Select Page

Wasted Years?

Wasted Years?

April 5, 2020 (909 words)

Last month’s directive to stay home and shelter in place to help combat the spread of the coronavirus has finally forced me to check out the world of YouTube videos. (Entering the field so late preserves my reputation for always being at least ten years behind the curve on any innovation, a perennial source of amusement to my immediate family.)

My first forays in this “new” medium have been with music videos of favorite musicians playing favorite songs. I’ve learned you can just about always find an audio-only version of the original studio recording, if that’s what you are looking for.

Or that original album cut maybe also accompanied by a now-dated and somewhat cheesy music video. (Which betrays the fact that much of my favorite music was recorded some time ago.)

But what’s even better are the live performances of those songs. And in most cases there are a number of different renditions available for viewing, from different concert settings, and frequently featuring different arrangements. I’m partial to those live performances where things aren’t so amplified, where you can actually hear all the instruments being played.

One that stands out for me is the updated concert YouTube video of the Pete Townshend (b.1945) song “Pure and Easy.” I liked the tune well enough when it came out on his debut solo album of 1972, “Who Came First.” He was reported to have played all the instruments, including drums.

But the live version of this song from a November 27, 2013 concert performance is a real gem. It’s filled out, fully realized. What a great, great song. And the old man singing and leading the small orchestra on his acoustic guitar is in fine form, too.

Another example of this “better with age” concept is the James Taylor song “Mexico.” I loved the original when it was released on his “Gorilla” album in 1975. But the arrangement featured in a March 2013 concert given at the Beacon Theater in New York City is even more inspired.

In addition to the wealth of performance videos, I’m also finding myself drawn to the various interviews with musicians that are readily available. Some are a bit dated, but many of them are fairly recent.


James Taylor talks about his eighteen year addiction…


And speaking of James Taylor (b.1948), he has a handful of semi-current interviews on YouTube. Like many of his contemporaries in the folk-rock genre, the now much older musician is thoughtful and articulate, eloquent even.

He is particularly forthright about his eighteen year addiction to heroin, and what a dead-end such an addition is for anyone caught up in it.

At the start of one of these videos, Oprah Winfrey’s “Master Class,” our famous media-mogul host intones: “James Taylor lost eighteen years of his life to his addiction.” Mr. Taylor is in close-up throughout, and speaks directly into the camera.

He talks to us about many things, including how creativity requires solitude. His songs get their start, he tells us, with at least three days of alone time, which is needed “to push the ideas around.”

Also as part of the Oprah presentation, he again covers the topic of his addition, and this time shares what it took for him to finally shake his habit. He regained his body and his nervous system only through physical exertion. “You have to go to boot camp,” he calmly reports in his good-natured manner.

The story of admonition and redemption rings true. But there is also a truth that is not quite getting acknowledged, even if no one is guilty of outright glossing over it either.

Nobody hides the fact that James Taylor’s eighteen years of addiction ended in 1983. But neither is anyone drawing attention to how this coincided with the most musically productive period of his life.

This too easily allows the average viewer to assemble their own time line, so to speak, where the dreaded eighteen years of his heroin addiction took place after the height of his fame in the 1970s.

As if the fall off in his public profile was the result of his addiction, an addiction that we are inclined to assume robbed him of his ability to write songs, or function as a working musician.

Of course as we listen to the 70 year-old Taylor we are thankful a favorite artist has come out the other side in one piece. We are all glad he was able to get clean.

There is every reason to believe him when he tells us he would not still be alive and performing his music today if he hadn’t. (Another of my favorite musicians from this era, Lowell George, who was just as prolific as James Taylor in the 1970s, did not get clean, and did not survive.)

The only thing I have a problem with is the arc of the story we may be assembling for ourselves.

Before we get swept up and carried away in the somber, sentimental tale that these were “wasted years,” I suggest we pause to reflect on just how much of Taylor’s best music was composed during this same eighteen year stretch.

This is not meant as an advertisement for opioids, by any means. Only to say some artistic types clearly have something to show for their past addictions.

While it is always beneficial for anyone who may have indulged in the past to “Return to Earth,” not everyone’s “Lost Weekend” is the same.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
April 5, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

2 + 5 =

New Found Fame

New Found Fame

April 3, 2020 (3,956 words)

Today’s story concerns the new found fame being enjoyed by one E. Michael Jones, PhD. He was born in Philadelphia in 1948, and has been toiling in relative obscurity as an author and journalist since starting his first magazine on a shoe-string budget in 1980.

Jones graduated Temple University with his doctoral degree in 1979, and promptly moved his wife and then two children to South Bend, Indiana, to take a job as an assistant professor of American Literature at Saint Mary’s College.

When he managed to get himself fired in that first year for being against abortion – a stance one would not consider controversial at a Catholic institution – he abruptly left academe for his magazine start-up. At least that’s how the tale has come down to us. I’m guessing it may have been a little more complicated than that, since things are usually not as simple as they appear on the surface.

Looking back this early episode clearly established what has proven to be his MO. E. Michael Jones was born to take on the establishment, any establishment. Speaking truth to power has long been his middle name, a trait we his loyal readers find endearing.

His magazine was originally called Fidelity before being re-christened Culture Wars in the mid-1990s. I have been keeping up with it, and with the extended non-fiction work of its irascible editor, since the mid-1990s name change.

As with most everything else of value in my adult life, I was turned on to Mike Jones and his notorious rag by my late father.

To elaborate on that personal note for a moment, I only became receptive to me Da’s influence once I made peace with him, which happened after I stopped considering him a failure for always being financially strapped, for not turning his 1949 college degree (B.A. in English) into a lucrative career.

This snippet of my biography is a variation on that famous quip of Mark Twain’s. You know the one: “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

In my case I was eighteen or so when I formally disowned my father and about thirty-five when I came to my senses. This more-or-less coincided with my abandoning the Catholic faith at age twenty for a variety of New Age pursuits, and officially returning to the fold at the age of forty.

But let’s not lose track of my intended theme, which is Culture Wars magazine. The incisive cultural anthropology of E. Michael Jones was not the first thing I encountered in my reconsideration of belief and practice, though it certainly represented an important strain that shed lots of light as I made my way back.


providing an important affirmation…


EMJ has also been instrumental in kick-starting my late-in-life amateur writing career. When my father died on December 1, 2012, I wrote Mike a short note. It extolled the role his magazine had played in my eventual reconciliation with my old man.

Next thing I knew, it ran as the lead letter-to-the-editor in the January 2013 issue of Culture Wars.

After that I started sending him other things, a few of which he saw fit to print in the magazine. Trying to get stuff published over the years in venues like The Philadelphia Inquirer, with strict rules about limiting one’s word count, it was an important affirmation when Mike told me to please submit longer pieces because, he said, “I have a magazine to fill each month.”

Everything I tried to write from that point forward was geared towards qualifying for a spot in Culture Wars. It was a fun few years, downright thrilling whenever I saw something I wrote appear in print.


my efforts no longer “fit” my favorite magazine…


The thrill began to fade, though, when Mike took to editing my submissions. He had a pretty heavy hand, as I recall, often gutting a given piece and leaving it bereft of meaning. It wasn’t long before I came to realize he was only looking to a non-credentialed contributor like me for two things: be a complimentary voice, and help fill out his magazine in any given month.

It was time for me to move on, so to speak. Not everything I wrote was going to be grist for the Culture Wars mill.

Even in making this decision to break-away, Mike played a pivotal role. It happened serendipitously, without his direct knowledge, in the fall of 2017. He was in Philadelphia to give a talk, an annual ritual he had maintained for as long as I had been a subscriber. Those visits had always been hosted by the same leader of a very active local pro-life movement, until she aged out of the role.

On this particular evening he told the small gathering how he had started to gain some traction with simple YouTube videos. People, he told us, were discovering him on the internet, “and buying a book.”

In hindsight I guess this explains why he hasn’t been back since. He went and found a new business model.

Sitting there that night it occurred to me that I, too, could join the 21st century. I needn’t appease an editor for my writing to see the light of day. It took me a little while to get it going, but my web site/blog started in February 2018, and so far I haven’t run out of things to talk about.

A GREAT WRITER IN FULL

Most of us have our favorite authors, and E. Michael Jones has certainly been one of mine. But there are so many good ones, past and present. As the frequency of my own scribbling has increased, it has enhanced my appreciation of others’ work. By the same token, I’ve concluded no one writer, no matter how skilled, has the last word on anything – though Mike Jones does come pretty close.

Mike’s specialty, of course, is the “big book,” meticulously researched and annotated out the wazoo. The About page on the Culture Wars web site refers to his “archival research,” and man, nobody does it better.

Someone once wrote in to the magazine to say if there was any justice in the world, Jones would be ensconced at a prestigious university somewhere, as a Dean of this-or-that school of study. Pick from any number of fields he has developed expertise in: maybe History, or Political Science, or possibly Economics.

Come to think of it, Mike’s work is so exhaustive it’s worthy of having its own dedicated school of study. One could say each of his “big books” amount to a comprehensive curriculum in its given subject matter.

Precisely because they contain so much information, spread out over so many pages (and with such small type-face), Mike’s books are really meant to be taught, rather than read.

That one man has generated so much detailed scholarship is incredible. That he expects any of us mere mortals to actually read it all from cover-to-cover is completely unrealistic.

Though we know academia was not the path he chose, and who are any of us to suggest a different destiny for such a gifted writer, one can’t help but think Mike’s work would be better served by being presented to wave after wave of bright, perceptive students coming through the doors year after year, who would imbibe his ideas, and help decipher and disseminate his message to a wider audience.

But such speculation is pointless, isn’t it? Mike’s work no doubt owes a great deal to the unique set of circumstances he has lived through. So we should probably just content ourselves with what his talent has produced, and not indulge a frivolous game of what might have been.


have economic imperatives hurt the work?…


Even so, what if Mike didn’t need to sing for his supper by working on the magazine? Being financially forced to come out with a new issue every month has slowed the writing of his books. And it’s limited the time he spends on editing and shaping his own work.

Now it’s certainly possible Mike would vehemently disagree with this assessment. He may not have felt the least bit hampered all these years. He may in fact feel he long ago found his sweet spot, his groove, what works best for him. But looking at this from the outside, much of his output – as spectacular as it undeniably is – could stand a little condensing, a little streamlining.

While his long magazine articles have always served as previews of what would end up in his next opus, that’s also where one can readily spot the need for some selective editing. There is often some very obvious redundancy, some obvious repetition. Mike is like a master storyteller who has a tendency to repeat his favorite stories.

Having to write on a deadline, and “having to fill a magazine every month,” has created a perfect storm that may inspire and fuel a white-hot stream of consciousness technique, but doesn’t lend itself to going back over and cleaning things up a bit.

Of course this might just be a matter of my own personal preference. And despite my contrary opinion on this aspect of his writing, I readily admit what Mike does on even his worst day far exceeds my capability.

LOTS OF NEW FRIENDS

And what he is does has always warranted a much wider audience than he has been able to attract on his own, as a one-man band, with no academic affiliation, no wealthy patron, and no real support system to speak of.

The good news along these lines is that something unprecedented in the history of Culture Wars took place just twelve months ago, in the spring of 2019, and has increased the E. Michael Jones audience dramatically. I learned about this development via a letter he snail-mailed out to all his subscribers last fall.

In Mike’s letter dated September 21, 2019, he tells us:

“Beginning March of this year, we have received unprecedented exposure on the internet and on YouTube in particular. After hovering at around 8,000 subscribers the numbers of both our subscribers and views took off to the point where we now have over 40,000 subscribers and over three million total views. Our recent video on Pewdieple and the ADL got over 133,000 views in less than a week.”

I have never been much of a YouTube person (though with the COVID-19 outbreak and the shelter in place order, that is starting to change), but three million total views sounds pretty good, even to an uninitiated individual such as myself.

And while 8,000 subscribers is nothing to sneeze at, being able to see that number increase five-fold is pretty amazing.

Of course Culture Wars still doesn’t come close to The Atlantic (480,000 subscribers), or Harper’s (105,000 subscribers), or The National Review (90,000 subscribers). But for an opinion journal started on a wing and a prayer to hit 40,000 subscribers is quite the achievement.

(In comparison, the high-tone First Things, with its stable of notable contributors and financial backers, only distributes in the range of 30,000 copies each month.)

Keep in mind this is a guy who used to drive to Philadelphia once a year with his wife, Ruth, who doubles as his office manager, in a beat-up old minivan that was donated by a subscriber.

I would help them cart the heavy boxes of his books into the empty family restaurants where he used to give his early Saturday morning talks. The objective was to sell a few books, and maybe sign up a new subscriber or two, in hopes of generating gas money back to Indiana.

So for all these many years this man has been running the quintessential hand-to-mouth operation. Then suddenly at age 70 (he turned 71 last May), Mike Jones was given the gift of internet popularity. And scored the financial windfall we the great unwashed are always hearing such popularity can result in.

A quick review of the math shows that 32,000 new subscribers at $49.99 a head comes to approximately $1,600,000. But even that extreme largesse did not prompt me to give the matter much thought, beyond emailing Mike to offer my congratulations, and tell him I thought this good fortune couldn’t be happening to a better, more deserving person.


the man who helped Mike Jones explode on the internet…


Then a month later I ran into a friend and fellow Culture Wars aficionado who was kind enough to fill in some of the missing details. I learned the guy responsible for spiking E. Michael Jones’s internet popularity is a comedian-actor-musician by the name of Owen Benjamin (b.1980).

While young Mr. Benjamin may not be on my radar, apparently he achieved a measure of commercial success before deciding to walk away from Hollywood and go “off grid,” pursing a healthy lifestyle and a homesteading agenda. He stayed in touch with his fan base through his YouTube channel, which I’m told has scads of followers, some of whom send him monthly membership dues to get “full channel access.”

Through YouTube Mr. Benjamin shared with his many fans how his search for meaning and truth led him to the Catholic faith, and then to the work of E. Michael Jones, who struck Benjamin as having the answers to all the things he’d been discussing on his channel for years.

This attention then set off a wildfire, I am told, with Mike starting to get interviewed by everybody on the internet. As my friend explained, this amounts to “red pilling” the twenty and thirty-somethings on the Catholic worldview of everything, especially contemporary culture.

The phenomenon has even been given a name by its participants: “Logos Rising,” which I note is also the title of Mike’s latest book, due out any time now.

So then, it’s been quite a whirlwind of activity for E. Michael Jones and Culture Wars magazine in just the past year.

LOTS OF NEW ENEMIES, TOO

EMJ has never been shy about tackling difficult subjects, and he’s made his reputation by successfully challenging the accepted narrative of whatever subject he tackles.

The About page of the web site describes it this way: “Culture Wars has become the world’s main resource in understanding how cultural warfare has advanced the interests of the American Empire and its systems of political control.”

Defenders of that empire, and executors of those systems of control, are not happy when someone calls them out. So Mike has always attracted his share of critics. The attacks are often facile, as if those advancing them are confident public opinion can be easily swayed back in favor of conventional wisdom.

This, by the way, is what makes tackling difficult subjects so challenging. It’s not enough to do a thorough job of researching and articulating your position. You are to some extent at the mercy of your audience’s ability to take it all in: their willingness to spend the amount of time needed to properly discern the information you have invested so much energy in assembling.

When Mike’s platform was limited to the printed word, there was only so much trouble he could get himself into, so to speak – only so much controversy he could stir up.

Now that he has recently gone viral, his admittedly challenging message has become click bait for haters. Mike seems unperturbed by the uptick in vitriol being directed his way. Again from his snail-mail letter to subscribers, dated September 21, 2019:

“The unprecedented interest has caused a change in policy in the way our enemies deal with what we have to say. As soon as it became apparent we were making significant inroads with an audience in its twenties, the ADL and other Jewish organizations abandoned their policy of dynamic silence and began attacking us by name.

“…Jewish organizations have a big gun, but that gun has only one bullet, and the name of that bullet is anti-Semitism. Once they fire that gun and miss, there is no second cartridge in the chamber of their cultural weapons.

“They have now reached a point where they have no response when someone responds rationally to their accusations. Their power is on the wane.”

Here our old friend E. Michael Jones seems to be embracing that well known marketing adage, “there is no such thing as bad publicity.”

He may well believe the power of his enemies is on the wane, perhaps because he is confident in the accuracy of his positions, and excited his message is suddenly attracting so much attention from young people.

The ADL and other Jewish organizations, however, will keep repeating their baseless charges, confident public opinion can be easily swayed back in favor of conventional wisdom.

In this instance our intrepid hero may be over-valuing the spike in internet views and magazine subscribers Owen Benjamin is responsible for to mean there’s been some sort of sea change in the perception of the population at large.


thorny subjects can be easily misconstrued…


Make no mistake, though, I am firmly in Mike’s corner on this point. He has clearly explained and documented his position in book after book, and magazine article after magazine article, so that no reasonable person who possesses a smidgen of goodwill could possibly conclude he is an anti-Semite.

Of course, what E. Michael Jones has been doing all these years is much more than merely staking out “his position.” He has courageously addressed the subversive notion the Catholic Church has always been anti-Semitic at its core. That it’s had a serious chip on its shoulder for the last two thousand years, and only just got around to mending the errors if its institutional ways at Vatican II (1962-65).

Mike is to be commended for the yeoman work he has done throughout his career in carefully parsing out not only the pertinent documents of Vatican II, but also the historical record of formal Church teaching on this admittedly highly-sensitive issue.

Allow me to insert another personal note here, if I may. During my early life as a cradle Catholic – going to Sunday Mass and hearing a weekly homily from the pulpit, receiving the sacraments, and attending Catholic school for twelve years – never once did I hear even an off-hand remark critical of Jewish people.

Let alone any formal statement blaming the entire race for “killing Christ” – this being the alleged source of Christian society’s so-called inbred animosity toward Jews.

Not one teacher, or fellow student, or nun, or priest ever expressed any such opinion. Not my mother or father, not the parents of my classmates. Nobody. The subject never came up.

In fact, all I ever heard from my elders and betters, year in and year out, was “we all killed Christ.” And “he died for all our sins.”

This is not to suggest the concept of anti-Jewish prejudice does not exist. All sorts of prejudice exists, unfortunately, towards all manner of people. Only that the purported misdeeds of the Jewish segment of the population is not a major pre-occupation, one way or the other, among those who profess to be Catholic.

As for the historical record, and what went down way back when, I dare say most decent Catholics are painfully aware of their own, daily rejection of Christ and his difficult, challenging teaching to worry much about whatever mistakes may have been made by the local populace, or the local religious leaders of the day, some two thousand years ago.

But the quiet testimony of private lives holds no currency. And the YouTube and podcast and social media universe does not lend itself to detailed explanations, or a sober consideration of complicated subjects.


sound bites, sloganeering, and snap judgements…


This new universe strikes me (and many others) as being about sound bites and sloganeering. Frequented by people who like to make snap judgements, and who don’t typically read anything longer than a tweet. Who are most comfortable noisily condemning out of hand any individual or group they are convinced represents evil incarnate.

That makes the recent spike in Mike’s internet presence a double-edged sword.

The combination of his cantankerous public persona and his counter-cultural theory of everything may have an immediate, instinctive appeal to young people. Much like Bernie Sanders’ message does, come to think of it.

And just like the principled Senator Sanders, the equally principled E. Michael Jones could use a dose of whatever interpersonal quality it is that helps win over those who are not already true believers.

I say this knowing full well we are all prisoners of our personality quirks, and it’s hard to control how one initially comes across to perfect strangers.

My sense is Mike justifies his sometimes prickly demeanor as the only worthy approach to take toward those who are actively (and successfully) undermining the integrity of our lives.

While his read of the overall situation is sound, the day-to-day tactics he employs in interviews could use a tweak or two.

In waging his war against legitimate enemies in such a swashbuckling style, he inadvertently attracts a lot of unfocused energy that is not as constructive as his own, is not as purified of unproductive motivations as his has been, by virtue of the years he’s spent in solitary study and contemplation.

I am referring to how he has allowed himself to be interviewed by all sorts on the internet, some of whom have questionable associations themselves. Or who aren’t nearly as articulate and thoughtful as he is.

Mike may think his superb erudition will distinguish him regardless of the circumstance, will help him rise above a less-than-reputable encounter. That the truth will out, as the saying goes.

I only hope the opposite doesn’t prove to be the case, with years of stellar work being irrevocably damaged in a matter of months.

My feeling is this: If your aim is to discuss serious issues of high moral import in the public square, where reaching consensus on anything is a daunting task, it’s important to maintain a certain level of decorum and not indulge in casual asides than can be easily misinterpreted and taken as callous insults.

No matter how true you may understand those asides to be.

If you are trying to communicate “big truths” that run counter to conventional wisdom, you must keep in mind your audience’s limited ability to process big chunks of counter-cultural information at any one time.

In my opinion it would help his cause if E. Michael Jones would be more cognizant of this fact when he steps into the internet spotlight.

OUR CHAMPION, FOR BETTER OR WORSE

But he is unquestionably our champion, a once-in-a-generation spokesperson we should all be glad has been sent our way. We really have no choice but to support him and wish him will. Praying for him wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.

Surely a man of Dr. Jones’ stunning investigative and literary accomplishments can be forgiven a few minor flaws. Considering those accomplishments, how scary-amazing is it that Mike has been able to learn all the things he has learned, and write about them so well?

If he had ever managed to master the polished, public persona component as well, he’d probably be able to walk on water by now, and we might have to lock him up for impersonating a messiah.

As it is, he’s just a surprisingly likeable (once you get to know him) old curmudgeon at heart, with a bad haircut and a bow tie.

Oh yeah, and an encyclopedic knowledge of just-about-everything at his disposal.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. April 3, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

10 + 3 =

Just Trying to Help

Just Trying to Help

March 28, 2020 (1,753 words)

Many fine people of my acquaintance, and many worthwhile social commentators, continue to strut and fret over what they see as a dire trend in society today: a rising segment of the American population who consider “socialism in some form” to be a good thing.

As I’ve mentioned before, this is really a linguistic issue, rather than a debate over divergent ideology.

The people who are now expressing their approval of socialism to pollsters are in fact merely registering their complaint with how capitalism has come to be practiced.

To prove my point, how many Americans do you know who are running around clamoring for the formal mechanisms by which socialism sets out to achieve its grand promises: government ownership of the economy and the abolishment of private property?

This seems obvious to me. But apparently it’s not so obvious to my many fine friends and all those worthy social commentators. I continue to read overwrought diatribes that feel compelled to remind us “history has shown decisively that socialism, practically and economically, is a failed system.”

It’s bad enough when conservative Republicans muddy the waters with this historically accurate but unrelated observation, stubbornly insisting a “complaint with capitalism” is the same as an “approval of socialism.” They can be excused for playing dirty to win or retain political power.

But when earnest, well-intentioned Catholic people get tangled up in the same specious argument, it truly pains me.

I am saddened that the issue of economic justice, which is at the heart of the social doctrine of the Church, starting with the Gospels and elaborated upon by every Pope since Leo XIII in the late 1880s, has now been determined to fall under the heading of “socialism.”

How did this happen? When did the call for a living wage, a bedrock Catholic concept as articulated in papal encyclical after papal encyclical, get confused with the socialist promise of an abundance of material goods for everyone, and of a utopian condition for all mankind?


tripping over themselves to avoid the truth…


Conservative Catholic commentators are now tripping over themselves, selectively quoting a variety of reliable sources, to show that socialism is unequivocally condemned by the Church – a fact no one disputes, by the way.

But they cleverly avoid – or willfully misinterpret – the sections from those same sources that call out the dangers and pitfalls of unfettered capitalism.

Mind you, this is nothing new. It’s been going on since at least the 1980s, when folks like Michael Novak made a big splash by giving a Catholic imprimatur to the Reagan Revolution.

The phenomenon was repeated after John Paul II promulgated his encyclical Centesimus Annus in 1991, on the hundredth anniversary of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum.

The same conservative Catholic intelligentsia quickly mobilized to cover over what JPII had to say about free-market capitalism in the age of “greed is good.” His observations, of course, were simply a contemporary re-boot of what our old friend Leo XIII said about the Robber Barons in The Gilded Age.

This current propaganda campaign being waged against the phantom specter of “socialism” is no doubt inspired by the presence of a couple of Democrats in this year’s primary race who’ve had the audacity to promote Catholic social teaching on economics. Even though they never quite get around to acknowledging their favorite “give us our daily bread” causes as such.


being tarred and feathered with an unfortunate sobriquet…


Besides not bothering to properly identify as Catholic sympathizers when it comes to economic justice, one of our inadvertent proponents, as we know, left himself open to being tarred and feathered with the unfortunate sobriquet of “socialist,” by continuing to insist he is a “democratic socialist.”

In the end, though, I don’t blame this incorrigible-yet-principled older gentleman for the awkward formulation, since he too, is limited by the existing linguistic options at his disposal.

Yes, folks, this is a very serious issue that is being butchered by our leading commentators, and we all need to do a much better job of teasing out the truth.

The first step to improving our understanding is to set aside the iron-clad belief that conservative Republican fiscal policy is the perfect embodiment of Christian principles. It most decidedly is not. Neither is liberal Democratic policy, it should go without saying. But we have to stop thinking we’ve correctly identified who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. It’s not that simple.

If we can do that, maybe we can stop twisting Catholic teaching to fit a particular political ideology.

My remarks today are being directed at many people I know and like, and many writers I read with interest. In some cases I don’t just like the people I am disagreeing with, I admire them. Take Father George Rutler, who has this to say in a recent weekly column in the parish bulletin at the Church of Saint Michael in New York City, where he is the pastor:

“Materialism, fantasy, and false worship were temptations Satan thrust at Christ, and he is tempting our nation the same way. These seductions are a formula for Socialism, which Winston Churchill in 1948 defined as ‘the philosophy failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.’

“A poorly educated generation succumbs to adolescent ideology, bereft of history, unaware that a cult of state has been a consistent failure, costing countless millions of lives in modern times.”

Here again we are being treated to historically accurate but non-pertinent observations, this time by the otherwise admirable Fr. Rutler.

(Editor’s Note: There are those who say our clerics should steer clear of politics. Not me. I welcome such involvement, and such commentary, with open arms. But then again, if you’re going to weigh in, let’s try to get it right, shall we?)

To review, then: The concept of universal healthcare does not violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, it validates it.

There are some decisions that should be made at the local level, as close as possible to the people being affected by those decisions. While there are other concerns that need to be taken up and carried out by a higher authority. Healthcare falls into the latter category.


subsidiarity is not a defacto argument against government…


Generally speaking, how we organize society for the benefit of the common good doesn’t have to be this pitched battle between government and the market, between government and individual freedom.

In the expansive view of the Catholic Church, government and business should be working together to achieve a shared goal of a just and equitable (NOT equal) society.

Cooperation is the mantra of the Church. Competition, on the other hand, is the rallying cry of pluralism and liberal democracy. It is only in our modern age that we have decided, with the help of many astute and persuasive thinkers, that government is the sworn enemy of human flourishing.

I would suggest a major reconsideration is in order. And that everything any of us need to know on this subject can be found in Catholic social doctrine.

That doctrine “is a branch of moral theology that comprises an organic development of the truth of the Gospel about the dignity of the human person and his social dimension offering principles for reflection, criteria for judgement, and norms and guidance for action.”

The above is taken from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 509. And what a clean and concise summation it is, don’t you think?

One might also say this doctrine is rooted in the natural law and Scripture, and is an ever-evolving element of morality that deals with current issues within the social structure of society: political, economic, and cultural.

Allow me to close with a few words from Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (1914-2000). Father Hardon remains an orthodox hero to many. Known for his academic rigor, as applied in the over forty books he wrote on religion and theology. He expresses the norms of the Church’s social doctrine as follows:

“Any social system governed by economic factors alone is morally wrong; any theory or ideology in which profit is the exclusive standard in business is morally unjustified; and any system which reduces persons to mere instruments for procuring financial gain leads to idolatry of money and the spread of atheism.”

That’s from Hardon’s “The Faith: A Popular Guide Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” pp 214-15. Yet another beautifully short and sweet summation of what we need to know. (This is the kind of straightforward, no-nonsense stuff that brought me back to the faith at age forty, after a twenty year hiatus.)

Is it not glaringly obvious that Father Hardon is describing our current version of capitalism? At least as it has been functioning since 1962, when Milton Friedman gave us the new commandment of commerce: The only social responsibility any business has is to turn a profit.

If you don’t think our society idolizes money, and that this idolatry has undermined the belief and practice of Catholics and other Christians over the last half-century – despite what pious, conservative Republicans have had to say on the subject – well then, you and I just disagree.

It’s the blatant excesses of capitalism that all those Americans who are now suddenly professing an interest in some vague notion of socialism are complaining about.


obstinately ignoring the break-through message…


What of that reliable chorus of conservative Catholic commentators who seem immune to such consultation? When confronted with irrefutable evidence of capitalism’s flaws, they don’t just duck and weave, they outright bail on the situation.

Credit them with always maintaining their composure, though. With feathers never ruffled and not a hair out of place, they invariably invoke their favorite fallback position:

“The Church does not propose temporal solutions, she offers moral and spiritual principles to guide man in making prudential decisions in the social realm.”

To employ such statements, which are true enough on their face, in order to dismiss any concern with capitalism, or to suggest a forthright discussion of the economic status-quo is somehow outside the realm of legitimate concern for Catholic lay people, is nothing less than an irresponsible cop-out.

One might even describe it as a despicable dereliction of duty.

Orthodox Catholics should stop trying to find ways of denouncing and undermining the message of economic justice that has finally broken through and hit the mainstream in this current election cycle, just because they don’t happen to like the (Democratic) messengers.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
March 28, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

7 + 14 =

Once the Pandemic Passes

Once the Pandemic Passes

March 23, 2020 (1,240 words)

Early in what proved to be an anti-climactic debate between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders on Sunday, March 8, Mr. Sanders claimed the COVID-19 outbreak exposes flaws in our healthcare system.

Maybe he was referring to the fact our current system is run like a business, seeking efficiency by controlling costs, in order to be profitable.

You have to admit, maintaining empty hospital space with unused ICU beds is not efficient. Neither is having spare doctors and nurses on staff to treat non-existent patients. The same goes for the PPE equipment those medical professional would need to administer the inventory of test kits that don’t exist. Or the critical mass of mechanical ventilators nobody keeps lying around, waiting for a wave of people who might one day contract a deadly virus.

But Mr. Sanders’ accusation is misleading, too, since this very same charge can be leveled against the state-run healthcare systems already in place throughout the industrialized world.

Even though these publically-administered systems aren’t trying to turn a profit, they struggle with a familiar problem: inadequate funding. No country can afford excess capacity of anything. Authorities everywhere keep staffing to a minimum and rely on just-in-time delivery of necessary medical equipment and supplies.

Meaning it is unrealistic to expect either type of healthcare system, privately-run or publically-administered, to possess the appropriate level of readiness needed to combat a contagion the world has not seen since the Spanish Influenza of 1918.

Still, one could be excused for thinking a publically-administered system might be in a better position to react to such a pandemic, first and foremost by being a single-source disseminator of important information: providing early detection, issuing full or partial quarantine orders, and deploying testing and treatment resources as needed.

(One is led to this conclusion by the simple fact our own highly-touted, best-in-the-world privately-run healthcare system has been completely AWOL in this, the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis.)

So Mr. Sanders would have been better served had he directed voters’ attention to what everyone has been grousing about for weeks: the lack of early detection and unified response on the part of the federal government, including a decided lack of coordination between Washington, D.C. and the states.

Then he should have decisively used this widespread complaint to make the now-obvious point that in times like these, it seems everyone prefers a publically-administered health system, after all.


remembering the first mission of healthcare…


In the coming weeks and months we will be concentrating on beating back this virus. In doing so I hope we don’t exhaust our collective interest in how our everyday system functions. Once things return to normal we should continue the discussion of how best to execute the basic mission of healthcare: providing necessary medical treatment to all who need it, at a cost they can afford to pay.

To his credit, this has always been a big plank in the Bernie Sanders platform. His advocacy can be gruff, and rub some people the wrong way. But all that exasperation has an explanation. This raging argument over healthcare reform is more than a century old. It’s left some proponents a little hoarse.

Our last attempt at major reform was enacted into law exactly ten years ago today, March 23, 2010, when President Obama announced his signature plan had received the required number of votes to pass, with lawmakers splitting on strict party lines.

Who can forget the unfortunate snafus with the government web site experienced by millions of citizens, when they tried to sign up for this new coverage. It crashed ever-so-dramatically on more than one occasion, fueling the contempt of Republicans, and every American with a built-in aversion to government-run anything.

Eventually Obamacare did add some 20 million previously uninsured people to the rolls, which is no small feat. But unfortunately The Affordable Care Act, as it was formally known, failed to do anything to make healthcare more affordable. It did not address the underlying problem of cost.


how to maintain incentive while calibrating profit?…


Our current system produces so much innovation – so many new treatments, procedures, and medications – precisely because we practice free-market capitalism. It provides incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in research and development, with the hope of being rewarded for their investment and hard work.

The same applies to medical professionals who spend years and vast sums of money to be trained in their field. They come into the workforce drowning in debt, and faced with exorbitant premiums for liability insurance. You can’t blame them for wanting to get paid handsomely.

The intractable problem we have been unable to solve, the impossibly tangled Gordian Knot we have been unable to untie, is how to “calibrate” the amount of profit the various players in the system are going for: the innovative entrepreneurs, the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, the corporations that manage our hospitals, and the medical specialists themselves.

Mr. Sanders is known for issuing broad salvos against certain economic actors he describes as profiteers. In response he is accused by conservatives of believing “all profit equates to greed.” But this is an extreme characterization perpetrated by his critics. What Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren object to is the “grab everything you can get” mentality that seems so pervasive in the world of the highly-successful.

The problem is what some have called “casino capitalism”: If you take risks you should be able to claim all the reward when your ship comes in, regardless of how out-sized the prize may be. And no matter how your reward may render destitute the average Jane or Joe.

We haven’t figured out how to reconcile the basic tenets of free-market capitalism with concern for the common good, or the demands of the Christian ethos. All we have to work with is a tired notion of “enlightened self-interest,” which doesn’t begin to address modern economic realities.


the simple facts are beyond dispute…


The facts are just as Sanders and Warren present them. We spend double for healthcare on a per capita basis than does any other industrialized nation, including paying far more for prescription medications. Tens of thousands of our people go bankrupt every year after they are diagnosed with a serious illness, and attempt to fight that illness with treatment.

Opponents of reform are quick to point to the problems other countries are experiencing in executing their version of socialized medicine. But how does that lessen the pervasiveness of the problems we have with our for-profit system?

Aren’t the problems in other countries a matter of inadequate funding? Isn’t that also the reason our own VA Administration doesn’t function more efficiently and effectively than it does?

Doesn’t the problem of inadequate funding fall at the feet of our wealthiest corporations and individuals, who are practiced in the art of tax avoidance?

(The common refrain we hear is that government is out to “soak the rich,” when the opposite is true. The ultra-rich have been siphoning off an inordinate amount of the wealth being created by our productive society. They are sucking society dry.)

A final thought: That thousands of Canadians cross the border each year to pay for treatment out of pocket is frequently cited as proof our system is better than Canada’s.

All it really proves is what we already know and is undisputed: Good healthcare is readily available in this country, as long as you can afford to pay for it on your own.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. March 23, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

2 + 2 =

A Not-So-Quiet Woman

A Not-So-Quiet Woman

March 17, 2020 (362 words)

What a young Maureen O’Hara conveys with her eyes and facial expressions as Mary Kate Danaher in The Quiet Man (1952) is remarkable.

This has always been a favorite movie of mine, but watching it again tonight I found Ms. O’Hara’s performance registering with me in a completely different way.

How much of her complex portrayal is written into the script? Or can be credited to the guidance and suggestions of the film’s director, the legendary John Ford? No matter the caliber of a script or a director, doesn’t everything ultimately hinge on the actress’s (or actor’s) ability to bring out and deepen our sense of a given character’s humanity?

Compared to Maureen O’Hara, John Wayne in this film is little more than a cardboard cut-out. A very enjoyable-to-watch cardboard cut-out to be sure, but a cardboard cut-out, all the same

I don’t know how I missed this before. Credit John Ford, I suppose, for cramming so much charm, local custom, and so many indelible characters into one film.

What of certain elements of The Quiet Man that may strike contemporary audiences as anachronistic, or even misogynistic?

Far be it from me to try and talk anyone out of their belief the society portrayed in this movie is backward, not least because of the sexism some feminists see it as condoning.

But from where I sit, I can’t imagine any young woman in less need of liberation than Mary Kate Danaher.

I appreciate this character for what she just taught me tonight about the feminine spirit, for the insight she has given me this evening into a certain segment of the population, including immediate family members and acquaintances in my own life.

While there is certainly no denying young Mary Kate is easy on the eyes, watching this movie again has helped me understand that women are people, apart from the male gaze, and apart from the physical attractiveness they hold for men.

This stands as a compliment, I think, both to Maureen O’Hara’s insightful performance, and John Ford’s keen directorial eye.

It may be too late to change the title, but The Quiet Man holds a new meaning for me now.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
March 17, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

13 + 3 =

Drowning My Sorrows

Drowning My Sorrows

March 16, 2020 (1,228 words)

Last night’s big one-on-one debate between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders turned out to be a big disappointment. At least the first half-hour or so was, after which I turned it off and went to bed.

I had been looking forward to a dramatic last stand on the part of Mr. Sanders, where he would summon his almost thirty years of consistent advocacy and eloquently make the case once again for a more just and equitable economy.

But it was not to be. Instead, the two contenders kept reassuring us that as president each of them would see to it any victims of the COVID-19 pandemic would receive the medical care they need, regardless of the individual’s ability to pay.

Both men also said any economic fall-out suffered by those missing time or even losing their jobs during this unprecedented shutdown would be made whole.

Point taken. But why keep saying the same thing, over and over again?

Partly this unnecessary repetition was the fault of the three journalists asking the questions. Though composed and professional, they were unable to go off script and improvise. This had them asking each candidate a question that had just inadvertently been answered, due to the politicians’ proclivity to get their talking points in, no matter what.

And partly this was the fault of the two candidates themselves, who were unable to step back and recognize the “new” question being asked had just been answered at the tail end of their previous responses.

So each man just plowed ahead, filling their allotted 90 seconds by regurgitating the same verbiage.

I was particularly disappointed by Mr. Sanders. He took this opportunity to stress how the new virus exposes flaws in our current healthcare system, and restate his well-known preference for a single-payer arrangement.

If there is a connection between the two, I am unable to see it. And in pressing the point Mr. Sanders struck me, an enthusiastic supporter of his, as a bit tone deaf.


an inability to properly modulate the message…


He seemed unable to modulate. Saying we need to “shut Trump up” is not the language of a leader. Coarsely describing the people who run pharmaceutical companies as “crooks” may arouse the passionate base at a boisterous rally, but was unbecoming in the intimate context of last night’s setting.

It’s not that I disagree with what Mr. Sanders said. But I deeply regret the way he chose to express himself.

I found myself reflecting on and beginning to understand what Democratic primary voters have been telling exit pollsters the last two weeks: They have chosen Biden because they see Sanders as trading in the same sort of recalcitrant rhetoric as President Trump.

And speaking of our feckless leader, I left work early today and happened to catch this afternoon’s White House press briefing on the COVID-19 outbreak live, from the comfort of my favorite chair.

This was the second briefing in two days I was able to watch for myself. The six or seven people standing behind the President were pretty much the same lineup as Sunday’s press conference. Most of them got a chance to speak both days, and everyone who spoke was equally impressive both days.

But I must say President Trump was noticeably more assured and less strident this afternoon, less defensive. He seemed more comfortable handing off tough questions to his subordinates, not worried that doing so would make him look bad. He gave the impression of a man thoroughly engaged with the problem, but not afraid to admit he lacks supreme, all-knowing expertise in this area.

And Vice-President Pence, who has made no impression on me whatsoever during his three years in office, was nothing less than a revelation today. He was able to summarize the administration’s recent efforts concisely, exhibited appealing decorum toward both the press and the President, and did right by every member of the team up there on the podium.

Maybe the administration did not respond appropriately or fast enough to this pandemic in the beginning. But now it seems they have gotten their feet under them and are hitting their stride. And yes, even Mr. Trump – judging by this afternoon’s press briefing – seems to be getting better in this matter as he goes along.


ringing a familiar bell…


But you would never know that by tuning into the cable news outlets that are dedicated to highlighting the President’s incompetence.

Immediately following the live feed of today’s news conference, one channel talked about what he did wrong yesterday. Another was discussing what he did wrong two weeks ago. And yet another was harping on the thousand or so lies he has uttered from that very same podium over the course of his administration.

I’m not here to debate recent history, folks, only to point out that this afternoon the President did good.

Some may chalk up this unexpected display to a blind squirrel finding the occasional chestnut. Or to the fact that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. But I prefer to attribute Trump’s effective press briefing performance to grace.

Such grace is available to any one of us, no matter the magnitude of our failings. Regardless how many times we have faltered and fallen short in the past, we can always rally. Provided we are willing to forego our own selfish agenda and start focusing on the common good.

When that happens, something is instinctively tapped that brings out the best in us.

Whether the tiny kernel of statesmanship I witnessed this afternoon proves to be a fleeting moment, an isolated incident never to be conjured again, remains to be seen.

But who knows, maybe it’s not too late for this old dog to learn something new from today, and from this crisis, and possibly build upon it.

In any event, the team he has assembled around him, as represented on the podium these last two days, will do right by us.

With that in mind, it now strikes me as almost inappropriate for last night’s journalists to have asked Biden and Sanders what each of them would do in the face of the COVID-19 outbreak, were either of them President at this very moment.

While it may be a question on everyone’s mind, it’s also a question that sows seeds of doubt. It shows disrespect for the phalanx of people who are working around the clock to figure out what to do NEXT, and how best to coordinate the effort.

To sum up then, it now appears Mr. Biden will cruise to the Democratic nomination, because Middle America has decided it wants a return to normalcy and is not ready for a revolution.

And Mr. Trump may very well win a second term, if he manages to convince Middle America from this point forward that he has addressed the current crisis in a responsible and compassionate manner.

The tragedy in all this is that whoever wins next November, we will be stuck with the same old status quo when it comes to the economic question.

Those of us who seek a more just and equitable world, and who were starting to get our hopes up with worthy standard bearers like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic race, will mourn a missed opportunity to begin transforming American society for the better.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. March 16, 2020

Use the contact form below to email me.

1 + 5 =