Select Page

Moderation Is The Key

Moderation Is The Key

June 12, 2020 (641 words)

I had a couple of aunts on my mother’s side of the family that both lived well into their nineties. They never really got sick, and they never put on weight. Their life-long motto was “moderation in all things.” I didn’t pay much attention to anything these two biddies had to say back then because, well, they were Italian. And everybody knows that Italians – especially little old Italian women – are kind of kooky.

But now that my own dotage is gently approaching, and the list of minor ailments continues to grow, I find myself reflecting back on many of my deceased relatives and remembering things each of them said. And I realize those quirky Italian aunts, in particular, were on to something with their commitment to moderation. As they were always fond of saying, there really can be too much of a good thing.

Moderation may indeed be the key to a happy life, but it also seems to be just about the hardest thing for any of us to pull off, doesn’t it? Take food, for instance. Who doesn’t like to eat? But we often end up eating too much, or too much of the wrong thing. And who doesn’t enjoy an adult beverage from time-to-time. But some of us, particularly of an Irish persuasion, tend to go overboard in this regard, killing needed brain cells and damaging vital organs.

Come to think of it, “going overboard” is pretty much everybody’s basic modus operandi. This is true even when we are trying to be healthy.

We know that regular exercise is good for us. But of the small percentage of people who actually heed that advice, many end up addicted and actually exercise too much, leading to sprains of various sorts, and pulled muscles.

But maybe the most glaring area of life where we find it hard to achieve a sense of moderation is at work.

Just about everyone I know takes great pride in being a workaholic. Certainly this has been true since at least the 1980s. Of course our jobs can and should be an important source of meaning and purpose in our lives. It’s the place where we get to share the gifts we have been given with the larger world. It provides an active, dynamic forum for the ongoing development of empathy toward those around us.


our most important energy, the best hours of our day…


Unfortunately, though, all we workaholics do with our most important energy, the best hours of our day, is earn a living. Our existence has been boiled down in large measure to a very narrow formula: we make money, and we spend money.

While material success sure is swell, and has allowed some of us to live in bigger homes, drive fancier cars, wear more stylish clothes, eat at better restaurants, and take more lavish and frequent vacations, this non-stop consumption does not necessarily feed our head. Or stir our soul.

No matter how challenging one’s work is, and how enjoyable the fruits of one’s labor are, everyone needs something else – an outside interest, a hobby, an avocation of some kind – that moves them in a unique manner. It can be anything. It just has to be an activity apart from what one does to pay the bills, and apart from the discretionary spending of disposable income that provides only fleeting satisfaction.

This is the reason retirement can pose such problems for certain people: They are just so out of practice. They’ve spent their entire adult lives doing nothing but making a buck, and then spending it. They haven’t developed any outside interests, and they haven’t learned the art of moderation in all things.

So here’s to my Aunt Camille and my Aunt Annette. Thank you, ladies, for what you taught me. Even when I wasn’t listening.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
June 12, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

3 + 14 =

Floundering with the Flavor of the Month

Floundering with the Flavor of the Month

June 9, 2020 (1,693 words)

All contemporary political and social commentary misses the mark. It fails to get at the heart of the problem it sets out to address. How can that be? The fly in the ointment, it seems to me, is how we have prioritized personal autonomy above all other considerations.

It is our highest ideal as a people, seen as the surest path to progress and human flourishing. While both are unmitigated goods and worthy objectives, our understanding of each has unfortunately been severely compromised.

Allowing everyone to have their say, and do their own thing, is the essence of personal autonomy. But that is a recipe for conflict and chaos, as any sensible man or woman who has their wits about them surely knows. So we seek to apply the necessary restraints to the free-for-all, being careful to preserve the sense of radical individual freedom we all cherish so dearly.

It’s a balancing act that is impossible to maintain. Even if it seemed to be working out fairly well there for a while, by which I mean a few hundred years.

Here is the problem in a nutshell: Human nature is unruly. Not everyone possesses an innate self-awareness and level of maturity to wrestle with and control their un-neighborly impulses. And life is complicated. Not everyone has enough information at their disposal to make informed decisions. Even more problematic, not everyone possesses the cognitive ability required to process some of the more nuanced information, even when it is presented to them.

The whole thing may have sounded like a good idea at the time, but this letting everyone to their own devices has resulted in many of us making rather poor choices. This leaves the little people, in particular, feeling adrift and at loose ends – when not downright stressed out.


a society-wide liberation from superstition…


If you’ll recall, the master plan was a society-wide liberation from what we were told was superstition. That is to say, we were told to forgo belief in anything that could not be seen, or held, or empirically proved.

In this new world order, the one that slowly emerged some five hundred years ago, custom and tradition – based on keen observation of past experience – were now seen as limiting human potential, rather than a life-giving fountain providing meaning and purpose.

Henceforth the only legitimate authority had to be elected by popular consent. Appointment to power was now universally frowned upon. Equally important, this grand getting-out-from-under would simultaneously put the common rabble on the path to improved material circumstances.

That’s ultimately how this realignment of priorities was sold to the masses: See here, poor souls, you will make out better in the long run.

Viewing all this through that limited lens, it does appear the human condition is much improved. As economists are quick to point out, most people are better fed, clothed, and housed than were their forbearers of, say, two centuries ago. But of course that doesn’t tell the whole story, now, does it?

For one thing, personal debt is at an historic high. Statistically speaking all may be well, since the average standard of living is on the rise. But the gains have not been equitably distributed, not by a long shot.


even less regard for collateral damage than before…


From a financial standpoint the push for personal autonomy has always been about enabling the clever and the advantaged to pursue their economic self-interest with even less regard for collateral damage than before. It’s always been the cream of the crop that embraced this new ethos most enthusiastically. They merely enlisted the rabble as needed to overthrow the old order, thus neatly consigning custom and tradition and concern for others to the dustbin of history.

In retrospect all the high-minded talk of liberty and equality was little more than an elaborate ruse. It’s always been business as usual. Those that have are still reluctant to share with those that don’t have. The cause of liberty and equality that drove the revolution may have made an appealing rallying cry, but those lofty aspirations were always intended to be limited to the right kind of people.

It’s certainly true the moral restraint of an earlier age, designed to keep the well-off from thoroughly ransacking the peasantry, was too often ignored or overlooked. And as a result the peasantry was routinely raked over the coals, and left to barely get by.

But now the pursuit of economic advancement is unfettered, without even a residue of moral restraint to rein it in. And anyone looking to improve their lot in life is encouraged to adopt the same approach. One might call it a license not to care about one’s neighbor.

This is how our revered concept of personal autonomy expresses itself when it comes to economic behavior. The odd thing is, defending such callousness has consistently been the core of what passes for the conservative position.


dressing this up as a principled pursuit…


Conservatives have always – always – dressed this up as a principled pursuit of what they like to refer to as “economic freedom.” But that freedom, in this context, means getting as much for oneself as possible, and giving away the bare minimum required to keep the rabble off one’s back.

This is where our compromised understanding of progress and human flourishing comes into play. Yes, human dignity demands that all have the bare necessities of life: enough to eat, clothes to wear, and a safe place to stay. And material improvements in the developed world over the last several centuries have indeed seen to those necessities, in large measure.

But the inherent dignity that every man and woman possesses from birth is not respected – and certainly not enhanced – by drowning the majority who lack an “ownership interest” in a sea of cheap consumer goods that lack any intrinsic value. The miscellaneous stuff every First World commoner can now afford to buy does not provide a sense of meaning or purpose.

The clever and advantaged may get off on increasing their net worth and enlarging their portfolios, ad infinitum. This seems to be a constant, down through history. But that cold pursuit offers little solace to the rank-and-file. Devoting one’s existence to a continual upscaling of debt leads decent people to question the logic of such a life.

Which then begs the obvious question: If this is where personal autonomy leads us, is it really the best organizing principle for a civilized society to follow?


pushing back against an unrestrained economic exuberance…


Pushing back against an unrestrained economic exuberance, with its undeniable tendency to bleed into an outright exploitation of the disenfranchised and the down-trodden, has always fallen to what we now refer to as the liberal voice. It serves as an important counter-balance to the economic status-quo. It functions as society’s conscience, if you will.

The liberal critique was unerring as long as it focused on the excesses of the economic elite. But, sadly, its integrity has suffered a serious blow, taken down a notch by its own variation on “personal autonomy” that has caused so much havoc in our economic life. During the course of the 20th century the liberal voice revealed its own wayward tendencies in supporting what is euphemistically referred to as freedom of expression when it comes to sexual activity between consenting adults.

Such as the notion that monogamy is overrated, and actually constitutes a form of arrested development. Not to mention it being all-but-impossible to maintain for a healthy biped. And heterosexuality is just one option among many acceptable forms of physical intimacy.

(It’s one thing to agree homosexuals should no longer be stoned to death. It’s another to hold them up and admire them as some sort of advanced species, more highly-developed than the rest of us. There is a compromise to be broached somewhere in there, between the two extremes.)

The revolution in sexual mores that for centuries was the sole purview of the well-to-do and the avant-garde, who could misbehave without incurring debilitating financial repercussions, began filtering through the rest of society early in the 20th century, before going mainstream in the 1950s.

Around the same time the general standard of living spiked as a result of the post-WWII boom, come to think of it…


our modern faith excludes any consideration of the divine…


Somehow our thoroughly modern faith in reason and scientific certainly, which excludes any consideration of the divine, means we can now fool around with whomever we please.

While conservatives have always been known to discreetly indulge the odd dangerous liaison, promiscuity became a pet project of the liberal agenda in the last half century or so, and is now a non-negotiable policy position. This may be due, in part, to a general revulsion at the sight of so many economic exploiters publically proclaiming to live by a Christian moral code, while blatantly violating that code’s most fundamental precepts.

The economic hypocrisy of the average conservative does not in any way justify the licentiousness of the average liberal, but the former has most definitely paved the way for the latter. As so often happens, the failings of the few have undermined the belief and practice of the many.

Which brings us to our current stalemate: Liberals continue to provide a valuable service when they hammer away at the glaring hitch in our economic clockwork – a lack of equitable distribution. But their Achilles heel is their full-on commitment to personal autonomy when it comes to sexual mores. Instead of emancipating free spirits from stifling bonds, as the brochure so attractively promises, it has created deep hurt among intimates.

Conservatives, on the other hand, talk a good game when it comes to loyalty and honorable conduct, as everyone knows. But they sabotage themselves with their “economic” adherence to personal autonomy, which shreds the social fabric they claim to care so much about.

And there isn’t a single political or social commentator working today – no matter the following they may command in the moment – that shows the slightest awareness each side in our oh-so-familiar liberal/conservative cage match harbors a stubborn contradiction.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
June 9, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

1 + 13 =

The Company One Keeps

The Company One Keeps

June 2, 2020 (322 words)

Just so we’re clear, the Catholic Church is as corrupt as any institution around. There is no denying it. When your organizational chart is filled with flawed human beings, you can hope for the best but should prepare for the worst.

So I’ve never been sure why evidence of such corruption turns certain people away, or justifies others in their outright rejection of the teaching.

It is the unassailable nature of that teaching which has attracted the attention of some of the most intelligent, hardest-working, and selfless men and women who have ever walked the Earth. And not just attracted their attention, but commanded their complete and utter devotion.

It’s fashionable these days to disparage any religious belief as hopelessly naïve. In particular, adherence to or promotion of anything remotely associated with the Catholic tradition comes in for special scorn.

Such is the spirit of our age.

The story of the modern era goes something like this: Having incorrectly determined Christianity is lacking in practical solutions, we long ago adopted rationalism, classical liberalism, and materialism to take its place, and guide our worldly endeavors.

We are convinced all thorny issues can be resolved by applying formulas we can see and touch and empirically prove.

But we threw in the towel much too soon. As the wise man once said: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.”

The Christian ethos stills holds the key to every social problem we confront, even if its prescription is daunting and frequently asks the impossible of us. Matthew 5:44, anyone?

This unique culture, replete with challenging beliefs and aspirations, has been built and nourished in its purest form by the Catholic tradition. And by all those intelligent, hard-working, and selfless people who give of themselves to manifest its spirit.

Even if flawed followers and compromised leaders sometimes do a less-than-stellar job representing the supreme truth that tradition proclaims.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
June 2, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

14 + 4 =

The Missing Link

The Missing Link

June 1, 2020 (371 words)

My slow-but-steady march through Rich People Things: Real Life Secrets of the Predator Class, a book of social criticism originally published by Chris Lehmann in 2010, and followed the next year with an expanded edition, continues apace. Some things are meant to be savored, and should not be rushed.

So the other night I’m reading his short chapter on Ayn Rand, and come across the following:

“Nowhere in Rand’s baby-simple sociological narratives is there the slightest room for any deviationist lurch toward the acknowledgement of any shared good, or even notional communities of interest, that her angry, atomistic ideal-type characters might have in common with each other, let alone with society at large.

“In no other works of fiction, ironically enough, does the parodic mantra ascribed to the Beat Generation’s critiques of conformist culture – I blame society – apply with such complete, totalizing force.”

This passage nicely encapsulates Mr. Lehmann’s primary message: Rich people only look out for themselves and this undermines the social fabric.

His sentences are chock full of descriptive references. The descriptions may be a little dense at times, and the references a bit arcane. But if the general reader takes his or her time, and maybe re-reads certain sections once or twice, the beauty of Lehmann’s language should open up for any interested bystander.

Chris Lehmann is as entertaining as he is intelligent, and his perceptive analysis is a joy to read.

Though I am starting to wonder just what he considers to be the antidote. What does a bright and exuberant progressive-minded polemicist think is the restorative principle that can save our most successful citizens from their self-absorption?

He has half the problem nailed. In this tome he diagnoses and lays bare the fatal flaws in our founding philosophy of enlightened self-interest as it pertains to economic behavior.

But isn’t it the same philosophy of self-interest behind the progressive insistence we indulge our every whim in the realm of personal behavior, aka personal morality?

Will Mr. Lehmann one day choose to analyze how this “letting it all hang out” when it comes to sexual preferences and pursuits also undermines the fabric of our community, every bit as much as the inclination to avarice?

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
June 1, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

6 + 10 =

Happy Birds

Happy Birds

May 29, 2020 (116 words)

You may have heard of Angry Birds, a popular entertainment which started in 2009 as a casual puzzle video game, inspired by a sketch of stylized wingless birds.

Well, out in my neck of the woods all we have are Happy Birds. They start their hymn of praise early each morning in the hour before dawn. It’s almost as if they are competing with each other to express their joy at being alive.

During the course of a day, if I am out in the yard doing something, one of them can be counted on to land on a nearby bush or tree branch, and warble a greeting at me. I always try to warble back.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
May 29, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

15 + 6 =

Sharing With Others

Sharing With Others

May 25, 2020 (3,429 words)

As if by design, after not watching the streaming service Netflix for a while I flipped it on again to find the movie Trumbo at the top of my queue. Turns out this 2015 theatrical release is one of four new titles it just added to the rotation.

For younger readers, Dalton Trumbo was one of the highest-paid Hollywood screenwriters of the 1940s, and maybe the most famous such screenwriter blacklisted for his communist sympathies. His punishment included being jailed for eleven months in a federal penitentiary starting in the summer of 1950, and then being prevented from working under his own by-line in Hollywood for a decade after his incarceration.

Considering that only a few days ago I commented on the “disgruntled screenwriters” portrayed to comic effect in the 2016 movie, Hail Caesar!, the decision of Netflix to add Trumbo just now seems to have been made specifically with me in mind.

Prior to this I had only a passing acquaintance with the name of Dalton Trumbo, and certainly no awareness of his career’s particulars. In fact my knowledge of the Blacklist period as a whole could be described as sketchy, at best. I knew the bare outline of the historical record, as perhaps many of us do, but was not educated enough on the subject to assign praise or blame with any degree of certainty to anyone on either side of this controversy.


captivated by a flattering portrayal…


So I approached Trumbo with an open mind, and found myself captivated by its flattering portrait of an irascible, though highly principled, contrarian. We learn Mr. Trumbo was a long-time supporter of Hollywood trade unions and a staunch defender of civil liberties. He was idiosyncratic, larger than life, and loved being rich. (Bryan Cranston is wonderful in the lead role, by the way.)

If there was a sinister side to his affiliation with the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), which he spends the early part of the film artfully dodging in public, the audience is given no indication what that might consist of.

In fact, Dalton Trumbo is presented to us as pretty much a garden variety New Deal Democrat. The filmmakers establish his lasting appeal and liberal bona fides straight away, in a couple of key early scenes.

KEY EARLY SCENE #1

A mere four minutes into the proceedings, our tuxedoed hero and his lovely wife attend a swanky, night-time Hollywood party. He is shown holding forth pool-side, with a drink in one hand and a cigarette-holder in the other. He is engaged in a heated exchange with a mogul-producer type on whether to cross a picket line erected by striking set-builders at the studio.

Producer: You’re a writer. What the hell does set-building have to do with writing? Trumbo: I’m a screenwriter. Builders build what I write. You shoot what they build. Now, you make the most money you possibly can, and so do I… Why shouldn’t they? Why can’t we help them?

Producer: Listen to you, the swimming pool Soviet…

KEY EARLY SCENE #2

In the next shot, still only seven minutes into the picture, we cut to a beautiful sunny day at the idyllic Trumbo family home, a ranch north of Los Angeles. Nikola, the older of two young Trumbo daughters is on horseback, sans saddle, and Dad is slowly walking the horse and rider away from the paddock, with their house in the background, stage right. The daughter inquires as to her father’s political affiliation.

Under direct questioning by his curious child, who is quoting news reports hotly debating the subject, he quietly admits to being a communist, with neither pride nor resignation. Still on horseback, she then asks about claims he is also a “dangerous radical.” He calmly owns up to the tag of “radical,” but reassures her he is not in any way “dangerous.”

Trumbo: (thoughtful, reflective) I love our country. And it’s a good government. But anything good could be better.

Nikola: Is Mom a communist?

Trumbo: No, your mother is not a communist.

Nikola: Am I?

Trumbo: Well, why don’t we give you the official test… Mom makes your favorite lunch, and at school you see there is someone with no lunch at all… What do you do?

Nikola: Share.

Trumbo: Share? You don’t tell them to just get a job? Oh, I know, you offer them a loan at 6%… Yes, that’s very clever…

Nikola: No, Dad, I wouldn’t do that.

Trumbo: Oh, you would just ignore them, then?

Nikola: No, I would just share.

Trumbo: Well, now, you little commie (and gently pinches her right check with affection).


more of a closest Christian than a subversive Communist…


And so the tone of the piece is thus firmly established. Dalton Trumbo is no threat to the Republic. He’s just an articulate champion of the First Amendment right to free speech and free association. Actually, he comes across as more of a closet Christian than a subversive Communist. His character is beyond reproach, and he expresses himself with economy and wit throughout, always managing to find the well-chosen word.

He seems to enjoy sparring with the Hollywood heavy-hitters who disparage him for what they are always referring to as his communist sympathies. Though we are never told or shown what those supposedly hardcore anti-American inclinations amount to.

Mr. Trumbo spends the entire movie hammering away at writing his famous screenplays on a manual typewriter, either at his desk or from his bathtub. His industriousness is unparalleled, his creativity knows no bounds. When he’s not writing, he’s meeting with his fellow dissident screenwriters to discuss legal strategies if subpoenaed by the House un-American Activities Committee.

He is eventually called before the committee, and convicted of contempt of court for not answering “that” question (“have you now or have you ever been…”). After serving jail time he is right back at it, though. His only respite from work seems to be complaining with one or another of his brethren about how they have been “blacklisted” and forced to ghost-write without screen credit or proper compensation.

SERIOUS GEO-POLITICAL ISSUES

Naturally there were many serious concerns interwoven into this issue at the time, many more than a two-hour dramatization could be expected to address, let alone do justice to. But this movie does seem to leave out a lot of important stuff.

Mostly what it leaves out is that Dalton Trumbo, in addition to being a talented screenwriter and a devoted family man, was also apparently attracted to what some have referred to as the revolutionary violence of Bolshevism. It’s also been duly noted that he seemed to oblige every twist and turn of the Moscow party line.

Before the movie begins, the following introduction appears in white lettering against a black screen:

During the 1930s, in response to the Great Depression and the rise of fascism, thousands of Americans joined the Communist Party of the United States.

This sounds straightforward enough, because, well, the Great Depression was horrible, and who doesn’t think fascism is evil?

Today most readers will automatically think this mention of “fascism” refers specifically to Hitler’s Germany. Eventually, it did. But before Hitler, the focus of the CPUSA was the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Due to the international political climate at the time, Spain’s internal conflict was characterized in a variety of ways: a class struggle, a war of religion, a struggle between dictatorship and republican democracy, and between fascism and communism.

So the “rise of fascism” meant different things to different people.

Though Mr. Trumbo did not officially join the Communist Party of the United States until 1943, he was part of the anti-fascist Popular Front coalition of communists and liberals in the late 1930s, at the time of the Spanish Civil War.

When this group “transferred” their protest from what they saw as Spain’s version of fascism to Hitler’s, their effort was undermined in August 1939, when Russia signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Many party members in the U.S. left the cause in disgust at this contradiction, but those that remained adapted to the revised communist party line, which was now “pro-peace.”

Dalton Trumbo was known to be a fervent isolationist at first, opposing the United States’ entry into World War II. He gave a speech in February 1940, four months before the Nazi blitzkrieg of France, in which he argued against our entering the war on the pretense of “preserving democracy.” He considered that justification “a lie, a deliberate deception to lead us to our own destruction. We will not die in order that our children may inherit a permanent military dictatorship.”

This speech was widely seen as a rebuke to New Deal liberals. The CPUSA began demonizing President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a war-monger, and ordered its members to be pro-peace and anti-FDR in their work and statements.

When Hitler overran France, Trumbo’s comment seemed to justify the Nazi brutality: “To the vanquished all conquerors are inhuman.”

His quirky 1941 novel “The Remarkable Andrew” charged FDR with “black treason” for seeking to aid England in its desperate battle with the Nazis.

Then in June 1941, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the CPUSA did an about-face and became pro-war, now supportive of FDR’s aggressive behavior toward the Germans.

So one begins to gain an appreciation of how Dalton Trumbo’s political activism on the international level could be a bit incoherent, and also somewhat prickly.


in the marketplace of ideas, some are better than others…


Be that as it may, we’re all supposed to be entitled to our opinions. But let’s face it, the odds are some of those opinions will be off the mark from time-to-time. This will be true even though the person formulating them is doing his or her best to figure things out in a responsible manner.

For example: Later in Mr. Trumbo’s career, after the Blacklist had been broken and he was back in the high life, he was invited to do a screenplay of William Styron’s 1967 novel, “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” about the Virginia slave who led a rampage of rape and murder in 1831.

Trumbo wrote back:

“(I)n carrying through his rebellion Turner did nothing more than accept a principle of white Christian violence which had enslaved all of Africa, and used it for the first time in American history as a weapon against white Christians.”

So then, we are to understand, it is Christianity, specifically as practiced by white people, that had been (and by implication, still is) responsible for the social inequity we see all around us?

In the movie Mr. Trumbo is seen giving a interview that is broadcast on television from his home. It takes place after the screenplay he wrote for “The Brave One” under the pseudonym Robert Rich won the 1957 Academy Award for Best Story, and rumors were swirling he was working on a screenplay for the new Stanley Kubrick movie of the Leon Uris novel “Spartacus,” starring Kirk Douglas.

It’s tagged on YouTube as the “A Hideous Waste of Life” scene, if you want to check it out.

What he is given to say in this interview about the House un-American Activities Committee investigations may well be true:

“It was convened to uncover enemy agents, expose communist conspiracies, and write anti-sedition laws.. Here we are, thousands of hours and millions of dollars later… agents uncovered, zero… conspiracies exposed, zero… laws written, zero. All they do is deny people the right to work…”

But that doesn’t mean there was never anything seditious in what Dalton Trumbo said or wrote. Only that the hysteria of the Blacklist wasn’t the appropriate way to address the situation. So this is my only problem with the movie: It can’t help making him out to be a saint.

When we reduce legitimate conflicts to fables of heroes and villains, it’s easy to miss what is really going on.


defending or attacking the status quo, take your pick…


There is always going to be a case to be made for either attacking or defending the status quo. Because humanity can always be said to be doing its level best at any given moment, given the built-in handicaps. Yet in all of human history we have never quite gotten it right.

What makes our disagreements so messy is how the principled defenders and the equally-principled attackers tend to get a little carried away with themselves. Both sides often go a little overboard in advocating their respective positions.

Those who were concerned back then over what they saw as subversive attempts to undermine the American way of life were not imaging things. But they needed to understand our way of life was (and still is) not without its inherent flaws and injustices, deserving of criticism and in need of repair.

On the other hand, those pointing out the flaws and injustices should have been more careful not to align themselves with political regimes or systems of thought that didn’t solve the problem under discussion, but only made things worse.

What on Earth was the appeal of Communism to an intelligent man like Dalton Trumbo? One could quickly point to his contrarian nature and his life-long concern for workers’ rights, I suppose. In our day we think of workers’ rights as being more of a “socialist” thing, rather immediately associating it with communism. That’s probably because communism has lost whatever cache it may have once had, and Bernie Sanders almost captured the Democratic nomination for President in this year’s primary race.

So maybe we should begin by asking how Communism differs from Socialism.

The answer to that question seems to be “not much.” One dictionary says Communism is both a political as well as an economic theory, while Socialism is just an economic theory. “Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the German philosophers, propounded the concept of communism whereas Robert Owen propounded Socialism.”

Maybe that’s so, but we’ve all heard of Marx and Engels, while nobody makes reference to Robert Owen these days, do they?

Another dictionary says “Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by the social ownership of the means of production, and workers self-management of enterprise.”

So which is it? A reasonable summary of the situation might go something like this:

The communist regime of Soviet Russia is best known for implementing a socialist economic agenda after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Vladimir Lenin seized power once the Czar and his wife (Nicholas and Alexandria) were deposed.

That “implementation of a socialist economic agenda” was accompanied by widespread violence and religious persecution. When Joseph Stalin succeeded Lenin, who was no angel his own damn self, Stalin went on to become the only mass-murderer of the 20th Century who out-did Hitler in that shameful category.

The military excesses of the Soviet Union during this period should by all means have been condemned. It’s also easy to understand how the Americans public may have become wary of that country’s ideological influence on the world stage after the close of World War II.

But those concerned Americans should have tried harder to understand what was really going on. Communism and socialism have never been anything more than a reaction to the excesses and injustices of capitalism. Why can’t we see that?

Maybe because the romantic allure of heroes and villains clouds our vision at times.

It prevents us from seeing that no matter how bad an opposing ideology may seem to us, or may in fact be in actual practice, that does not mean our preferred ideology is above reproach.

At this point I can only shed so much sweat over how people like Hedda Hopper or John Wayne conducted themselves in the 1950s when faced with what they viewed as the Red Scare. Even if it was unfair to jail Dalton Trumbo, and force him to spend ten years of his writing career “under cover.”


all opinions should be heard…


As the makers of Trumbo now tell us, the moral of their story is “all opinions should be heard.”

I agree. The problem is that every political episode down through history, including our contemporary political scenarios, is complicated – just as the Spanish Civil War was. This makes it difficult at times to clearly identify who is fighting on the side of the angels.

Often it seems no one ever escapes with their honor unscathed.

Maybe that’s because in the heat of the moment we are never able to conduct a rational exchange that explores the relative merits of ideas that appear to be in stark contrast. We retain a core susceptibility to choosing sides, and this hinders our progress.

It’s much more difficult to keep the urge toward partisanship at bay, and piece together the best of all possible worlds from the available options at our disposal.

Maybe that’s what Dalton Trumbo thought he was doing. But surely taking up with the Communist Party of the United States was not the right way to go about it.

And we are falling into a version of the same trap now, when in our own political moment such principled crusaders for economic justice as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are being dismissed out of hand as “socialists.”

Here’s the thing, folks: It doesn’t have to be all one thing or the other. We can respect the concept of private property, while still seeing there might be value in limiting the absolute private ownership of the means of production in certain situations.

Should utilities be privately owned? Should access to the internet be privately owned? Isn’t this what the anti-trust movement of the early 20th century was all about?

Should health care really be left exposed to the vagaries of supply and demand, and the profit motive?

Isn’t the idea of workers’ self-management of enterprise worth a closer look? Wasn’t the labor movement an attempt to protect those who lack an ownership interest from being treated as no better than a piece of equipment that can be depreciated on a balance sheet? Or disposed of when it breaks down?

While it may sound hopelessly simplistic to say so, both sides in this (and every other) debate usually have a valid point buried somewhere in their contentious arguments.


he who has the gold makes the rules….


Since fiscal conservatives currently hold the upper hand, it is they who must concede that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are raising legitimate concerns and suggesting viable policy initiatives. Such politicians are not trying to undermine the American way of life – they are trying to improve upon it. Those who have succeeded under the current rules of economic engagement have to be willing to look past their own nose, past their own family’s success and comfort.

The fact that our founding philosophy of “every man should fend for himself in this, our glorious land of opportunity” has worked out well for respectable Republicans should not blind such fine upstanding citizens to the economic plight of so many others.

We wouldn’t need to be discussing a federally-mandated minimum wage, if successful industries would distribute a more equitable percentage of their profits to the working stiffs who help generate that profit. Instead of keeping wages down in order to enhance investor return. This is the fundamental, historic beef with capitalism: It rewards capital at the expense of labor.

We wouldn’t need to be talking about a wealth tax if our outrageously successful movers and shakers didn’t exert so much energy trying to avoid their legitimate tax burden.

And there would be no Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren on the political scene today if our captains of industry would only conduct their affairs with the Golden Rule in mind. Just as there would never have been a Karl Marx or a Friedrich Engel if the Robbers Barons hadn’t done so much plundering of the working class on the way to their outsized fortunes in the Gilded Age.

So a tip of the hat goes out in memoriam to Dalton Trumbo for his life-long concern over workers’ rights. He was barking up the right tree on that one. But it doesn’t mean some of his other ideas weren’t kind of wacky.

Too bad he couldn’t bring himself to fully embrace the Christian ethos he expressed so well at times, and make it the animating force of his life. An example of which is the 1970 speech he gave to a gathering of Hollywood screenwriters, that closes out the 2015 theatrical release Trumbo on such a transcendent note.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr
May 25, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

12 + 9 =