world well, but I am starting to sense uncomfortable similarities to the 1930’s. If you ever read, for example, “The 20-years Crisis” (1919-1939), by E H Carr, you know what I mean. Divisions and propensities to violence are deep and common. I think about the phrase from “the Second Coming,” poem by Yeats, 1919, published in 1920: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world….” The western “democracies” as well as Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia all looked to some one man “to bring us all together.” A dangerous dream, I think. (Note: If you walk in D.C., look at the statues from the FDR era; they are remarkably similar to Soviet, Fascist, and Nazi art: massive, muscular animals and men. Glorification of power [not beauty] in statuary. This art shows the similarity in underlying culture, in engendering spiritual experiences (Geist). 

Is the world, as we know it, breaking apart before our eyes? Or is that just being far too melodramatic? Are these tensions more typical of western history in the past several hundred years? English, American, French Revolutions; nationalism; Communism revolutions; National Socialism; wars for “liberation”; and so on. And yet, are there not also signs of consensus, of coming together, of cooperation across borders, of good will towards many, and of diverse forms of spiritual renewal, as with Zen, and so on? Even in the U.S., do we need or want a single man or woman to “bring us together”? Why? 

Addendum:

News reporters tend to be a little short-sighted. I turn on the TV, and keep hearing about disruptions at Trump rallies, about violent break-outs in Florida among students on spring break, about police killing or serious wounding in Maryland, and so on. And more terrorist activity in Africa, this time in Ivory Coast, and threats from North Korea that they could destroy Manhattan with a hydrogen bomb. All of that since yesterday evening. On and on—reports of violence.

The larger and more disturbing issues are ignored: violence and disorder are becoming common in everyday life, in America, and in many countries of the world. Without doubt, America is becoming—or is—a violent society. How often do we see images of riots in cities, or of murders? Even high school, college, and professional sporting events become occasions for slugfests. There seems to be a large appetite for violence, for watching violence, for reporting it. So many of us are given to violence that the more peaceful millions get overlooked.

What is there in our national character that promotes or at least enjoys violence? When in our nation’s history have we not been a violent society—at least with repeated outbreaks, and recurring wars, incursions, occupations of other lands, and so on?

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Or, how deep are the divisions, and how long can we stand given our proclivities to violence?

There are several main alternatives to handling violence in the long run: One way is to let the violence continue, and increase, even to the point of living in virtual anarchy and chaos. Another way is for a far greater power to suppress the violence, as by police or military action even against its own citizens. A third way is for a foreign power to impose order on the disordered realm. The fourth way is the most difficult, but clearly the best: for individuals to discipline themselves, to get ordered from within, and live their lives peaceably.

I think that the fate of our political society is in the balance. As I quoted from Yeats, “the center will not hold.”

Lent V: On The Exodus

The Exodus of the Chosen People from Egypt is the central and dominating event in the history of God’s people, Israel. Moved by Yahweh-God, Moses leads the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt, “out of the house of bondage.” A chain of events, as recounted mainly in the Book of Exodus, began with divine action to the man Moses: “The LORD called to Moses out of the burning bush. And God said, `I have seen the suffering of my people who are in Egypt.’” And so began the series of events: Moses called to lead God’s people out of Egypt; God establishing the covenant, his bond, with the people at Mount Sinai; and the giving of the Law through Moses to the people. 

Celebrating Passover, the feast of the Exodus, some 1200 years later with his chosen disciples, Jesus took bread, blessed God, and said, “This is my body, for you.” And he took the Passover cup of wine, and said, “This is the cup of my blood, the new and eternal covenant. Do this in memory of me.” Within a few hours, Jesus was tortured and murdered by the Romans, and soon appeared as alive and as the LORD to chosen disciples. So begins the new Exodus, not from Egypt of slavery, but from self-centered lives into the peace and joy of God’s Kingdom—into a union between God and a human being responding to God’s presence in Christ, and continuing that presence into the world through loving deeds and speaking the truth. This is the new Exodus, an exodus from self into God, a process beginning through responding to God’s action in Christ, growing into faith enlivened by true love, and blossoming into eternal life beyond death. 

Whereas the Chosen People celebrate the liberation from slavery in Egypt, grounded in divine action, the Christian People celebrate liberation from sin-slavery to oneself, grounded on God’s action for the world in the death and Resurrection of Christ. Whenever a human being turns to God, the process of making an Exodus from “the world” (sin, self, evil) begins. As the Fathers of the Church wrote in the early centuries, this Exodus has no end, for we are entering into God, “the end without end,” in a process of “eternal progress” as the soul becomes an ever truer image of the unseen God, who is guiding the process. In simpler language: By God we are becoming ever more fully one with God. That is the essence of the Exodus. 

For next week, Passion / Palm Sunday, please carefully read Exodus, chapters 16-22, on the establishment of the Covenant between God and His people, and the giving of the law: “I AM the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Therefore, have no other gods besides me.” Also remember our common Lenten practices which I urge for all of us to do: (1) Sit in silence daily; (2) Prayerfully reading Scripture daily; (3) Attend an additional Mass weekly (and Stations of the Cross); 4) Visit our elderly or shut-ins.

Next week-end: the Passion of the LORD.

A List of Modern Ideologies

What is called “modernity” (roughly 1500 to the present) has at times been called “the age of ideologies.” Ideology is an essentially diseased mode of thinking, based on a warped conception of reality. These are the familiar “isms." 

Some of the major diseased thought-systems or ideologies of “modernity” are listed below. All of these ideologies are alive, to some extent, in our contemporary culture; all oppose genuine openness to reality that is the life of the mind and soul. 

• Calvinism and the extremes of the Protestant Reformation
• Catholic reaction in “traditionalism” and the authoritarian Church
• Man-centered humanism of the Renaissance and since “Enlightenment” with the occlusion of reason; deification of truncated reason as “rationalism”
• Hegelianism, the intellectual father of Marxism, nationalism, Statism Comtean Positivism and Scientism 
• Romanticism and irrationalism; unchaining of emotions from rational grounding
• Liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism, free trade, etc.
• Democracy and the myth of “natural rights” (“human rights” later)
• Nationalism, with the idolizing of a particular “nation” and its “state"
• Utopian Socialism with Marxist “analysis” of political and social reality
• Statism, especially in form of “democratic Welfare State” (W Europe, US, etc)
• Communism, combining Marxist Socialism with Statism
• Anarchism and its more recent child, “libertarianism”
• Fascism and National Socialism, combining nationalism with the idol State Psychologism (including Freudianism), Biologism, and other forms of “determinism”
• Conservatism (as combining traditionalism, Statism or libertarianism, nationalism, etc)
• Selfism, and the absolutizing of the individual person (intellectualized egotism
  

Attention to the pettiness of American political “debate” (petty Left, petty Right) makes me think about the ideologies masking the naked drive for power and wealth that constitute the substance of “modern” politics. 

Some of the major diseased thought-systems or ideologies of “modernity” are listed below. All of these ideologies are alive, to some extent, in our contemporary culture; all oppose genuine openness to reality that is the life of the mind and soul.

Lent IV: On Spiritual Reading

In a few lines, I wish to attempt to explain a few points about reading a spiritual text, such as a passage from the Bible. To my surprise, two persons recently told me that they had difficulty understanding Jeremiah’s prayers in which he wrestled with God. The words are in everyday speech, the experiences are common to all of us, God is ever God, so I am puzzled by a difficulty in understanding. It occurs to me that many Christians do not understand how to read the Bible well, and that in the present period, not many persons even attempt to study sacred scriptures or read spiritual classics in our culture. Many Protestants, especially of the more fundamentalistic bend, read the Bible as if they were reading a history book with information, or as if the texts were written just for them. Most Catholics have not been schooled in reading the Old and New Testaments; their familiarity with them is limited to the snippets of passages read at Mass, and to which they may pay little attention. The use of biblical passages at Mass assumes that our parishioners pray over these texts in silence, and study the sacred scriptures, but I have found few who make the effort. Catholics seem to have a much easier time appreciating Gospel stories than passages from the Old Testament, or the Psalms, or the letters of Paul, let alone apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Revelation. In private, people who have active minds often tell me that they do not understand what is read at Mass, and so appreciate it when the priest makes the material come alive for them. And I have long noticed that if I question parishioners immediately after hearing the Mass readings, not much, apparently, came across. Occasionally it brings to mind the words of Amos: “The time is surely coming, says the LORD God, when I shall send a famine on the land: not a famine of bread, or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD” (8:11). 

In making short reading assignments from the Bible for all to do each week, the goal is for you to attain spiritual nourishment, to increase your awareness of God and of your need for God. Our common goal is not to engage in scientific or scholarly study of the scriptures, for we lack the proper tools for such study—knowledge of the original languages, historical knowledge, understanding of literary forms, intentions of various authors, and so on. This kind of study is for well educated and spiritually sensitive scholars. We everyday Christians, on the other hand, are reading these passages to allow ourselves to be read by God, to be scrutinized, to let the light of divine wisdom shine into our souls. Such reading is done slowly, quietly, either alone or with a close friend, and must be immersed in prayer. If one is not listening by the holy Spirit for the silent Word in and through the words, one cannot read any Scriptures—Hebrew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist—with understanding. Again: In reading a spiritual work, one must allow oneself to be read, to be searched, to be opened up to the presence of God. To read the Scriptures prayerfully is to share in the mystery of God unfolding in time—here and now. 

How is this done? By asking for divine assistance, and then reading the words slowly and thoughtfully, questioning, thinking, seeking to understanding, letting oneself be confronted by divine judgment. For example, today at Mass we hear the parable of the Prodigal Son. I suspect few of our parishioners have ever bothered to read this remarkable story on their own, at home. Sadly, our people do not make the effort to become spiritually nourished. This is the “famine for the Word” of which Amos wrote; our culture has low interest in things of the Spirit. But if one makes the effort prayerfully and thoughtfully to study the masterful story of the two sons, one may discover that he or she is the prodigal son, and the elder brother, and perhaps at times, the merciful father. One must face the fact that one needs to “come to his senses” and turn around and return. The reader is forced to examine the ways in which one envies others for their spiritual and material blessings. And one gains insight into the God of Jesus Christ, for this parable presents Jesus’ image of God. Every word chosen by the evangelist Luke is rich in life-giving nourishment, if one but slowly reads and patiently attends—and takes the words to heart. Spiritual reading takes work, and many do not want to take the effort. 

Our reading assignment for this week: The Book of Exodus, chapters 11-15, the account of the 10th plague, Passover, and the Exodus event. Also, please remember to do our common Lenten practices which I have urged on all of us: (1) Sit or walk in silence daily; (2) Prayerfully read Scripture daily; (3) Attend an additional Mass weekly (and Stations of the Cross); 4) Visit our elderly or shut-ins. 

“May the LORD bless you and keep you; may the LORD let his face shine upon you; may the LORD look upon you with kindness and give you peace.” Shalom!

A Party Pulling Apart

We have all heard today (March 3), I am quite sure, Mitt Romney’s verbal assault on the character and political policies of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with nearly all of his gunfire fixed on Trump. We have also heard or read various responses to Romney’s action and words.  I shall be brief.

Running through memory, I cannot recall a former President or party Presidential nominee offering such a blistering attack on his Party’s frontrunner during the nomination process.  A distant relative comes to mind:  when Theodore Roosevelt, one term out of the White House, went to the Republican convention that chose Taft as its nominee for his second term.  Roosevelt bolted from the Republicans, and ran on his self-created “Bull Moose Party.”  The action split the Republican votes, and gave the election of 1912 to New Jersey’s governor, Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt loved power, and was convinced that he did a better job than his former protege, Taft, and deserved the party’s nomination.  (Note:  although TR was known as the “trust-buster,” it was actually Taft who far more effectively broke up business monopolies.  In time Taft was named to the Supreme Court, and remains our only ex-President to serve on our highest Court.)

Romney’s charges against Trump’s character and temperament as “unfit for the Presidency” would seem to make it impossible for him ever to support Trump if he should win the nomination.  Indeed, Romney and other political bosses in the Republican establishment have been busy burning bridges this week in their assaults on Trump.  Verbally, Romney shredded Trump and his policies. One can watch the speech or read the script online. Can Humpty Dumpty be put back together? 

If Romney truly believes all that he said—in effect that Trump would be a political and moral disaster if elected President—what took him so long to denounce a man whose endorsement he eagerly sought four years ago, and who praised Trump’s business acumen at that time?  Why didn’t Romney deliver his attempt at character and political assassination last summer, soon after Trump entered the race?  Did he just assume, as so many pols did, that Trump would quickly fade?  In that case, during the fall and early winter, when Trump became the front-runner, why did Romney not “spill the beans” on such an evil man, as Romney implied he is? Surely Romney knows better than I do the effects Trump has had galvanizing a sizable part of the electorate that had been politically disengaged as a result of Republican policies and failures.  Or does Romney not see what has been happening in the electorate?  Are the “political insiders” really as blind as they seem to be?  And why discredit the political responses of millions of Americans at this time?  What is gained?  The whole Romney affair today has the appearance of being an act of desperation by the wielders of power in the Republican Party, who refuse to allow power to slip from their hands. In this case, Romney is a tool or pawn of Establishment forces.  To be honest, I thought that Romney was a good and descent man, beyond letting himself be used as a would-be political assassin. Apparently, he is a serviceable tool of hidden political forces.  And who exactly are these men who may have sent Romney out to do their dirty work? 

Has Romney’s attack been effective?  Or, has he proven as ineffective in destroying Trump’s candidacy as he was in winning the 2012 Presidential election?  Reactions from various sources so far are suggesting that devoted Trumpians are unmoved, although one can measure the effects better in several days, when phrases and charges by Romney filter down to more voters—charges such as “a con man,” “a fake,” “a liar,” “a phony,” “a fraud,” “playing us for suckers,” a “business failure,” a man of poor character “with too much to hide,” unworthy to be President, whose policies would most likely bring about “a recession,” and so on. 

It is interesting to consider a few of Trump’s policies that earned special denunciation by Romney:  building a wall on the southern border (rejected by implication); limiting immigration, and especially observing Muslims desiring to enter as possible terrorists; limiting free trade by policies intended to keep jobs in America. In a word, it is Trump’s more nationalistic policies, distinct from Republican and Democratic sponsoring of absolute free trade and “open borders,” that Romney attacked.  Trump’s desire to protect the populace from illegal and destructive drugs (such as heroin) was not mentioned.  In fact, nothing positive or good about Trump was mentioned. Romney’s attack was utterly one-sided, and delivered with a pious smile on his face.  He executed his attack far more cogently than anything he ever unleashed on President Obama. Why? 

Finally, as others have noticed, for political strategy, Romney favors supporting one of the three candidates in a given state in order to deny Trump state victories (most of the remaining primaries and caucuses are “winner-take-all.”)  The likely result would be a convention without anyone having sufficient delegates in advance (just over 1200 delegates). So I assume that the “powers that be” in the Republican Party want an “open convention” because it most assures their ability to manipulate, to cajole, to buy off delegates with benefits—in a word, to maintain their power; and hence to assure that a candidate malleable by them, and to their favored economic and political policies, would be designated.  The Party leaders want the kind of man they have in the Bushes and in Romney:  someone who does the bidding of the leaders and behind-the-scenes power brokers. 

Here is a prediction: If Trump gets the nomination, and if he wins the election, he will not feel beholden to the Republican Party, and would have around him men and women deemed undesirable by the Party, and probably be drawn from both Parties, and from outside of both of our major parties.  Trump would embody an independence from political establishments unlike what we have seen in the Presidency for many years—at least since Eisenhower, perhaps not since before we had political parties.  And why not?  What has the Republican Party done for Trump and his movement? If he should “play ball” with one party’s leaders, he would be betraying the trust of the voters, many of whom probably support him precisely because of his relative party independence. 

A major political party is unravelling, and it has been doing for some years now.  Romney’s action may be seen as a late, desperate gasp by the Party’s elite to keep control of people who are spinning out of their control. 

Watching The Struggle For Power

Folks,

Listening to “talking heads” speak about Presidential candidates, primaries, electoral politics, all sorts of “issues” or “policies,” and a mud-smattering of personal attacks, it is good to pull back from the verbiage, withdraw from the heat of battle, observe and think:

What we are all watching unfold in this primary season is an enormous struggle to gain and to hold political power.  Human beings’ feelings, character, and various policy issues are all secondary at best.

The Democrats began to display the power struggle in open only when there appeared to be, for several months, a plausible threat to Clinton and her lock on power within the Democrat Party.  The Clintonians did not take Sanders seriously because he was so removed from the levers of power within the Party.  As he gained in popularity, and Clinton fell, she outmaneuvered Sanders by moving into his ideological territory.  Her enormous defeat in New Hampshire no doubt shook up the ruling powers somewhat, although if they looked at the larger picture—as I am sure the Clintons did—they knew that Sanders would be doomed by the fact that such a huge portion of Democrat primary voters are minorities, and especially the blacks have voted for, and favored, the Clintons overwhelmingly.  Sanders was a threat to Clinton only from the white youth he attracted; and from the higher-income voters, many of whom have long distrusted the Clintons for their less-than-noble qualities and their ability to shift positions quickly (something Sanders seems unable or unwilling to do).  Sanders has not, to date, hit Clinton hard on significant matters, and so never really threatened her power position.  Nibbling and quibbling over her speeches at Goldman Sachs proves to be pathetically insignificant.  When Sanders said, “Enough of those damn emails already” in their first debate, he virtually guaranteed Clinton the nomination.  How so?  Sanders would not take off the gloves and really try to deck the overwhelming front-runner in the Democrat Party.  His own lust for power has been overly bounded and constrained to defeat a very powerful Party machine.  

The Republican story unfolding before our eyes is a largely different matter.  The Republican Party elite had pre-selected the Presidential nominee (as did the Democrats with Clinton).  That choice was Jeb Bush.  Spending some $150 million on a candidate who barely rose above 4-5% in national polls shows the foolishness of their ways, and their belief that money and power could overcome any popular choice.  That plan failed with Bush’s poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and then decisively in South Carolina; except for Iowa, these states have been strong bastions of Bush power in politics.  (Remember that even in 2000, in the Bush-Gore election, the only state in the NE which Bush carried was New Hampshire; had Gore taken that state, he would have been President, even without Florida.)  The Republican Party bosses clearly underestimated Trump and the power of the movement he unleashed.  The blindness of the Republicans should not be surprising.  The same Republican Establishment has proven itself tone deaf for years.  To note a few examples:  disregarding popular sentiment and foisting the lackluster insider Romney on the electorate in 2012; the utter deafness to the Republican electorate after the huge waves of 2010 and 2014, which gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate.  What did these elected Republicans do?  They arrogantly disdained their own voters, and did what they pleased by doing virtually nothing to challenge the power of the President—the task they had been elected to do.  They failed, and they were too proud to recognize or to admit their errors.  The backlash has been not the person of Trump, but the movement that has been sweeping Trump to victories. “The Donald” has been capitalizing on the gross failures of the Party elites—failures and backlash to their failures.  

The Trump phenomenon is grounded on two primary forces:  the contempt of many Republican voters for their Party’s leadership in Washington; and the disgust of many Republican voters with governmental power in general, and with power from imperial Washington, D.C., in particular.  Part of the irony here is that Trump has not given much voice to reducing Washington’s power, and that could prove to be his Achilles’ heel with his base.  Trump is, on the other hand, being used by the electorate as a battering ram against the Republican establishment, and especially their leadership in Congress.  Understandably in terms of power-politics, the Establishment is fighting back, hard.  One of their main forces so far has been to use Mitt Romney, formerly Mr. Milk Toast, to attack Trump with nasty charges.  Senators and Congressmen have joined the chorus.  These men are not fighting for “ideas,” but to maintain their power-hold over the Republican Party, and over a sizable part of the American electorate.  If Trump continues to win primaries, as he is expected to do, it should be interesting to see how desperate the Republican elites become.  Expect virtually anything and everything to be used.  Of course the Republican elites gain support from non-Republican powers, such as the NY Times, and even the Clintons, who do not want to run against Trump, despite what polls say now.  Bill Clinton is far too astute a Machiavellian politician not to know that Cruz or Rubio would be easily defeated in a general election, but that the real treat to their attempt to regain the Presidency is Trump and the movement underneath him.  

Watch the lust for power at work. The rest is superficial dressing. These politicians use “policy” as a main cloak for their naked selves:  men and women greedy for gain—for power, and often for wealth.  Imposing their “ideas” on the populace—their “policies”—is primarily a means to exercise their power, and to guarantee the holding of power for themselves and their fellows in their Party. What is a political Party but an organization to acquire, to maintain, to increase, and to exercise political power?  In this regard, there is no essential difference between the Communist Party of the USSR, the National Socialist Party of Germany, or the Republican or Democrat Parties in the United States.  Our Parties are more benign, not because the powerful in this country are more virtuous than in Germany or the Soviet Union, but because their are more CHECKS on the abuses of power in their country than in the totalitarian regimes.  All of the key players in these parties are authoritarian, and driven by the lust for power.  Otherwise, they would not seek such power over others.  They would live more private lives. If their overwhelming desire were to help formulate and effect policy, they would work in a think tank, or on Capitol Hill as members of a staff, or as lobbyists, or even quietly pursue scholarly work, for examples.  

One last point. As Trump closes in on the Republican nomination, we will hear shrill and increasingly brutal assaults from the holders of power in both parties to destroy the man and the movement that threaten them. They will not openly admit:  “We want power, and to keep our power, we must destroy the greatest threat to us.”  Trump will gain power as discontented voters, disgusted with their Party elites and with Washington’s rule, feel increasingly threatened and vulnerable (“unprotected”), as by international violence and domestic acts of terror (whether from Americans or from foreign sources). Threatened people lash back. Feeling powerless, they look to a powerful force to increase their security.  Most Americans feel highly vulnerable now:  personally, economically, financially, and with their lives threatened by terrorists.  And what are terrorists, but men and women so driven for power that they will resist to any means to assert their will?  Physical murder is the last resort of the power-driven. Before that, they engage in character assassination and every possible trick short of murder.