Select Page

Approaching Politics with Love

Approaching Politics with Love

Nov 6, 2024  |  617 words  |  Politics   

Death and taxes are two of life’s inevitables that we typically face only reluctantly, and usually with a sense of dread and loathing.  But I’m not scared of dying, as a young Lauro Nyro once sang, and the older I get the more receptive I have become to the idea of rendering unto Caeser that which is Caeser’s, as another young person of some renown once instructed.

It is finding and electing a Caeser with the wisdom and savvy it takes to dispense these ‘tributes’ in a judicious manner that is easier said than done.

Before launching into yet another partisan diatribe about the election results, I am chastened by the simple fact half the country voted for a different candidate than I did, and the unavoidable realization there are people of goodwill on both sides.

Though I confess to having difficulty seeing the appeal of Donald Trump, who is more of a crass entertainer than even a moderately competent politician.  I am part of the chorus of Trump detractors who see him as an incessant jackhammer outside your bedroom window at 6:30 in the morning, which is how the columnist Bret Stephens recently described him.  Mr. Trump doesn’t know much about reaching across the aisle to build a consensus, but boy does he know how to build his brand.  In the process he has managed to secure enough electoral votes to retake the White House, so here we go again.

In hindsight it is obvious Joe Biden should have admitted his cognitive decline much sooner than he did, which would have allowed Democrats to find a battle-tested standard-bearer through the rough-and-tumble of a messy primary season.  Kamala Harris did the best she could with the short ramp she was given to work with, in terms of establishing an identity and staking out policy positions.  She breathed new life into the ticket and managed to score high marks for likeability.  That, apparently, was not quite enough to become the first female President of the United States.

Not that I know anything about picking a winner, mind you.  I wanted to see Elizabeth Warren as President in 2016 but would have settled for Bernie Sanders.  This time around it is none other than that raucous upstart J.D. Vance who qualifies as a person of interest.  I only just tuned into his story with the long June 8 print interview he gave to his old friend, the op-ed writer Ross Douthat.  Prevailing wisdom holds Vance to be the epitome of a political opportunist, ready to say or do anything to advance his standing.  He strikes me as just the opposite, as an unusually principled operator.

I see Mr. Vance as a neophyte still trying to figure out how to translate his admirable instincts for wanting to balance the economic scales into coherent policy initiatives.  Some of his gaffes on the campaign trail since being selected as Trump’s running mate are indefensible.  But some can be chalked up to his being a political novice still trying to get his sea legs as a national candidate.  

I can’t help but respect Vance’s willingness to go into enemy territory and be interrogated by hostile media outlets.  In these exchanges it is immediately apparent he has actual thoughts and ideas, and can do more than talk in pre-packaged, consultant-approved sound bites and bullet points.

Which is exactly how I feel about people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg.   These are young pols with a good head on their shoulders and something important to contribute.  We should be encouraging  them in the development of their problem-solving and governing chops, instead of trying to smite them in their political infancy with adversarial taunting and baiting.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

3 + 15 =

The Politics of Love

The Politics of Love

Oct 26, 2024  |  1,019 words  |  Politics, Marriage  

As fascinating as this contentious election cycle has been, my attention has been happily diverted away from politics by my decision to marry again this Fall.

After my once happy first marriage came to a long, drawn out and non-communitive end, I was fortunate to meet a lovely, age-appropriate woman in February 2022, who like me was making a concerted effort to find a trusted companion for this final act in our respective lives.  In addition to being initially attracted by this individual’s physical appearance, I subsequently discovered her to be intelligent, accomplished, challenging, and complicated.  All of which has also proven to be quite attractive.

It has been a whirlwind last few years, during which my entire life has undergone a subtle transformation, or at the very least a serious refresh.  I believe my bride feels the same way about hers.  Going into this search I never thought getting married a second time was something I would be inclined to do, or would ever feel was necessary, even if I did find someone to settle down with.  That I eventually came around and changed my mind to the point of wanting to propose, and wanting to marry again, is just one of many surprises I have experienced.

*

Being set in one’s ways is often cited as a hurdle to forging a new intimate relationship later in life.  One person likes to go to bed early, the other likes to stay up a bit longer – that sort of thing.

Sometimes the differences go much deeper.  Sometimes it can feel like trying to merge two radically different mind-body ecosystems.  This can pose an almost insurmountable challenge to achieving what most of us are searching for at any stage of life – a shared sense of belonging together, a confident feeling that ‘this is the one.’

In my case, I like peace and quiet and tend to process things internally.  A little conversation can go a long way.  Observation often takes precedence over engagement.  Being content in one’s own thoughts is referred to by some as “listening to the music of the spheres.”  Or simply listening to one’s inner music.

My wife, on the other hand, likes to think out loud.  She is happiest when her every breath elicits speech.  It can be tricky knowing what I am supposed to pay attention to and engage with, and what I am better off letting pass by as a random ‘thought in progress.’

I can step out of my comfort zone and socialize with the best of them, when the situation demands.  Whereas my spouse is naturally outgoing and more socially inclined.  She is perfectly comfortable addressing a stranger in any circumstance, ready for the next personal encounter, almost hungry for more engagement.  

She makes friends easily and has maintained them throughout her life.  One of her best friends from high school was among the first people she introduced me to when we started dating, and this woman and her husband were among the special guests at our wedding.

In my case I remember such long-ago classmates fondly but have not seen or spoken to any of them in years.  They live on in memory as archetypes, populating my dreams.

A four-hour train ride can be a luxury for me, a chance to read a little, gaze out the window lost in thought, and maybe write a few things down.  For her it can be an ordeal, a penance.  Unless, of course, she manages to strike up a conversation with someone across the aisle from where we are sitting.  Then she comes to life and is in her element.

*

Learning to live with each other’s unique essence requires a delicate, emotional/intellectual type of alchemy.  It is how eros (the easy, piece-of-cake part) slowly grows into agape (the much more difficult assignment).  

It involves acknowledging and appreciating the other’s strengths, without feeling constrained when those strengths are expressed.  It means adapting to your significant other’s moods and rhythms every once in a while, instead of always expecting her to adapt to yours.  

Giving my wife the level of ‘active’ interaction she needs to maintain her equilibrium, while carving out enough quiet time to maintain mine, represents the epic balancing act of our relationship.  It helps that we both want this thing we have found together to work out.  

But we also know our being determined is not enough.  We are united in the belief we will not be able to accomplish this on our own initiative.  We welcome assistance in the form of grace and inspiration – not just from family and friends, but also from saints and other spiritual guides.   We both still believe in God, and are convinced all good gifts come from above.

Which is why we each have a deeply felt sense of gratitude at having found each other.  Even though such supplication is routinely disparaged these days as being merely the opiate of the masses, a refuge for the weak-minded who are unable to think for themselves.  As a counter to that narrative, my wife and I have been thinking for ourselves our entire lives, and each pride ourselves on our discerning intellects.  

At the risk of sounding a bit smug or simple-minded, I would say it is through rigorous discernment that we routinely seek out and are receptive to divine intervention.

From my perspective the decision to marry is not meant as a declaration the two of us have achieved some sort of elevated level of harmony and understanding.  I am going into this marriage with my eyes open, fully aware that we, as a couple, are a work-in-progress.  

Our moving wedding ceremony and joy-filled reception were wonderful to behold and will become a lasting memory to cherish.  But it is not as if we have just had our ticket punched to the land of milk and honey.

The big, splashy event was fun, but above all else it serves as a public anointing, announcing our commitment to the intimate process of learning to live with – and love, and support – another human being.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

3 + 8 =

Economic Clarity

Economic Clarity

Sept 27, 2024  |  1,336 words  |  Politics, Economics, Religion  

Over the course of his twelve-year run as pope, Francis has made it pretty clear appeasing First World sensibilities is not his top priority.  We here in the United States have not always known what to make of this, since his lack of deference can seem like disrespect at times.  

It can feel as if this Argentine pontiff is going out of his way to challenge our sense of exceptionalism, our sense of being a light to the nations and a city on a hill.  And who knows, maybe he is.  Or maybe he is just trying to broaden our perspective and bring a little Third World awareness to bear on the situation.  

I choose to think he is not disparaging us so much as he is gently prodding us to see how much more work there is left to do.  So that we should not be content to pat ourselves on the back and rest on our laurels.

In the service of this cause, Francis displays a unique ability to chide American conservatives and liberals simultaneously.  This has always struck me as part of his charm, and a sign he is doing something right.

It happened again on his return flight from a grueling 12-day trip to four tiny countries in the Asia-Pacific Rim, when reporters on the plane asked him about our upcoming presidential election.  He turned up his nose and declined to endorse either major party candidate, on the grounds that each is “against life.”  Kamala Harris because of her position on abortion, and Donald Trump because of his position on immigration.  

This bothered political partisans on both sides, since each group wants to see Catholic teaching applied in a way that endorses their preferred worldview.  Each side thinks they hold the high ground, convinced the other is the obvious apostate.

Having said that, it is undoubtedly the conservative camp who has had the longest-running feud with Pope Francis. 

They have never approved of his more “pastoral” approach to doctrine.  But what really gets their goat is the way this pope raises the issue of economic inequity every chance he gets.  Conservatives hear this as harping, and take it as a personal affront, an attack on their way of life.

This is especially true whenever Francis uses the term ‘social justice.’  That phrase puts American conservatives in a foul mood, as it smacks of the policy initiatives enacted by the Democrat left over the last hundred years, which they have steadfastly opposed as governmental overreach.

Never mind that these policies have been aimed at smoothing out the rough edges of ‘free market’ ideas advanced by conservatives.  Whether this-or-that Democrat policy has been an effective way to legislate ‘fairness’ is certainly open to debate.  My point is conservatives have always opposed these policies out of the gate, on the grounds they violate the hallowed concept of ‘limited government.’

Now, I am four-square in favor of keeping government as small as possible.  But how small is just right?  What size should a government be, to do what needs to be done?  Namely, provide for or administer to a just society, or at least a ‘more equitable’ one.  This should be an ongoing negotiation.  But the discussion should center on ‘social justice’ every bit as much as it does on ‘fiscal responsibility.’

*

That, to me, is all Pope Francis has been trying to tell us throughout his papacy.  He is talking to the Hey-I-don’t need-any-help, independent-minded contingent here in the United States, as well as the successful minority in all other ‘developed’ countries across the First World.

He was at it again on September 20, soon after he returned from that grueling trip the Asia-Pacific Rim, when he visited the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in Rome, where he addressed a gathering of The World Meeting of Popular Movements for the fourth time in his pontificate.  Here are a few excerpts…

“If there are no policies, good policies, rational and equitable policies that strengthen social justice so that everyone has land, shelter, work, a fair salary and adequate social rights, the logic of material waste and human waste will spread, leaving violence and desolation in its wake.”

“Social justice is inseparable from compassion,” Francis insisted.  “True compassion builds the unity of people.”  The opposite of compassion is “to look down on others as if they were worthless.  It is the great temptation of our time.  To look from afar, to look from above, to look with indifference, to look with contempt, to look with hatred.”

“This is how violence is conceived: the silence of indifference enables the roar of hatred.  Silence in the face of injustice gives way to social division, social division to verbal violence, verbal violence to physical violence, physical violence to the war of all against all.”

Then Francis really got down to brass tacks, commenting on one of the foundational truths of free market ideology:

“Blind competition for more money is not a creative force, but an unhealthy attitude and a path to perdition.  Such irresponsible, immoral, and irrational behavior is destroying creation and dividing peoples.”

“Dehumanized ideologies promote the ‘culture of the winner’…  Some call this meritocracy…  (but) it is paradoxical that many times great fortunes have little to do with merit:  They are the result of income or inheritances, they are the result of the exploitation of people and the plundering of nature, they are the product of financial speculation or tax evasion, they derive from corruption or organized crime.”

Francis then repeated a familiar refrain of his:

“Sadly, it is often precisely the wealthiest who oppose the realization of social justice or integral ecology out of sheer greed.”  They pressure governments “to sustain bad policies that favor them economically.”

On the bright side Francis also acknowledged:

“Some of the richest men in the world (do) recognize that the system that allowed them to amass extraordinary fortunes – allow me to say ridiculous fortunes – is immoral and must be modified” and “that there should be more taxes on billionaires.”

“If that small percentage of billionaires who monopolize most of the planet’s wealth were encouraged to share it…  how good it would be for themselves and how fair it would be for everyone,” the pope said.  “I sincerely ask the privileged of this world to be encouraged to take this step.  They’re going to be much happier.”

*

There were about thirty representatives of different popular movements from various countries in the room as Pope Francis spoke on September 20, but many more were connected by streaming worldwide, and speakers from Sri Lanka and South Africa spoke to the group via Zoom.

Like his previous three talks to the World Meeting of Popular Movements, this 45-minute speech was a stirring call to action.  It echoed and built upon themes of social justice his papal predecessors have stressed since at least 1891, when Pope Leo XIII drilled down on the economic disparities created by the first Gilded Age.

Unfortunately, this September 20 address received zero coverage in the mainstream media.  Major news outlets did not mention the event or comment on the pope’s remarks in any way.  And apparently there were  no social media influencers in attendance, to help spread the word.  What meager reporting it did receive was  relegated to the religious press, which is where I found out about it.

The ‘silent treatment’ was no doubt the result of Francis’s choice of venue:  A not-particularly-well-known international body that brings together organizations of people on the margins of society, including the poor, the unemployed, and peasants who have lost their land.

The absence of a big, splashy, headline story enabled American conservatives to dodge another chance for a close encounter with basic Christian principles regarding economic behavior, and how that behavior impacts social justice.  Not just on the world stage, but here at home as well.  

All is not lost, however.  I have a feeling this aged, increasingly infirm Argentine pontiff will keep trying to get their attention.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

13 + 11 =

August Politics

August Politics

Aug 22, 2024  |  587 words  |  Politics  

I have no notes from the front to offer this week, since all the important speeches at the Democratic National Convention don’t start until way past my bedtime. And next-day YouTube snippets of highlights (or lowlights) are just not the same.

Though I was disappointed to hear James Taylor was bumped from Tuesday night’s line-up. And then on Wednesday night Stevie Wonder was replaced at the last minute by a young female singer introduced grandly as a “legend,” who is also “one of America’s greatest gifts.” But her name was unrecognizable to me. Looks like I am a bit out of touch when it comes to contemporary musicians who qualify as legends.

As for this month’s rendition of retail presidential politics, things are continuing apace. Kamala Harris is keeping things simple and sticking to the basics. Expressing lots of warmth and charm, while occasionally lobbying a by-now well-established barb at her unflinching opponent. Maybe after Labor Day she will roll out some specific policy positions. Maybe she is holding her fire for the big televised debate coming in September.

Donald Trump for his part is the very definition of a one-trick pony, so by rights we should all be bored by now. But it continues to be hard not to slow down and look at a car crash. 

A Trump promotional piece arrived in yesterday’s mail, announcing nine special policy initiatives we should expect to see should he win back the White House. Number five is “Rebuild our cities.” That’s it: just those three words. How’s that for efficiency!

Mr. Trump and his handlers are adept at coming up with “lowest common denominator” appeals. A highway billboard I pass every morning on the way to work has landed on an eye-catching format. The name TRUMP spelled out in giant letters against a dark blue background, and underneath just a short phrase. Once day it reads “Law and Order.” The next day, “Putting Families First.” Then there was the always popular “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.” This morning it read “Fighting for Justice and Equality.”

I guess if the Kamala campaign could afford that same billboard her people might put up equally inane slogans. That such hard-hitting ‘messages’ are now the key to winning elections is an expression of our predicament. It is daunting for politicians to address complex, sophisticated issues with a broad cross-section of the population, and it is equally daunting for us to listen to and comprehend such dense communication.

Since every aspect of life, every field of endeavor, is a complicated stew, our ongoing challenge as individuals is marshalling the attention span – or “bandwidth,” as it is known in today’s parlance  needed to seek out more than just easy-to-digest infotainment when it comes to current affairs, so we can act responsibly and be legitimate participants in this democracy.

Once our improved bandwidth is on display our candidates may be willing to rise above lowest common denominator appeals and attempt a slightly more detailed dissemination of their ideas. We might get more substance, and less posturing or pandering. Fewer rallies, and more position papers. 

But first we must demonstrate we are willing to put the work into paying attention, instead of defaulting to simply being entertained. And what an odd form of entertainment it is: Submitting to and indulging in this repeated stoking of our political passions in short targeted bursts, before comfortably settling back into our daily routines. All while accusing our politicians of being superficial and lacking integrity.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

2 + 12 =

Here’s Kamala!

Here’s Kamala!

July 24, 2024  |  73 words  |  Politics  

It feels like the country woke up Monday morning and breathed a collective sigh of relief, after President Biden finally agreed to step aside the day before.  Now, after only a day or two on the campaign trail it seems Kamala Harris has pulled the sword from the stone and is ready to be King.  Or Queen, as the case may be.

This election just got a lot more interesting, don’t you think?

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

11 + 6 =

J.D. Vance Rewrites History

J.D. Vance Rewrites History

July 18, 2024  |  473 words  |  Politics  

The speech J.D. Vance delivered at last night’s Republican National Convention demonstrated an ability to master a big moment.  He was obviously at ease; he took his time and made his points while engaging his audience with a requisite amount of charm.  Though it would have been a more effective presentation if he could have managed to tighten things up a bit.

Since the June 13 interview Mr. Vance did with Ross Douthat of The New York Times, I find myself wondering why so many well-known commentators are labeling Vance “a hollow person of little conviction” who is willing to say anything to get ahead.  I find him to be the exact opposite of that.

In fact, as others have noted, it seems to me that where Donald Trump has barely-articulated instincts, Vance has actual ideas.  Mr. Vance is able, unlike Trump, to put some meat on the bone, so to speak, when it comes to policy.

But I did get a kick out of the way J.D. Vance re-wrote history at times last night, such as when he blamed “Biden-back policies” for sending our jobs overseas and our children to war.  

If memory serves NAFTA was a long-advanced initiative favored by Republicans in their ‘global trade’ mode, while finally receiving bi-partisan support in 1992 from President Bill Clinton and other Democrats like Senator Biden, who has always prided himself on “working across the aisle.’  

Ditto the 1979 bi-lateral trade agreement with China, and most especially ditto the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.  We must surely all remember that particular ‘military intervention’ was the special project of a Republican administration that talked the country into the existence of a fathom cache of “weapons of mass destruction,” after which the voices resisting the subsequent invasion were few and far between.

Beyond that though, the economic populism Mr. Vance is attempting to promote has great appeal to me, even if it is clearly at odds with what Republicans have always taken to be gospel truth on economic policy.

To suggest as Vance did last night that the next Trump administration would not “cater to Wall Street” and would instead “commit to the working man” strains credibility.  Or that the last Trump administration “created the greatest economy in history for workers.”  Maybe I missed something, but I thought all Trump did last time was pass the largest tax cut in history for the wealthiest Americans, one that made certain members of that club, like Warren Buffet, blush at the largesse.

But I do agree with J. D. Vance’s assertion from the podium that “Wall Street barons crashed the economy” in 2008.  To repeat, I am a big fan of the ‘economic populism’ he is trying to introduce into the discussion.  I just think he will have an uphill battle doing so within the confines of the Republican Party. 

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.

www.robertjcavanaughjr.com

bobcavjr@gmail.com

Use the contact form below to email me.

9 + 7 =