Select Page

Parental Discretion

Parental Discretion

October 31, 2019 (133 words)

Being the parent of young adults in their twenties is matter of modulation. One has to learn when to speak up and offer advice, and when to keep quiet and allow your no-longer-young charges to figure things out on their own.

It’s not an easy balancing act. You want to help, and you can relate so well to what they are going through, since it feels like you just got done going through it yourself.

The paradox is they do want to hear from you – just not too much.

It’s natural to want to share the benefit of our hard-earned experience with the people we love the most. But every individual’s journey in this world is a little different. And our children deserve the privilege of making certain discoveries on their own.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
October 31, 2019

Use the contact form below to email me.

15 + 5 =

A Music City Reunion

A Music City Reunion

October 15, 2019 (2,130 words) There were six of us little ones growing up, four boys and two girls. Our younger sister, MaryAnne, was the proverbial baby of the family, and over time she proved to be the glue that held the rest of us together. As one-by-one we moved out and embarked on the young adult portion of our lives, Mare was the sibling who managed keep in touch with everybody. There was no bad blood between any of us, per se, we were all just pre-occupied, I guess. Looking back, in our mixed-breed Irish-Italian brood it was the youngest child who became largely responsible for coordinating family gatherings and holiday get-togethers. So when she up and died of melanoma in August 1998, at the tender age of thirty-four, it left the other five of us at loose ends. With MaryAnne having moved on to bigger and better things, the last two decades here on earth have been pretty slim pickings, in the maintaining-sibling-connection department. Years have passed when the only thing we’ve exchanged is the odd birthday card. In fact the last time we were all together in one place was our parents’ respective funerals: Dad in December 2012 and Mom in August 2013. In recent years we have made a concerted effort to do better, but syncing up schedules continues to be a challenge. So we have settled for partial reunions whenever the opportunity presents itself, like the one a couple brothers and I managed last month, in Nashville.

a purely serendipitous destination…


The selection of this destination was purely serendipitous. It had been suggested to me by a complete stranger I bumped into at the Miami airport back in June, while making my way home from that special week spent in Guatemala with Cross Catholic Outreach. In one of those casual “where are you coming from – where are you going” exchanges, this personable young gent recommended Nashville as a lively place worth a visit. Once home I emailed the suggestion out to the troops, but only my Arizona brother and my Tampa brother could work such a trip in for this year. Then my Arizona brother, a bit of a musicologist, mentioned the city hosts something called the Americana Music Festival every September, and so the game was afoot. What a fun time it turned out to be. There were a few evening-long concerts featuring big-name acts (aka, “legends”) during the course of the week. But the real highlights were the many showcases offered at twenty different venues around town, all presenting original music from people you mostly never heard of (aka, “rising stars”).

finely crafted songs by largely anonymous artists…


What we in the audience were treated to were the best songs these anonymous artists have ever written. And let me tell you, they were all pretty darn good. Actually, they were all exceptional. There were lots of great melodies, great lyrics, and great vocals, with top-notch musicianship all around. Each act I heard during the course of my visit deserved to be on the radio. Each act deserved to be a household name. A situation that reminds me of an old song…

Nashville cats, play clean as country water Nashville cats, play wild as mountain dew Nashville cats, been playin’ since they’s babies Nashville cats, get work before they’re two…

John Sebastian 1971

You couldn’t possibly see and hear everything, since these different showcases were happening simultaneously, every afternoon and evening. Luckily, some performers did appear at different places on different days, which gave one a chance at a representative sampling. In addition to all these scheduled “showcase acts” playing their own stuff, every bar and restaurant had a stage, and you couldn’t walk down the street, let alone sit down for a meal, without encountering another incredible male or female voice, usually singing cover tunes. This little visit started off as a solo adventure. I flew in Wednesday afternoon, and the first showcase I attended that night, in an upstairs lounge at a nearby hotel, was phenomenal. The opening act blew me away, as did each following act. By the end of that first night I started to worry that maybe the rest of the week would be all downhill from there.

that concern proved to be unfounded…


But that initial concern proved to be completely unfounded. After a couple of days and nights happily operating under my own steam, going wherever the wind took me, my two brothers flew in on Friday, and arrived just in time for the evening showcase at City Winery. This is a beautiful, ten year-old venue that looks and feels brand new, done up in an urban rustic theme – high ceilings, exposed timber beams, etc. It’s got two performance spaces, along with a full kitchen and a wine list they are quite proud off. We were in the main space that night, a large room with tables for dining arranged perpendicular to the full-size, proscenium-arch stage, instead of the conventional parallel-to-the-stage rows of seating. The opening act was a long-time favorite, Shawn Colvin, who was in town to celebrate the 30th anniversary of her first recording, Steady On. She appeared at a few different spots during the week, but this night was given over to performing the entire record, start to finish – with only her own solo guitar-playing as accompaniment. Worth the trip, as they say. But there was still a lot of music ahead of us. A young Nashville-based singer by name of Sean McConnell followed Shawn, and he paid tribute to her influence. Lee Hinkle was next. He bills himself as a “modern day vagabond currently living on the road.” Which means, he explained, he lives out of his van. Lee was joined on stage for part of his set by a female singer whose name I did not get, and an old Nashville hand by the name of Buddy Miller.

Buddy and Shawn sing a lovely duet…


Then, and I don’t remember just how, Buddy Miller was alone on stage, and was eventually joined by a re-appearing Shawn Colvin. We learned during between-song banter that Buddy hired Shawn way back in 1980 to be a female singer and guitar player in his then New York City-based band. The affection that flowed between these two on stage was palpable. In fact, “affection flowing from the stage” was pretty much the dominant theme of the week. And no one exemplified this joy and affection more than the closing act on this Friday night at City Winery: Steve Poltz. Part troubadour, part comedian, part space cowboy, his was the single most enjoyable, laugh-out-loud show I have ever attended. Steve hoped around the stage tirelessly, freed, as he enthusiastically told us, by his recent purchase of a high quality head-mounted microphone. This guy was a complete gas. He had the entire audience guffawing throughout. Everybody around us was hurting from smiling so much and laughing so hard. If Steve Poltz ever comes anywhere near your town, by all means go out and see him perform.

a good time getting caught up with two brothers…


It was great to spend the weekend hanging out with my Arizona brother and my Tampa brother. We saw more good music together, and got caught up by lounging around after meals, and walking between certain venues instead of taking Uber. (Note to self: As much as I wanted to also spend time with my NJ [soon to be NC] brother and my Plymouth Meeting, PA sister, it turns out the smaller the group, the firmer the connection that can be made among the participants.) All three of us flew out Monday morning. The overall level of musical talent on display last month In Nashville during the Americana Music Festival is something I have never experienced before. And, as I’ve just mentioned, there was no discernable line of demarcation in talent level between the legends and the rising stars. The joy and affection all this talent expressed from these various stages puts one in mind of that famous aphorism, “do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life.” Certainly these performers all seemed to epitomize this philosophy. But how long can such a high last? After all, stage time represents only a small fraction of each day. We in the audience should enjoy and appreciate these enchanted moments for the gift they represent, rather than take them for granted as just another commodity to be consumed indiscriminately.

the legends and the rising stars…


In surveying the broad terrain that separates the legends from the rising stars, a few thoughts occur. What happens in the life of a legend when they can’t continue to crank out the hits year after year? Does that undermine the value of the undeniable gems they were able to produce, early in their careers? Does a legend ever resent the limelight and want to be left alone? Do they ever run out of steam along the way, and want to be regular people, if only for a little while? Probably far more commonplace is the fate of so many one-time legends that see their fame fade with time, forcing then back into near-anonymity. And what of today’s rising stars? What if they never break through, and tire of the grind of just getting by? If an artist, in this case a musical artist, never achieves broad appeal (aka, fame and fortune), does that in any way diminish the quality of their art? My own feeling is that having the music in you is something to be cherished, even if you only end up singing to yourself. Getting other people to listen is a bonus, not a pre-requisite. In fact, sometimes too much outside attention can actually be an impediment to authentic expression. But of course we all do have to make a living. And it seems there are multiple ways to earn a living in music, for those who retain a determination to do what they love, despite never breaking through on their own. One way is to write a song that a more popular artist can turn into a hit. This is what the now no-longer-young Steve Poltz (b. 1960) was able to achieve back in 1995, when the fetching young singer Jewel took his “You Were Meant For Me” to number two on the charts. Another way is securing steady work as a reliable recording session player. Or, if you don’t mind the road, steady work as a member of a tour band that backs a better-known act. Some can remain independent indefinitely, I suppose, carving out a living playing smaller rooms. And some may decide to teach.

all is not lost, regardless of your circumstance…


For the legends who must deal with the inevitable loss of name recognition, or the rising stars that may hit a wall in their ascent, take a job in the civilian world, and relegate their art to part-time status, all is not lost. Both can continue to experience the same level of engagement they once did, or they still aspire to, if and when they find a way to love what it is they have been given to do in their non-musical life. Which of course is exactly where the rest of us already find ourselves. If we – musicians and non-musicians, alike – can find a way to embrace our messy and mundane responsibilities, and execute them with attention and care, then we, too, are living the artist’s life. By which I mean what we do for a living, no matter how pedestrian it may seem to us or be judged by others, can be a form of art. And it’s not too far-flung to think that if we are able to approach our work in this manner, it can – and should – make that work not only art, but also a form of worship. Regarding the lack of broad artistic appeal, when we hear painters and such say they are creating for themselves, rather than for the general public, doesn’t that really mean their work is meant to express their unique humanity? And in so doing aren’t they essentially communicating with their creator? Isn’t that what all of us are doing all the time, whether we think of our daily activity in such terms, or not? As you might be able to tell, this was a very engaging and productive little trip, on many different levels. (Oh and by the way, did I mention some of the world’s friendliest bartenders, and bar patrons?) If the fates allow, I would certainly hope to find myself back in Nashville again, come next September. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. October 15, 2019

Use the contact form below to email me.

8 + 6 =

Helping or Hurting?

Helping or Hurting?

October 10, 2019 (1,986 words)

Our youngest has just started his freshman year of college, and while visiting him last weekend I attended Mass at St. Joseph the Worker Parish, in Williamsport, PA.

The celebrant was a visiting Augustinian from Villanova, who also happens to be a member of the group Priests for Life, the largest ministry in the Catholic Church focused on ending abortion.

Like other Augustinians from Villanova I’ve crossed paths with in recent years, this gentleman presented very well. He was old enough to be proficient, and still young enough to get his point across with verve.

He was comfortable speaking extemporaneously, so his homily was off the cuff. No doubt it was based on many such homilies given to other congregations hearing him for the first time.

As engaging as Father was, he did ramble a bit. Actually the homily seemed to go interminably, and lasted far longer than it really needed to. He circled back on occasion and repeated a few things, and not just for emphasis. But the message was sound, and there was hardly anything for me to take issue with.

But I did find a thing or two.

Father started by praising the wisdom of our country’s founders. He specifically referenced that famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence, about how “we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” And then he invoked the familiar list of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Like many pro-lifers, Father cited that right to life in the context of the unborn. He then launched into an interesting riff about how we Americans have thoroughly misunderstood the notion of liberty, and how we have focused too exclusively on our own individual happiness.


Christianity stands in stark contrast to our national ethos…


At which point Father exclaimed: “That’s not Christianity.” He stressed how the Christian faith, in contrast to our national ethos of rugged individualism, is about community. It’s about coming together to care for others. He noted how the intimate connection between a mother and a father and a child mirrors the Holy Trinity.

While this is a beautiful analogy, Priests for Life may want to consider drilling down a bit deeper to better articulate the underlying problem here. Father’s riff got us to the doorstep, but he couldn’t quite bring himself to draw the obvious conclusion.

Yes, abortion is among the most common surgeries performed in America, and most people never see what it looks like.

The even bigger problem is that we are not a Christian nation. Nor were we founded as one, despite a few well-known and reassuring phrases thrown around by some of our founders. We are now being forced to deal with the fundamental discrepancies. We are learning first-hand just how difficult it is to reconcile a Christian worldview with a secular one.

So while I admire this Augustinian from Villanova who said Mass and gave a spirited (if overly long) homily last Sunday in Williamsport, PA, I don’t think he is operating at peak efficiency. In fact I think he is spinning his wheels, to a large extent.


pointing out flaws is a delicate matter…


Now I do realize how delicate a matter this is, pointing out the philosophical flaws in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. One doesn’t want to shock the complacent Catholic troops into a high anxiety. And one also doesn’t want to jeopardize one’s tax-exempt status, or bring down the wrath of the state in a way that might impede the belief and practice of the faithful.

But legal abortion is, after all, a natural by-product of our Enlightenment founding, not a betrayal of a Christian one. While the formulations contained in the little pamphlet distributed at the end of Sunday’s Mass – “You Can Save Someone’s Life Today” – have merit, it wouldn’t hurt for the pro-life movement to clearly identify the elephant in the room.

I would suggest Catholics have been confused on this point for quite some time. Ever since James Cardinal Gibbons effused over what a great country this is, and how Catholics have nothing to fear from a pluralist democracy. That was back in the latter half of the 19th Century.

Then, in the early 20th century, this same prelate (he had a long run) assured America Catholics they had an obligation to fight in WW I, should President Wilson decide to take the United States into that war.

Pope Leo XIII tried to warn Gibbons off the first point, and Pope Benedict XV tried to warn him off the second.

As we confront the reality of legalized abortion – 60 million unborn dead in the last 45 years – and as we realize this is the bitter fruit of a pluralist democracy intent on the pursuit of each individual’s personal happiness, it’s fair to say Cardinal Gibbons, for all his many fine qualities and noteworthy accomplishments, grossly underestimated what Catholics have to fear from a pluralist democracy.

Okay, you might ask, what does this historical overview have to do with right now, with today?

While it’s certainly true, and it certainly needs to be said, I don’t know if it really helps to keep pounding away on the fact that abortion is murder, and it’s a child not a choice. I honestly think most people get that, even women who are having abortions.

It’s the zeitgeist that’s the problem. Pregnant women who want out are often victims of the pursuit of individual happiness as it relates to casual sex. Father mentioned “pornography” only at the tail end of his long homily, and said “that doesn’t pertain to the point I’m making here today.”


misled by sexual liberation, and trapped by economic circumstance…


Oh, but Father, it most certainly does. (In his defense, I think he realizes this, he just squandered his time and didn’t frame his argument as cogently as he could have.)

Pregnant women who want out are often trapped by economic circumstances. The pro-life movement, and Priests for Life, does not currently include “endemic economic injustice” as one of the factors in the abortion epidemic.

Just as finding fault with our country’s founding is a delicate and sensitive matter to take up, so too is finding fault with a commendable organization like Priests for Life, or with the pro-life movement as a whole.

But Catholics have to be careful not to veer off into a kind of sanctimoniousness when considering those who support abortion, or the women who actually procure abortions. And having done my share of sidewalk demonstrating, I’ve concluded it does no good for young, virile men to pray outside abortion clinics.

It’s just way too easy for that witness to be misinterpreted as men telling women what they should and should not do. Especially considering it was a man who created their predicament in the first place.

Along the same lines, pro-life organizations should be wary of how their political advocacy is too simple-minded at times, and amounts to de-facto support (or outright shilling) for the Republican Party.

During last Sunday’s homily Father told us, “I hate to say it, but it’s the truth”… and then rattled off a few unsavory facts. Including, “there are twenty people running for President – on the other side – who support abortion on demand.”

As if that’s all there is too it. As if Republicans are Catholics’ saving grace. As if Democrats are patrolling the streets, kidnapping pregnant women and delivering them to Planned Parenthood against their will.


being told one must vote for an utterly appalling candidate…


As a case in point, many Catholic women were appalled at the personal antics of the Republican presidential nominee in the 2016 general election, and did not appreciate being told they had to vote for him, because he was “the pro-life candidate.”

This reminds me how observant Catholics who see ending abortion as their top priority tend to wave off the Republican agenda on economics. They are under the impression it has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. These folks need to wise up on this score, and realize economics has EVERYTHING to do with morality.

And speaking of economics, there are cynics who point to earnest pro-life leaders such as Father Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests for Life since 1993, as careerists who have found a niche.

I try to avoid cynicism, as it clouds the mind. But I will say this: on the cover of that pamphlet we were handed as we left Sunday’s Mass there is a faded picture of Father Pavone and Mother Teresa (who died in 1997). The caption reads: “Fr. Frank Pavone discusses pro-life strategy with Mother Teresa in Calcutta.”

Ah yes, pro-life strategy…

The hand-out lists many edifying, heartfelt activities: joining a prayer campaign, partnering with the “Silent No More” campaign, reading and studying to “deepen your understanding of the pro-life movement.” At the risk of sounding like one of those cynics, how many people actually do any of this high-minded stuff?

One doesn’t have to be hard-hearted to reflect on how these devout proscriptions amount to little more than preaching to the choir, with the ever-present fund-raising envelope attached to the back of the hand-out.

Allow me to suggest the following as a dynamic new pro-life strategy: What if Catholics put their weight behind seeing to it the new 2019 theatrical release Unplanned is carried on all the popular streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and the rest?

Such lobbying might look like a variation of “Dougherty’s Movie Boycott” of the 1930s. For those who may be unfamiliar, I offer the following synopsis, quoted from the Historical Research Center of the Philadelphia Archdiocese:

On May 23, 1934, Cardinal Dougherty called on all Catholics living in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to boycott motion picture theaters. By so doing, Dougherty declared it sinful for any of the area’s 800,000 Catholics to enter a movie theater. In a letter to the priests of the Archdiocese, Dougherty called the motion picture theater “perhaps the greatest menace to faith and morals in America today.”

The effect of the boycott was immediate, with over 300,000 Catholics signing pledges to avoid the movies and ticket sales dropped around 20 percent. The decrease in revenue led to numerous theater owners and movie studious writing to Dougherty asking to end the boycott, however, he replied that he had “no intention to recede” from his stance.

Dougherty also received a wide range of letters from regular people from around the country. The response was largely supportive, with both Catholics and Protestants praising him for standing up to the immorality of Hollywood.

… While the boycott failed to have the staying power that Dougherty hoped for, it did have a large impact on the movie industry. In June 1934, the Motion Picture Association of America agreed to stronger self-censorship and created the Production Code Administration, headed by Catholic layman, Joseph Breen.

(Of course the mere mention of the word “censorship” sends chills down the spine of every red-blooded American today. But Mr. Breen’s efforts to rein in the movie industry’s most lascivious instincts helped shape what came to be known as The Golden Age of Hollywood. In appreciation, the moguls he ran herd over for two decades gave him an honorary Academy Award after his retirement in 1954.)

Could Catholics bring themselves to unite in a total boycott of their favorite streaming service, until that service agreed to offer the new theatrical release Unplanned?

While a prayer Novena is always good, hitting these politically-correct profit-seekers in their pocketbook would be even better.

As the pamphlet “You Can Save Someone’s Life Today” so eloquently states: “Although abortion is among the most common surgeries in America, most people never see what it looks like.”

Well then, let’s show them.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
October 10, 2019

Use the contact form below to email me.

10 + 6 =

Seeing the Forest

Seeing the Forest

October 3, 2019 (773 words) There’s nothing better than a good epiphany. And one of the best I’ve had in recent years occurred to me in December 2013. It came via the unexpected backlash to Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”), the apostolic exhortation that had just been issued by Pope Francis the previous month, from the conservative Catholic intelligentsia in this country. Their objections centered on a mere 9 paragraphs of insightful economic commentary, located early in a most comprehensive 288-paragraph papal document. And the noise they made represented an about-face on their part. When Francis was elevated to the papacy in March 2013, conservative opinion-makers were generally enamored of the humble Argentinian Archbishop who rode the bus with common folk in Buenos Aires, and lived in a modest apartment there. But once this seemingly gentle, easy-going old man – a Jesuit who graduated secondary school with a chemical technician’s diploma, and worked as a bouncer and janitor sweeping floors before entering the seminary – turned a wary eye on the unfettered capitalism practiced throughout the West, and perfected here in the States, the gloves came off. It was the journalist Kevin Williamson, then writing for National Review Online, who was single-handedly responsible for my special ah-ha moment. His scathing piece took Francis to task for resurrecting “ancient Catholic criticisms of market liberalism.”

having not the slightest clue…


I had absolutely no idea what Mr. Williamson was talking about. Up to that point I assumed liberalism was the work of liberals, and formed the opposite of what conservatives would do. But “market liberalism” – what on earth was that, and how long had the Church been critical of it? To learn more, I did what any red-blooded baby-boomer hopelessly lacking in tech savvy would do – I went on the internet and did a Google search, of course. One of the results that popped up came from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, and featured a long essay on “classical liberalism.” It proved to be a veritable master class in the cultural anthropology of the last 500 years This DIY crash course has helped me see how classical liberalism has defined the modern era, in the sense that today’s liberals and conservatives are both, in their own way, exemplars of the broad ideology known as classical liberalism. That ideology is defined by its insistence on the emancipation of the individual in every field of human endeavor, from any and all authority, law, or tradition. Applying this knowledge to the everyday squabbles that characterize our public discourse has freed me from the liberal/conservative dialectic that traps most every prominent commentator – on both the left and right – that one can name. So to Kevin Williamson – wherever you are – I am forever in your debt, sir. By way of a thumbnail sketch, “classical liberalism” came to prominence some 500 years ago, and gradually replaced Christianity (aka, Catholicism) as the preferred operating system for Western society.

the reason everybody takes issue with the Catholic Church…


This is why both liberals and conservatives take issue with the Catholic Church. They do so for different reasons, of course, because they each practice their own unique version of classical liberalism. Observant Catholics who identify as conservative politically may be surprised to learn it was “conservatives” who were actually the original “classical liberals.” The full emancipation of the individual from authority, law, and tradition first expressed itself in the realm of economic behavior. These folks believed in the pursuit of their own material advancement, to the exclusion of any consideration for the common good. A few centuries into the program, when it came time for a hardy band of colonists to break away from Protestant England, our Enlightenment founders cleverly codified this preference as an individual “pursuit of happiness.” To sum up, then, what the journalist Kevin Williamson described as “market liberalism” in December 2013 is just the conservative version of “classical liberalism.” And yes, the Catholic Church has steadfastly maintained its criticism , regardless of the label being applied at any given point in time. And note “steadfastly” is the operative word in that last sentence. Pope Francis did not say anything new in his November 2013 exhortation, nor has he said anything new since. He is merely echoing the thought and teaching of his predecessors on this subject. Francis does, however, use language that makes it harder for the conservative Catholic intelligentsia to “spin” Church teaching on economic matters beyond all recognition. A project they have been artfully executing since at least the Reagan administration. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. October 3, 2019

Use the contact form below to email me.

15 + 12 =

Apples and Oranges

Apples and Oranges

September 28, 2019 (1,559 words)

There are some 50,000 employees of General Motors who are currently out on strike. They are all members of the United Auto Workers, the same union that represents similar employees at Ford and Chrysler.

The contracts between each of the Big Three automakers and the UAW do not run concurrently. They have different term limits and so expire in different years. The idea is that negotiations with one automaker will sort of set the tone and raise the bar for the next round of negotiations with one of the other two companies.

In the case of GM their factory workers made substantial concessions ten years ago, in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, in order to help the company remain afloat during perilous times. Now that the auto industry has turned a corner, and General Motors is once again recording healthy pre-tax profits – $10.8 billion in 2018 on $38.4 billion in revenue – union members are looking for their fair share of those profits.

Yes, the profit-sharing check of $10,750 that was announced in February for every one of GM’s UAW members was certainly a step in the right direction. But if my math is correct those bonus checks total up to a mere $54 million, which hardly makes a dent in that $10.8 billion of pre-tax profit.

Of course, even those of us who have no head for big business realize a company can’t distribute all its profits every year to its employees. Reserves must be held for various contingencies such as maintenance and replacement costs, not to mention the all-important category of research and development.

And GM is making that very point in these negotiations – the need to allocate a portion of their latest $10.8 billion windfall to the development of new, electric car technology.


looking for promises of job security…


In addition to higher wages and a cap on their healthcare deductible, union members are looking for promises of job security, along with asking that the legion of “temporary” GM workers be given full-time status, and the same top-line compensation package.

In response, General Motors says it’s counting on those temporary workers and their lower wages and benefits to help keep labor costs in line. The challenge of remaining competitive is a familiar rallying cry, especially in light of the many foreign automakers now operating non-union manufacturing facilities here in the States.

For a behind-the-scenes look into this dynamic, please consult the new Netflix documentary American Factory. It illustrates the financial pressures being applied to both management and the common workforce in a most even-handed manner. A simple Google search turns up the following synopsis:

In post-Industrial Ohio, a Chinese billionaire opens a new factory in the husk of an abandoned General Motors plant. Early days of hope and optimism give way to setbacks as high-tech China clashes with working class America.

In the hands of these observant filmmakers, the story is much more nuanced than a simple tale of a greedy overseas billionaire setting up shop here and exploiting the locals.

We see a bevy of Chinese managers and supervisors – experts in the manufacturer of auto glass for windshields – attempt to train and oversee the down-on-their-luck, recently laid-off GM workers. The visitors have their work cut out for them, trying to get middle-aged men and women to learn the nuances of a complicated process they are completely unfamiliar with.


almost coming across as lazy…


Compared to the super-motivated and (for the most part) younger Chinese, the older Americans don’t look particularly engaged. At times they almost come across as lazy. The viewer should keep in mind, though, how difficult and frustrating it must be to cope with a hyper-demanding production line, while being paid less than half what you were earning at your previous job.

When the plant is still not profitable after the first year, changes are implemented. The Ohio native and auto industry veteran, initially installed to lead the new endeavor as its president, is replaced with a Chinese National. Staffing on the shop floor is cut, in a desperate attempt to bring labor costs in line with projections.

We see a middle-aged woman, who stared as part of a two-person team, now left alone to inspect finished windshields coming off the line. This involves picking up a heavy windshield from the conveyor belt, and placing it on a stand with a number of other windshields. One windshield after another, all day long, all by herself.

What American Factory quietly dramatizes is a classic clash of cultures. The Chinese seem to eat-sleep-and-breathe their job. They bunk six to an apartment to keep living expenses to a bare minimum. We see one such group share a simple evening meal around a stark table. Then the camera cuts to one of those diners, smoking the odd cigarette out on a tiny balcony, before going to bed.

They don’t understand why it is taking the Americans so long to pick up on their procedures. And they resent the Americans’ unwillingness to work late and come in on Saturdays (with no offer of overtime pay) to get things back on track.


expecting a high return on investment…


It goes without saying the billionaire owner who made this huge investment in the old Ohio factory is expecting the same high return he’d likely get from a comparable investment in China. And who can blame him, right? One’s first instinct, after all, is to commend the gentleman for wanting to move the operation closer to the market he intends to serve.

But the gap in expectations is just too great. These laid-off GM workers were making $29.00 an hour, with full medical benefits, vacation and holiday pay, and a pension. Now they are earning a fraction of that – $12.00 an hour with all but non-existent benefits – at the new Chinese owned-and-operated windshield manufacturing plant that blew into town as a savior just a few short years ago.

This is what the UAW members on strike at General Motors right now are up against. And let’s face it folks, things do not look good for these union workers. How can GM continue to offer a life-sustaining compensation package when the entire auto industry is headed in the opposite direction?

Instead of pointing fingers and assigning blame, American Factory leaves the viewer to contemplate a larger question: How and why did all this happen?

Domestic auto-makers were once able to operate profitably and still provide a good living to their line workers. But now we are told the demands of the market make that impossible to maintain.

Even those of us who lack a head for big business can figure out one of the culprits is the amped-up return the wealthy now look to take from any investment. This may have always been the case, down through history. But it sure seems to have ratcheted up again in the last fifty or sixty years, and especially since the personal computer-fueled boom that started in the 1980s.

It’s no longer enough to be profitable. The percentage of our population with discretionary income at their disposal now expects the highest profit possible, for the pile of spare cash being “tied up” in any given investment.

The other obvious culprit is the dramatic increase in executive compensation, which siphons more of the pre-tax profit away from the bottom, where assembly line people live their lives, to the top of the employment pyramid.


clever maneuvers that elude controls…


This second problem has unfortunately gotten much worse just since the early 1990s, when the Clinton Administration’s attempt to rein in the alarming discrepancy between executive and median pay backfired. Clever companies found a creative way around the new directives, and started awarding unlimited stock options to their top people.

It’s hard to see how things will ever improve in this regard. Those not part of the investor class are having an increasingly rough time of it these days. It would appear the establishment of a reasonably secure middle class was, in hindsight, a brief shining moment in the history of our country. For those who must work for a living, it seems the 21st century is starting off pretty much the way the 19th century ended.

That General Motors is starting to invest in electric car technology is a good thing. But this transition will put all the people now assembling transmissions and combustible engines out of work. While I understand the UAW’s demand for “job security,” I don’t agree with it.

The way we work and the jobs we hold have undergone a series of transitions and transformations over the years. There is no stopping innovation. Those transitions are frequently painful for the majority of people forced into making them.

All this creative disruption would be easier for the little people to swallow, when they have to switch gears in mid-life, if only they would be treated fairly by the industries they helped make king-of-the-hill, while those industries enjoyed their time at the top.

Which is to say, when General Motors issues a meager $10,750 bonus to their UAW workers, that amounts to an approximate $54 million outlay against a 2018 pre-tax profit of $10.8 billion, it hardly qualifies as “fair treatment.”

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
September 28, 2019

Use the contact form below to email me.

6 + 3 =

The Welfare State

The Welfare State

September 12, 2019 (3,585 words) The idea of a “Green New Deal” has recently been floated by certain members of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, which has received an infusion of new blood via the November 2018 election. One of the most outspoken proponents of this audacious concept is a young woman by the name of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. A political novice, Ms. Cortez was elected to Congress in a surprise upset, from a district that includes parts of two different New York City boroughs (Bronx and Queens), and has made quite a splash since taking office this past January. Her instant reputation has been fueled by, among other things, her social media presence. It seems AOC tweets almost as frequently as the current Republican occupant of the White House. Anyway, this bold proposal is obviously meant to invoke the original New Deal of the 1930s, which was rolled out during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. You may recall it as the federal government’s coherent response to the Great Depression that engulfed the country in the wake of the infamous Wall Street crash of October 1929. For younger readers, FDR was a wealthy patrician who nevertheless developed a level of empathy for the hard-scrabble proletariat. This endeared him to the common folk, who to this day willingly overlook his unfortunate foreign policy proclivities. Those proclivities ultimately drove us into WWII, in large part to bail out Winston Churchill and the mess he helped create with the vindictive treatment of Germany that was negotiated into the Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI. But before our gallant, storied entry into that conflict, FDR made a concerted effort to address some very large, systemic domestic problems. We have all but forgotten what those problems were.

the need to address large, systemic problems…


Instead, the entire period has been reduced in the minds of most of us to a simplistic deification of an unalloyed humanitarian. Or the equally simplistic demonization of one man’s colossal governmental overreach, that laid the foundation for the loss of freedoms we are suffering through today. On the four-hour drive to visit our grandchildren recently, I came across a radio interview with a professor at a California university who the host identified as an expert on the New Deal. I wasn’t able to hear all that much before driving through the area and losing reception, but the gentleman prof was underscoring how so much of the good we take for granted in contemporary society is a direct result of this long-ago legislative package. I didn’t get the man’s name, or the title of his most recent book, and I don’t want to sell him short with my next comment. While I think there is great value in exploring the systemic economic problems the New Deal sought to address, I believe there is even greater value in recognizing this was the Roosevelt administration’s attempt to implement the principles espoused in Quadragesimo Anno, the social encyclical promulgated by Pope Pius Xi in 1931.

ethical implications of the social and economic order…


That encyclical, in turn, was based on Pope Leo XIII’s groundbreaking effort of forty years earlier, Rerum Novarum (1891). The subtitle of Rerum Novarum is “On the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor,” and it delves into the plight of the working classes. The English translation of Quadragesimo Anno is “The Fortieth Year.” It elaborates on Leo’s themes, continuing to stress the big-picture ethical implication of the social and economic order. I mention this now because I believe conservative Catholics who dismiss the likes of AOC as a loose cannon with wacky ideas, while somehow bringing themselves to defend our wacky President as a principled – if slightly unorthodox – statesman, have gotten themselves completely turned around on the all-important subject of economic behavior. How this happened is an interesting little story. In hindsight, these good-hearted people of a Catholic persuasion appear to be among the primary victims of the great paradigm shift that occurred some fifty years ago. It all started when the Democratic Party first went rogue, and assumed the full emancipation of the individual in private sexual matters as its new mantle, equal in importance to its old, established concern over economic injustice. Once this happened, many practicing Catholics found themselves without a political home. So by default they took up with that other party, the one that eventually got around to saying it was “pro-life.” Without fully realizing what this meant, these good-hearted Catholics adopted that other party’s core, long-held belief in the full emancipation of the individual in public, economic matters.

free markets as the magic formula for solving all social problems…


This full emancipation in economic matters translates into an unwavering support of “free markets.” Laissez-faire rules, with an “absence of obstacles” that allows the chips to fall where they may. It’s a fairy-tale world where supply and demand replaces right and wrong, and where every economic actor pursing his or her self-interest results in the best of all possible worlds. Trickle-down will take care of the little people. Swallowing this nonsense is how pro-life Catholics voluntarily fall head-first into the Republican quagmire. These earnest people continue to yearn for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the startling Supreme Court decision of 1973. As they bide their time, they find solace in the odd legislative initiative limiting abortion access here or there. Along with a smattering of favorable judicial appointments that are occasionally announced, both on the high court and various federal courts of appeal around the country. Meanwhile, they are content to let everything else slid. While they patiently await our national day of atonement on abortion, this breed of Catholic really only clamors for one thing: the “religious freedom” to practice their faith without undue government interference. In return, they inadvertently cede the larger, public square economic issue to our “principled, conservative” leaders, the ones who eventually get around to asserting a pro-life inclination at election time. So they acquiesce to the one-size-fits-all Republican approach to domestic policy: Any economic problem can be solved by cutting taxes and rolling back regulations. To their credit, the crafty Republicans have stayed true to their calling and haven’t wavered one little bit in their resolve. Not since they first emerged from the ashes of the old Whig party, in the middle of the 19th century. Not since our Founding Whigs sought to limit the voting franchise to those who own property.

protecting the interests of well-off white guys…


Let’s face it, this gang has always been about protecting the interests of well-off white guys, rather than promoting the common good. It was when some Catholics switched sides in the 1970s, and allowed themselves to be divided into opposing political factions, that our economy took what amounts to its latest predatory turn for the worst. As in the past, the profound understanding of economics as an essentially moral enterprise – the heart of Catholic social teaching – has once again been marginalized by the cognoscenti. In the midst of this dramatic paradigm shifting – this 20th century version of the dividing of Christendom – stands the legacy of The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Whether you are a (liberal) fan of that Council’s theological recasting of the Catholic imagination, or a (conservative) critic of the unfortunate ambiguity its documents – or at least the application of those documents – introduced into the belief and practice of the bourgeoisie, there is one thing both sides should be able to agree on. Vatican II effectively cut Catholics off from their intellectual heritage. With their minds distracted by the post WWII economic boom, and by the relaxation in sexual mores that usually accompanies any such burst of prosperity, liberal and conservative Catholics fully embraced the egalitarian American mindset.

becoming embarrassed by easy-to-understand concepts…


A sign of that embrace was how both sides simultaneously became embarrassed by beautifully articulated and easy-to-understand concepts like the formidable “error has no rights.” Catholics of all stripes also became embarrassed by the social (I.e. economic) teaching of the pre-conciliar Popes, such as Leo XII and Pius XI. It was discarded as obsolete, since the post WWII boom and the modern consumer economy were on the way to solving all those large, systemic domestic problems. And ever since, the efforts of all post-conciliar Popes to reference and re-affirm this economic teaching have, sadly, fallen on deaf ears. Agreeing with the Republican-libertarian construct of the economy as a thriving, self-contained engine that can deliver prosperity to all, if allowed to function without interference, has had dire consequences for a specific segment of the Catholic population. It has been the undoing of pro-life Catholics. It is the reason this group now finds itself wandering in the political desert. Unfortunately, aiding and abetting this Catholic dysphoria is a polished posse of conservative Catholic spokespeople – who tend to be employed by prestigious foundations that are funded by private wealth.

downplaying all papal challenges to the economic status quo…


Well-meaning as they may be, these opinion-makers are positively hell-bent on down-playing any challenge to the economic status quo made by John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and yes, most especially Francis. This loosely associated group of respected men and women seem to have a shared objective in mind when they show up for work each day: convincing the rest of us that our current brand of unfettered capitalism is perfectly aligned with Catholic social teaching. But, oh my, it most certainly is not. We should be wary of anyone who helps maintain the illusion that Catholics can support the standard Republican economic proscription with a clear conscience. In this such people are obviously counting on our not bothering to read for ourselves what all these Popes – every single one of them – are saying if rank-and-file, highly committed pro-life Catholics – among the finest people one could ever hope to meet, by the way – are serious about restoring the “culture of life,” they must first give themselves a good talking to, and start recognizing all the signposts, not just some of them. One cannot calmly ignore immorality in public, economic matters, only to then vociferously chastise the same level of immorality in private, sexual matters. Locating the source of our sexual depravity in things like the “scholarship” of Alfred Kinsey, and the “sophistication” of Hugh Hefner, makes perfect sense. But you must also be prepared to call out our predatory economy as an equivalent depravity, and identify its source in the buttoned-down “business acumen” of Milton Freidman and his many acolytes.

finding a way out of the pro-life desert…


Finding a way out of the pro-life desert will not be a simple matter of identifying and throwing political support behind the next Moses, because no such champion will ever emerge from our adversarial system. We must resign ourselves to the fact there is not now, nor will there ever be, a perfect candidate. Neither political party will ever produce such a leader, because neither one is pre-occupied with promoting public virtue, and leading the citizenry to eternal salvation. This is why Catholics always end up selling themselves short whenever they invest too heavily in one of these deficient parties. Instead of waiting for a modern-day Moses, though, Catholics could affect their own political liberation. This challenging DIY project would have to start with an ideological awakening. Step one in this grueling process of political liberation would be to realize that what passes for conservative economic policy is not the embodiment of Christian ideals. And to confront an awkward fact that looms so large it’s easy to miss: Our country’s founding was not a grand re-statement of traditional religious conviction for the modern age. It was, in fact, the West’s first official, state-sponsored rejection of Christianity as the basic operating system for society. Step two would be to see the deepening level of economic injustice we are currently experiencing as a natural by-product of the personal autonomy and rugged individualism embedded in the American DNA. And that the relatively recent decision to legalize abortion in this country represents not a “wrong turn,” but the logical extension of that same DNA.

a slow and steady contamination…


There is no question abortion is the greater evil, but pro-life Catholics may want to consider how we got here. The mainstream acceptance of this abomination was the result of a slow and steady contamination of the general public. It took place over many years, out in the open. It was not the sudden, incendiary work of a handful of radical judges and legislators who operated under the cover of darkness. The deplorable court rulings and legislation merely acknowledge a change in the zeitgeist, as these things usually do in a pluralist democracy. Therefore pro-life strategy should not be limited to its current laser-focus on judicial and legislative action, like repealing Roe v. Wade and shutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood, worthy as those objectives surely are. This has always been a hearts-and-minds issue, more than anything else. The pro-life movement would do well to enlarge the scope of its mission, and try speaking in a much more overt way to the underlying problem: In the United States personal autonomy and the pursuit of individual happiness take precedence over every other consideration. While it may be unrealistic to expect a politician or political candidate to argue against a founding principle such as the pursuit of individual happiness, Catholics can help guide them – and the entire country – in the right direction, by supporting whatever economic policy initiatives bring us closer to a Christian worldview that promotes the common good. That worldview, by the way, directly contradicts the secular vision we in America have chosen to live by. It is based on the unity of faith and reason, and a moral tradition, and an understanding of human flourishing that extends beyond merely improving the material circumstances of the clever or advantaged. The political/economic results yielded by such Catholic influence on a stubbornly secular electorate will more than likely be a piecemeal effort. Catholic fortunes may appear to rise or fall from one election cycle to the next. But if these believers have faith in what they have been taught, and the courage of their convictions, they should be able to soldier through to a more satisfactory result.

what really drives most abortions?…


Regarding the dreaded abortion issue, it would help if pro-life Catholics could come to terms with reality: many abortions are not merely a “lifestyle” decision, the choice of ambitious women who don’t want their education or career interrupted. The fact is many abortions – the majority of abortions? – have a strong economic component. The pregnant woman cannot see how she or her husband or her significant other can possibly afford to bring another baby into this world. So while it’s not something that immediately occurs to the run-of-the-mill, conservative pro-life Catholic, addressing economic injustice would be an invaluable step in saving countless women from the abortion option now viewed as the only viable solution to their economic predicament. Restoring a level of economic justice to our society – as FDR attempted to do back in the 1930s – may prompt even the clever and advantaged to re-think their me-first, aren’t-I-great approach to life. This infusion of empathy may well lead to a conversion of heart on the part of women who do currently abort for lifestyle reasons. Pro-life Catholics who are serious about restoring the culture will have to abandon their libertarian alliances, and get with the Catholic program of real human flourishing, which can only begin when the humbles have a living wage, decent benefits, and safe working conditions. If the politicians or political candidates who espouse such life-affirming economic ideas also support a woman’s right to choose, and marriage equality, Catholics should not necessarily discount the economic advocacy of these politicians out of hand. After all, such people are only modeling the zeitgeist regarding sexual mores, based on the time-honored American tradition of personal autonomy and rugged individualism.

yes, pro-life Catholics face a conundrum…


What a minute, you may be asking yourself at this point: How can a pro-life Catholic possibly square this suggested approach with the stern advice dispensed each election season by our prelates and priests and the pro-life leadership? Yes, I admit, this approach does create a conundrum for the principled Catholic. But I guess my point is this conundrum has existed since the 1970s, when the Democratic Party first went rogue. Pro-life Catholics have simply chosen to ignore it. Or have done a poor job of properly examining all sides of it. Or have allowed their own prosperity to blind them to the larger societal problem. It is the broad ideology of personal autonomy and rugged individualism behind the American Experiment that has painted our culture into this corner. Our two political parties each carry a strain of the virus known as “individual emancipation from authority, law, and tradition.” The Republicans excel in rebelling against the moral tradition in the way they practice economics. The Democrats now revel in rebelling against the same moral tradition when it comes to sexual behavior. If a Catholic wants to support a Republican candidate on the basis of a stated pro-life inclination, I say that Catholic should only do so while protesting vehemently against the Republican Party’s decidedly anti-Catholic economic policies. And to keep in mind that no Republican can stop a women from wanting to have an abortion, or any two people of the same gender from wanting to marry each other. Similarly, if a Catholic decides to support a Democratic candidate who advances life-affirming economic ideas, such a Catholic should be very noisy about that party’s regrettable support for what amounts to licentiousness. But again, no Democrat can force a woman to abort her unborn child, or force two people of the same gender to marry each other.

being far more pro-active in turning things around…


I am suggesting here that Catholics can be far more pro-active in turning things around than they are currently allowing themselves to be. The way pro-lifers offer uncritical support to Republicans just makes endemic economic injustice that much worse. This leads more people to feel financially overwhelmed and unable to bring children into the world, which then leads to more abortions. When pro-life Catholics completely dismiss any and all Democrats out of hand, it gives free rein to the worst predatory aspects of unfettered capitalism, which in large measure is responsible for fueling the very thing – abortion – these principled Catholics most want to see addressed, above all else. Here’s a thought: Let’s not give ANY politician a pass on ANY issue. Catholics should stop giving Republicans a pass on economics. And they should by all means continue to give Democrats a hard time about abortion. But once more for emphasis, support for an idea is not an automatic government mandate. No one is being forced to abort their unborn child, or to marry someone of their own gender. If Catholics are going to be more pro-active, they will have to do a better job of grasping the complexity of the situation. This extends to our prelates, priests, and the pro-life leadership. Banging away at election time like a one-note-Johnny that we can’t vote for any politician who dutifully models the zeitgeist on abortion, is NOT an example of grasping the complexities. I honestly think this comes down to having confidence and a determination that the truth will eventually win out. Anyone who sincerely wants a more just and equitable society – such as a Democrat who may be momentarily misguided on reproductive rights and marriage equality – can’t help but arrive at the same conclusion the Roosevelt administration did, back in the 1930s. It is only in applying Catholic social teaching – in all its many facets – that real human progress can be made. (Of course the Republican Party – with many an observant Catholic in tow – claims a more just and equitable society as its end game, too. But it clings to the fanciful notion an unrestricted market and trickle-down economics will someday get us there.) Or to quote Pius XI on the subject, “There can be no social progress outside the moral order.” To be sure, if these wayward souls are to come around, everyday Catholics with a feel for the Church’s social teaching as it applies to economics will have to show the way. And their demeanor in this effort should display above all else a love and compassion for the ones who are presently operating under a false (American) impression of what true freedom is, and what real progress looks like. If our country is one day able to regain a sense of economic justice, all the other seemingly intractable social problems that vex us will become more manageable. Not only will economic justice help lead men back to honor a commitment to the women who bear their children. This same overriding sense of justice will also help lead our entire culture back to a respect for all human life, not just the life and happiness and personal fulfillment of the mother. The reason this restoration must begin with revising our approach to the basic economic questions is quite simple. In the modern era, economics always dictates culture, not the other way around. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. September 12, 2019

Use the contact form below to email me.

9 + 14 =