There have been a spate of articles lately bringing up the subject of Biden's Age, and fears that he can't beat Trump in the general election. They make the point that we can't depend on a "deus ex machina" or a unicorn to beat Trump. And then they trot a unicorn out of the barn, like this one: To Beat Trump, Democrats Need a Whitmer-Warnock Ticket (thebulwark.com). According to this, Joe Biden should just announce that he's not running in 2024, and kick Kamala Harris to the curb. And the Dems could run Whitmer with Warnock as her running mate, and with their youthful vigor and freshness, they would easily defeat Trump. Never mind that neither of these people have shown any interest in running in 2024. Neither have they raised any funds to do so.
If the Dems were serious about a "plan B", they should have gotten going with it long before this . It is too late in the game now.
The point of the naysayers is that perception is more important than reality. The economy may in fact be recovering, but people are still experiencing the effects of inflation. They feel that he has lost control of the border, even though there are much fewer illegal crossings now with some of the measures which have been put in place.
What I think is, yes Biden is old. But I'll take "too old" any day ahead of "too criminal and too crazy". Yes, he could die in office. but the last president to die in office was Kennedy, a man in his 40s. Bullets will do that to you. Of course so could a coronary. Which is why we have a vice president. Kamala Harris isn't chopped liver. She may not tickle the right erogenous zones of the pundit class, but she is a capable person with experience in government as the California AG, and as a senator. If Joe Biden dropped dead, she would be a credible president. But the Republicans have made a boogey woman of her.
I don't think anyone who voted for Biden in the previous election is going to go over to the Trump side this time. Biden is the only person who has actually beaten Trump. What we really have to fear is someone like Joe Manchin going over to a third party. That really would flip the election to Trump.
Of course part of the discussion is sheer ageism, or rather selective ageism. Trump is not that much younger than Biden, and Biden takes better care of his health. One commentator made the particularly unkind comment that Joe Biden looks like he is 102. Hello, have they seen the mug shot of the orange idol? It isn't even Halloween yet, but I'd be more afraid of that face than Freddie Kruger.
I’m not a big fan of Kamala Harris. But she is knowledgeable, competent and experienced, as you point out. Biden is only 3 years older than trump. Trump is obese, and seems a higher risk for heart attack or stroke than Biden. Harris would be WAY better than any of the Unholy Trinity who are all extremists.
ReplyDeleteIs Biden too old? Let me offer this video clip as a way to assess. This is a video clip of the president offering remarks in Hawaii in the wake of the Lahaina fire. It shows 30 seconds or so of him walking down the street as he approaches the press conference podium, so we can see how ably he is moving about.
ReplyDeleteThen he makes a statement. It's pretty typical Biden in some ways: the main points are scripted but he also goes into anecdotes and digressions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx_3zZE0oa4
FWIW, he is my view: physically, he looks like any Florida retiree: white-haired, sun-glassed. He doesn't move too badly for an 80 year old, but I don't think he could play nine holes of golf without a cart.
When he spoke, his energy level in this case was pretty okay - better than some other recent clips I've seen from him recently. At the same time, his voice slurs quite a bit, and he sounds like he's perpetually out of breath. (I can identify; I have a lung issue.) He comes across in this case as though he understands what he's reading from the script; that isn't always the case.
All in all, I think he's still able, at least on his good days, as this one seems to be. If I have time, I'll try to find some video from the 2020 election so we can compare.
People do age, even if they're relatively healthy, even if they don't have dementia. He probably isn't quite the same as he was in 2020.
DeleteHowever I listened to a clip of Trump speaking recently, and it was just a fire hose of lies and made-up b.s. He was always that way, but this was different, it seemed like he wasn't quite attached to reality. It also seemed a little desperate.
Had Trump been removed from office during his term, I would have been relatively ok with Pence finishing out his term - in fact, I would have breathed a sigh of relief. Pence would have been a big step up from Trump.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to say, I don't feel that way about Kamala. I think there were many better options than her for vice president. (Although Biden foolishly excluded many of them from consideration in 2020 by pledging to choose a Black woman as his running mate.)
In my view, Kamala is like Scott Walker and Ron DeSantis: the more that Americans have gotten to know her, the less they have liked her.
As VP, I think she has been a flop for the last four years. In earlier eras of American history, it was more common for incumbents to choose new, fresh running mates for their re-elections. I don't know why that tradition has gone away. For the good of the country, Biden should fire her from the ticket and choose someone better. If it's politically necessary, let him choose another (but this time more competent) Black woman.
The calculus that the Biden/Harris ticket beat Trump four years ago, and that therefore there is no reason they shouldn't beat him again, strikes me as flawed reasoning. Many things have changed. Biden has aged, and Harris's reputation probably is considerably worse now than it was four years ago. Trump's situation also has changed. Whatever the outcome, it won't be the same election as three years ago.
Jim, I guess I haven't kept up, but what has Harris done that is so bad? "Firing" her would look bad, unless she has done something that crossed a line (think Spiro Agnew; for corruption, though that doesn't seem to bother anybody these days.) If you throw your veep under the bus without a compelling reason it just looks desperate.
DeleteI hadn't been aware that it was common for incumbents to choose a new vice president for their second term. Thinking of the two -term presidents in my adult years, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama all kept the same running mate.
DeleteKatherine - I don't think Harris has done anything disastrously poorly. There have been many items floating about (which we should take with a measure of skepticism, but personally I think they come across as believable) that she is a bad manager of her people and treats them poorly. Likewise that Biden's White House staff don't think she is a good partner and don't believe they can trust her with anything substantial by way of policy making or execution.
DeleteMy own observation is the White House will trot her out to "safe" events, such as fundraisers in deep-blue states; and in can't-miss-a-two-inch-putt circumstances, as when they sent her to Florida to pretend to fulminate over allegations that DeSantis's curriculum teaches that some slaves learned new skills as slaves.
I suppose it's clear that I wouldn't want Harris within a mile of the presidency. But I should hasten to add: the rule of thumb with Donald Trump is: try to imagine the worst possible move he could make on a given question or issue - and the move he actually makes will be twice as bad as you thought possible. And so, when it comes time for him to select his own running mate, I think it's possible to likely that he will choose someone even worse than Harris. (I've mentioned before that I think Kari Lake will he the one.)
DeleteAnd so, at least as I analyze it, the decision tree becomes as follows: both presidential candidates are elderly and so there is a better-than-average chance that neither would finish the next term. Which is least bad for the country: Joe Biden re-elected, with Harris finishing up his term? Or Donald Trump re-elected, with his running mate finishing up his term? Personally, I think the rational answer is Joe Biden. I think that answer becomes stronger if he has a better running mate.
"I hadn't been aware that it was common for incumbents to choose a new vice president for their second term."
DeleteIt was done at least occasionally in earlier eras. Harry Truman was Franklin Roosevelt's third VP, and had been VP for only a handful of months (and was a pretty obscure senator before that) when Roosevelt died just a few months into his fourth term. I believe it was pretty well-known among the Democratic smoke-filled-room set that Roosevelt wouldn't survive his upcoming term, and if I'm not mistaken, Truman was chosen as a sort of compromise candidate. (I wish Tom was still alive, he knew this stuff inside and out.)
Likewise, Andrew Johnson had been VP only for a few weeks when Lincoln was assassinated; Lincoln's first VP was Hannibal Hamlin (which I admit I had to look up). It seems Ulysses Grant and William McKinley also had different VPs for each term. So did Grover Cleveland, although his two terms were non-contiguous. Thomas Jefferson also had two different VPs, although I am not certain the procedure for electing VPs was the same in his day.
A person needs to be 35 to be a presidential candidate. If there's a lower limit, there should be an upper limit. I think 65 would work. And 70 for senators and representatives. This is getting ridiculous with politicians going into fugue states. Are their staffs keeping them propped up like the palace guards of old?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Biden is demented but he gets tired. I get stupid when I'm tired.
Biden was put in to block Bernie and Warren because that's what the money wanted. It's obvious that our electoral system and two-party system has broken down and does not respond to the needs of the ordinary slob. And I don't think either of the parties really want to fix it. Recently, the Democratic Party sued to block ranked choice voting in DC.
I'd be fine with an upper age limit. I see that McConnell had another freeze-frame episode.
DeleteI have been assuming that McConnell wouldn't want to retire because the governor of his state, Andy Beshear, is a Democrat. According to the 17th amendment to the Constitution, when a Senate vacancy occurs, the governor of the state can appoint a temporary replacement, until a special election can be held.
DeleteFWIW: this article reports that the GOP-controlled Kentucky legislature has passed a law (by overriding Beshear's veto) that, should McConnell not complete his term, his appointed replacement must be a Republican. The 17th Amendment seems to state that the state legislature must empower the governor to make the temporary replacement appointment; but it's not clear the legislature can tie the governor's hands in this way. But I can easily believe that, with the Senate so evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, McConnell wouldn't want to risk his seat flipping to a Democrat, even temporarily.
He could step down from Senate leadership and continue as a senator. This is similar to what Nancy Pelosi did. But I'd think that many people wouldn't want to relinquish the power and perks that come with a leadership position, even if it's just Minority Leader. And the Senate could flip again to the Republicans again in the next election.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/31/1191034037/mcconnell-facing-health-questions-says-he-ll-serve-full-term-keep-leading-senate
Jim, I am really tired tonight. I watched the video. I am recently turned 76. My husband is 82. Both of us have arthritis, but we try to walk 1 1/2 to 2 miles/ day most days. Both of us have trouble with stairs and after 50 years in our two story plus basement colonial know that we need to find a one story house. What I saw in that video was a man walking as though he has arthritis pain. A man behind him ( younger) in a white shirt also seems to have the arthritis walk. I did not notice any particular slurring of words at all. As I recall, trump had several on- camera stumbles. On the 100th Anniversary of the end of WWI trump apparently didn’t believe he could walk down the Champs Elysées to the Arc de Triomphe for the commemorative ceremony with the other dozens of international leaders there His rhetoric has always been all over the map and frequently incoherent. . His aides did the morning briefings with bulletpoint line items because apparently he has no ability to focus on actual text. Whereas his predecessors always consumed reams of briefing materials, he couldn’t handle it. He’s a born reality tv entertainer. There are plenty of YouTube videos of trumps speeches with lots of messed up words. If you want, I’ll post some links.
ReplyDeleteI see no evidence that Biden is in any stage of dementia, not does he appear to have a serious health issue ( unlike McConnell). Trump looks like a heart attack waiting to happen. Biden maybe would not play golf without a cart - we know that trump doesn’t.He spent more time playing golf in his first term than Obama did in two terms - yet Republicans were always complaining about Obama’s golf games. Pence served as a live bobble- head doll in front of cameras, nodding at trumps lies and looking at him with adoration.
I’ll review the VPs in my lifetime tomorrow. Too tired tonight. Harris has far more experience and knowledge than trump did in 2016, and more than Ramaswamy now. I don’t have to like her to think she would be better than either of them.
Bernier Sanders, at 81 could do a better job that either Biden or Trump.
ReplyDeleteMy wish for both parties is that they would find a better candidate than Sanders. I haven't seen one yet.
I’m not a bit sure about sanders. He’s got ideas, and passions, and he attracts the young.But DC is a tough town for getting things done - even when your party controls both houses of Congress. Bush the Younger offered a good plan for immigrantiin reform- a solid plan that should have passed, given the tgrbRs controlled both houses of congress. It would probably have prevented a lot of the ongoing grief and suffering that we’ve witnessed for the last 20 years. But the Republicans don’t like immigrants, they don’t like poor people wherever they are from. And Sanders knows that. The upside is that with his long experience, he knows how to better work the system. Trump was totally ignorant of how Washington works. Ramaswamy is too.And, like trump in 2016, he’s pretty ignorant of policy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as age and physical fitness are concerned, I found this in The Atlantic.
< em>
RE: Ramaswamy: this clip from the recent Republican debate shows Nikki Haley eviscerating Ramaswamy for his dopey policy ideas. This was the high point of the evening. Personally, I think watching this is four minutes well spent. It's subtitled, but there is a lot of crosstalk so I am not sure how easy it is to follow that way.
DeleteFWIW, one of my thoughts was, "Where the bleep were the Republican officials who should have been taking Trump to task like that for the last seven years?"
The Atlantic June 15 2020
ReplyDeleteEveryone’s feeling a little frayed these days, but even by those standards, President Donald Trump seemed a little off on Saturday, as he delivered the commencement speech at West Point.
The speech was supposed to be a triumphant moment for Trump—he’d insisted on calling cadets back to the United States Military Academy, after they were sent home amid the coronavirus pandemic—but instead it raised questions about his physical fitness. The president seemed to struggle to drink out of a glass of water, then faltered while walking down a ramp from the dais.
Clips of the two moments circulated over the weekend—especially after Trump himself tweeted about his walk down the ramp, insisting that he was fine—raising questions about his fitness for office. But these questions, and the largely baseless theories to explain his behavior, seem to miss the point. Whether or not Trump can walk smoothly down a ramp says nothing about his ability to serve as president. The search for some sort of disqualifying physical ailment is a distraction.Trump has offered ample evidence to judge his dubious fitness for office over the past three years, regardless of how he sips water.
The nonsense discussions about Biden being too old, unfit etc without any actual evidence are distractions too.
I don't think the possibility of Biden being too old is nonsense. On the contrary, it's an important consideration. And all of us - all voters - are well within our rights to try to judge his well-being by how we walks and moves, how he talks, and so on. Goodness knows, the White House communication machine isn't going to be transparent. We have to trust our own eyes and ears and make the best judgment we can.
DeleteIn some ways - mostly for his personal sake - I wish he hadn't decided to run again. If anyone has earned a chance to retire and rest, it's him. But I also don't think he's necessarily being selfish by deciding to run for re-election. He may have looked at the succession possibilities and the chances of those successors beating Trump, and decided it was best for the country and the party that he try to make it through another four years. I think he has a gift for keeping his eye on the ball, and right now that means, beating Donald Trump.
I think you're right that he's running to keep Trump out of the White House. I admire him for that, but I wish he didn't have to. If some other people had done their duty in the first place, we wouldn't be having this scenario.
DeleteEven my corporate job is stressful and requires a certain level of energy to do well. More than once, the possibility of a workday afternoon nap has been tempting. I'd think the presidency, done well, would be one of the hardest jobs in the world. I don't think I'd last in the presidency more than 6 months before I'd have to retire to some place with a veranda deck chair, an iced tea, a blanket and a book.
ReplyDeleteJim, I hear you. The young woman who replaced me where I used to work is getting married in a couple of weeks. I agreed to fill in for her for a few days because she has things to do to get ready for the wedding. I'm trying to get psyched for it. "It'll be fun" I'm telling myself. "Will be nice to see everyone again." Yeah right. K will be eating some fast food.
DeleteI agree - Biden didn’t see a truly viable source successor who could beat trump. As far as health concerns go, I pulled up both mens most recent WH physicals.Biden’s is more recent of course, and far more detailed. And yes, he does have arthritis as implied by his gait when walking.
Deletehttps://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Health-Summary-2.16.pdf
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935798-Trump-medical.html
Jim, did you happen to get a free copy of "The Synodal Process is a Pandora's Box: 100 questions and answers"sent to you at your parish mailbox? My husband got one this morning. The authors are Jose Antonio Ureta and Julio Loredo de Izcue, with a forward by Raymond Cardinal Burke. It appears to be a translation from Spanish. Of course we all know who Crdl. Burke is. The two authors are apparently not clergymen, but the mailing was targeted to clergy. Just seems kind of fishy to me.
ReplyDeleteI read on the back cover that the authors are wheels in the Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property.
DeleteHi Katherine - I didn't get it; but it would be more accurate to reply, "I haven't seen it", because weeks can go by without my making it into the office to pick up my parish mail! (Which is bad when kind parishioners leave me baked goods at Christmas time.)
DeleteFWIW, I did get an ersatz American newspaper called the Epoch Times mailed to me at home. It's some sort of nationalistic (FYI, I've decided I can't apply the term "conservative" to the Trump movement) publication. Looks like a real newspaper, but every article slams Joe Biden, our Democratic governor, our Democratic legislature, et al. Or I assume it does; I didn't make it below the fold of p.1 before pitching it into the recycling bin. (Really sucks that trees' lives were sacrificed for something that stupid.) In my younger days, I would have looked through the entire publication in order to find items to sneer at or make fun of, but I've decided life is too short for that kind of thing.
Jim, LOL about the Epoch Times. Yeah, I know what that is. It's published by the Falun Gong, which is sort of a Chinese Buddhist cult. I felt a little sorry for them because the Chinese government persecuted them. But then persecuting is what the Chinese government does. That's why it's published in the US instead of China. The Epoch Times showed up free in my brother's mailbox. He's kind of ornery so he brought it over to Dad's where his sisters would be sure and see it. It's pretty much a right wing rag. Good for peeling potatoes on.
DeletePope Francis at age 86 is one of our oldest popes, and also the best in my opinion. I think when he is gone, we are likely to get a worst rather than a better pope.
ReplyDeleteBy the way did you notice that he is going to issue an update to his Encyclical on the environment to be issued as an Apostolic Exhortation (one step below an encyclical) on the Feast of Saint Francis.
That will be right in the middle of the opening of the Synod. So world attention is going to be placed on this pope crying out the world to end the "war on the environment." This is not going to be a synod about the church's internal processes, it is going to be synod about whether or not we as a church are going to walk together for the good of the whole world! What a masterful politician!
Francis obviously is aging. Perhaps it's only me, but I don't think an aging pope is a problem in the same way that an aging president can be a concern. To be sure, Francis has a reform agenda he is trying to complete, and health setbacks could put that at risk.
DeleteAs I've noted already in the comments, I think an aging Biden poses a succession risk because I don't have a high degree of confidence in his VP. Of course, every papal conclave poses a risk of a change in direction. (Or, alternatively, a risk that there won't be a needed change in direction; personally, I think that happened when Benedict was elected.) I expect whoever succeeds Francis will be under a ton of pressure to try to fulfill Francis's agenda, just as I suppose Paul VI was when John XXIII died. My betting odds on his taking the name Francis II? Better than even.
At 81, I am so happy to be in the company of Francis and Bernie Sanders. Of course, there are a lot of terrible old politicians in both civil and ecclesiastical arenas. I am just waiting for someone to point out their worthy successors rather than focusing upon the shortcomings of our current leaders.
ReplyDeleteJack, I agree. As my sons would have said 20 years ago ( in high school) Pope Francis is the man! I’m just a few years behind you. I would have ( maybe) returned to being an active Catholic in spite of a few disappointments from Francis ( nobody’s perfect, not even me) if the American church hadn’t turned its collective back on Francis and become uber conservative. Not just the bishops, but the JPII/Benedict parish priests.There are only two parishes within a 25 minute drive that I would be willing to go to - one is Franciscan in Maryland and the other is the Jesuit parish in Georgetown ( with no parking and only a block from the university. A nightmare) All of the much closer Catholic parishes have gone full EWTN. And I have noted that both of the parishes we once attended closest to us with now very conservative pastors ( the VII pastors of our era in the parishes have retired) have lost at least 50% of their congregations in the last 10-15 years. Since population in our community has gone up, not down, and includes many young families, it doesn’t appear that enough of them are happy with the direction of the local parishes to keep the pews filled. Lots f gray hair. And many of the younger women who are there are wearing long skirts and chapel veils. They look like Mennonites.
ReplyDeleteAnne - at one time, a couple of decades ago, the diocese in which I am supposing you live was one of the most conservative. I suppose that was a couple of bishops ago. But I think you're right that the younger clergy tend to be conservative. Fr. Thomas Reese wrote a few years ago about identifying candidates for the priesthood that young men who are Pope Francis men and are willing to make a lifelong commitment to celibacy are less commonplace than unicorns.
DeleteFWIW, we don't have enough clergy in Chicago, either. On the whole, our clergy have been relatively moderate. I guess we're in a bubble.
I should add: it's taken me a long time to figure this out, but I think our parish is sort of the "liberal parish" in this area. Not that there is anything particularly liberal about us. But I think we have fewer wacky-conservative Catholics per square foot than most of the other parishes in the area. If we're not particularly liberal, I think we're at least a refuge for normal people. At least I hope that's the case.
DeleteI live in the Archdiocese of Washington DC. It includes a good bit of Maryland. Virginia is not in this diocese. It is in the Arlington (VA) diocese, which has long been one of the most right- wing reactionary dioceses. For decades now a significant percentage of Holy Trinity’s parish ( the Jesuit parish in Georgetown) has crossed the bridge from the Virginia suburbs into Georgetown to escape the Arlington diocese. There is a Latin mass parish there whose members include Thomas, Alito and Scalia when he was around. They lean on Opus Dei to provide programs and religious Ed. It was also the parish of the Opus Dei FBI spy Robert Hanssen.
DeleteWilton Gregory is the DC Archbishop now ( is he a Cardinal these days?). His predecessor was Wuerl, and Wuerl’s predecessor was McCarrick. Not conservatives, but both had, hmmm, serious other shortcomings. Wuerl hid crimes and protected pedophile priests in Pennsylvania. And everyone now knows about McCarrick. The rumors about his little sex shack on the beach in New Jersey were widely known in DC before the news broke nationally.
The parishes near us aren’t into Latin mass - yet. But they are big on EWTN style Catholicism and their adult programs rely on materials that were written by evangelical converts and they show it. Big on Barron too and I’m definitely not a fan of that man.
To clarify - the SC justices parish with OD and a Latin mass is in Virginia.
DeleteWhat do people look for in a VP? The primary quality is the ability to take over in the case of the death or permanent incapacity of the President. But the actual job is a bit like the royals in waiting ( for the monarch to die) - so they visit wounded veterans and little kids in hospitals. They give speeches to various groups and cut ribbons when necessary. They may advise on policy, but many are kept well away from it, other than maybe being allowed in the room to listen and, sometimes offer an opinion. Occasionally they are sent to another country as an emissary of some kind - very often to funerals of other heads of state. Sometimes for something substantive. They can observe the practical aspects of running the Executive Branch closeup. They might or might not learn lessons about hiring qualified staff. The VPs in my lifetime that I remember starting with Eisenhower have all been people with government experience - governors, senators, and Congressional representatives. Nixon was a congressman and Senator before being VP. Then he became president and resigned. Maryland has a long history of corruption in government, including governors. His VP - Spiro Agnew , a governor of Maryland, had to resign because he had been taking bribes while governor and after he became VP. So once Nixon resigned, it went to Ford, the Speaker of the House. Jimmy Carter was a very smart man and a genuinely committed Christian. In DC, you hear a lot of tales from people you know who work in the government - including the WH and Congress. Maybe Harris is not a good boss - I don’t know, but the same was said about Carter when he was President. And Johnson - a VP who had to suddenly become president. But a man with a ton of experience.
ReplyDeleteIt’s too late to kick out Harris. She may not be nice, but a whole lot of politicians are not nice. She’s qualified so I don’t worry about her becoming president. I also don’t worry much that Biden won’t make it to 85, but if she becomes a caretaker president like Johnson or Ford she can handle it. I have lost all respect for Kevin McCarthy but if he did end up president at some point like Ford did, he could handle it.
The president of the US is the most powerful person in the “ free world,”. The pope runs the largest international organization in the world with 1.2 billion nominal members in a couple of hundred countries. The pressures on him are pretty fierce too. It seems to me that he is working hard to speed things up for reform in spite of - or because of - his age.
Anne, great comments about VPs. Politically, the common belief is that presidential candidates seek VP candidates to "balance the ticket", which can mean a number of things. In Biden's case, it made sense for him to choose a Black running mate, as he owed his nomination to the loyalty of Black Democratic voters, especially in South Carolina, during the 2020 Democratic primaries. Biden also is an East Coast Irish pol, so from a "balanced ticket" perspective it probably made sense to choose a West Coast multiracial running mate.
DeleteFWIW - Trump designated Pence to lead the "war footing" effort to defeat COVID-19, an assignment that actually was pretty successful. Why did Trump outsource the great crisis of his presidency to his VP? I believe it was because of typically Trumpy reasons: in part because Trump can't be bothered to attend to difficult, complex policy initiatives; and in part because he is always hyper-attuned to his base, and probably he was sussing out, even during the time of the initial COVID panic in Q1 2020, that his base was going to be anti-government-COVID-policy. (The lockdowns, the masks, the vaccines.)
Thinking about the other VPs during my adult lifetime: George HW Bush was a pretty strong pick as a VP. Quayle was a punchline, probably at least partially undeservingly so. Gore was a pretty strong pick. Cheney might fall into the dangerous-because-he's-competent category; he surely was a major driver of the hawkish post-9/11 policies. Biden didn't make an impression on me as VP - I thought he was content to be in Obama's shadow. In some ways, he's been a pleasant surprise as president. And Pence was, not put too fine a point on it, a toady. I've already shared my impressions of Harris.
Some people, including you, say that other people might not vote for Biden because they don’t like Kamala Harris. I am not interested in why Biden picked her, but in what people look for - what would make someone not vote for a candidate that they like because of the running mate. Few people pay much attention to the VPs while they are in office. The negative attention given to Harris is primarily from right- wing media. Will it hurt Biden? Who knows. I suspect the main reason that she might be an anchor on Biden’s re-election is the already present racism in trumps base combined with the constant drumbeat of nastiness shown her by the right- wing media.
DeleteI have a friend who was for McCain - until he picked Sarah Palin. That was enough to push him into voting for Obama. Biden may have picked her originally in order to attract the black vote. But he pretty much had that part of the electorate anyway. Maybe he thought it would help with women? I think that at least some of his reasons may have included a genuine desire to have more balance in the senior staff of the WH - not all white males, which is the norm. Especially in the trump administration. I suspect trump turned the Covid mess over to Pence because he didn’t want to do anything about Covid that would hurt his re-election chances. Pence did nothing either, certainly not standing up for the truths that Dr.Fauci was demonized for saying. Pence was both the figurehead and the fall guy - with no actual power to influence the handling of Covid - but to stand ready to take the blame. Rather ironic that the only real success of any trump policy was Operation Warp Speed - a success trump couldn’t use in his reelection campaign because he himself had sabotaged the vaccine program by pushing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. His own cult members booed him for eventually getting vaccinated.
Kari Lake? A woman, bu even better when it comes to trump,
Deleteanother TV personality. God help us all. . Since trump is big on tv personalities and hired senior staff just from seeing them on tv a few times, he might pick her. Or he might pick that woman who is Gov of one of the Dakotas - another extremist of course.
Gov of South Dakota, Kristi Noem. She famously didn't issue any mask mandate during Covid. The governor of North Dakota was Doug Borgum (not sure if he is the current governor). He is actually kind of a normie, so if course he isn't going to be Trump's pick for anything.
DeleteKristi Noem at least has some experience in government, but my guess is Trump would pick Kari Lake over her, because he is all about celebrity.
Right, I think if Biden was within the normal/average age boundaries for a president, his VP pick wouldn't matter as much. I think he's at greater than normal risk of not finishing his term because, not to put it too baldly, serious and incapacitating (or worse) health events happen to old people.
DeleteFWIW, back at the beginning of the 2020 election cycle, when Harris was a presidential candidate, I thought she'd be one of the last candidates standing from that crowded primary field. I knew virtually nothing about her except that she was a successful politician in California, was relatively young, and I thought that, culturally, the moment might be right for a woman of color to rise to the presidency - I thought the party, and maybe the country, would be open to such a candidacy in a way it hadn't been historically. Of course, in the event, they chose a white Irish-American man. Still, I think the moment could be propitious - but I don't think she's the right person for the moment.
Pence gets to claim credit for Operation Warp Speed, in the same way that any leader gets to claim credit for any program that succeeds under his leadership. But of course, the GOP is in such a state that the base doesn't want to acknowledge it as as success.
DeletePence might be able to claim it now, I suppose. But trump couldn’t use it in 2020 so he can’t use it now either. Pences chance of being the nominee are down near the bottom. Barring something unforeseen, trump will be the candidate. I don’t see Harris ever winning the nomination on her own. The only way she might be president is if the ticket wins again and something dire happens to Biden. I have read (true? Who knows) that Noem really wants the VP spot. She didn’t worry about protecting people, especially not the refugees and immigrant working right next to each other in the meat packing plant with Covid rampaging through, and then the workers giving it to their families. But of course she’s “ prolife” except for already born poor people.
DeleteI knew people who voted for Obama because of Palin. I was considering Ross Perot until he picked the ditzy admiral for a running mate. In both cases, my reaction was "is he nuts?"
DeleteInteresting article on the NYT home page about the Pope (correctly) calling out the “reactionaries” and ideologues in the US church. As usual, the comments are as, or more, interesting than the article.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/us/pope-francis-conservative.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
I didn't check out the comments on the NYTimes article, but I did on the America media one. Both articles pointed out that some people took the pope's comment very, very personally. What struck me that their attitude seemed very entitled, like "how dare he say something like that?" I commented briefly on the America one that he didn't say it was everyone, and if the shoe didn't fit, you don't have to wear it. Seemed like the shoe is pinching some people a bit.
DeleteI think the situation is worse in the US because the social media and especially the right wing media are force multipliers, not in a healthy way.
DeleteIn this case, I'm not aligned with James Martin. I don't see any organized or vocal anti-Francis movement in my neck of the woods. I don't doubt that EWTN plays a role similar in some ways to that played by Fox News in the wider culture. Both are very-low-rated television networks.
DeleteGuys like Strickland and Burke are not in the mainstream within the American Catholic church. Or so it seems to me.
I assume that what prompted Francis's remarks, which probably were irascible, is frustration with the evident fact that the synod is virtually a non-event for the American Catholic church. I doubt I could find more than 10 parishioners who could tell me anything about the synod. To be sure, not many more - maybe fewer - could tell me anything about the Eucharistic Renewal. The institution's influence on the thought and lives of Catholics at the grassroots is pretty minimal.
I do think it's true that, as reported in the NY Times article, most American Catholics don't really know what Francis has taught in his encyclicals, and more generally don't get much exposure to Catholic social teaching. For that matter, I think most Catholics don't really know what John Paul II taught about the Theology of the Body. Popes since JP II have written very long, book-length (or at least monograph-length), dense and learned documents which are not congenial to consumption by the masses of people. The notion that parishes are going to have well-attended adult learning sessions in which Et Unum Sint or Laudato Si are unpacked and discussed, is not realistic.
Most American Catholics know whatever they learned in religious ed (or, for a shrinking minority of us, in Catholics schools) as kids. Whenever they made their confirmation, their formal training in Catholicism ended.
Francis is famous, not for what he has written in his encyclicals, which I doubt more than 1% of the American laity and 5% of the American clergy have read, but for verbal snippets from his impromptu press conferences. That's how the world communicates these days: in bite-sized, easily-digestible morsels that can be retweeted.
I don’t think either you, Jim, or Katherine, can see what parish life is like for most Catholics. You are both insiders. I get the feeling that St Edna’s is a middle size parish. Not sure about Katherine’s parish. Maybe smaller. Life in midwestern towns is already very different from the suburbs of big cities on the east and “ left coasts”.. I know you live in a commuter suburb of Chicago, Jim. You are a deacon. You are conservative when it comes to religious “orthodoxy” - not an extremist though. However you tell us that you and the priests shy away from teaching social justice, from teaching about climate change etc. Francis is the opposite - he’s all about social justice and the environment. And the Synod. How involved did your parish and diocese get in the Synod activities? Your current bishop isn’t an extremist. So you may be too close to your personal place in the Catholic world in America to see what has been happening elsewhere.Like in Jeans parish. And in hundreds - maybe thousands - of others. Since I can’t talk to people much anymore. can’t handle the noise of being with more than a few people, I read incessantly. And I have seen this right wing movement growing for the last dozen or more years. Driving people away. Following Francis’s lead might have slowed or stopped the hemorrhaging. But the right wing bishops seminaies attracted all the uber- conservative JPII/Benedict would be priests, fairly jumping at the chance to become little dictators in a parish, while strutting around in cassocks. Your diocese is pushing Alpha - a red flag there I would say. . I suspect that you don’t see some of what Martin sees because of your normal Catholic fairly conservative mindset, and being in a diocese headed by a moderate bishop. .
DeleteFew Catholics have ever read any encyclical. Too much Vaticanese - it’s off putting. They need some good editors! So people learn from whatever their parishes tell them. They also read - even in the secular press, or, more likely from a one minute news report - that lots of bishops are hostile to the pope. They learn that some have written letters coming close to accusing him of heresy and suggesting that he should resign. That he’s a Marxist. Etc. If you w@nt to know, just read the comments at America to get sampling of what a lot of ordinary Catholics believe about Francis. America attracts a mostly progressive crowd, but in the last few years, it has too become more conservative, and it’s attracting a lot of uber- conservative commenters these days. They get it from their own priests, from EWTN, and even from the nightly news. I’m not talking formal Catholic education - it’s the anti- Francis propaganda, aided and abetted by the political environment, especially the anti-LGBTQ and pro- life movement. Even though Francis has never hinted at abandoning church teachings on either. But he also emphasizes « liberal » themes like social justice, and mercy, and not judging others. You are basically saying that Catholics can’t be bothered even to take a short adult Ed class that summarize what the encyclicals say - it’s all abortion, abortion, abortion, and a few charitable activities - back to school supplies for poor kids, thanksgiving baskets, Christmas toy collections, a few turns each year at the soup kitchen. But nothing about social justice - working to change the laws and structures that keep poor people poor.
"However you tell us that you and the priests shy away from teaching social justice, from teaching about climate change etc."
DeleteI don't think I shy away. My perception is, I preach about social justice themes more than the other priests and deacons at our parish. But in my 60+ years as a Catholic, I haven't heard many social justice-themed homilies, so I don't think our parish's preachers are more timid than the corps of Catholic preachers as as whole.
Why don't Catholic preachers preach about social justice themes more? I don't think you're wrong that part of the reason could be that, in our larger culture with its divisions and toxicities, the traditional Catholic social justice topics will be heard by listeners through the prevailing political filters. That doesn't excuse ignoring those topics, but it does mean that the preacher needs to be aware of this dynamic and try his/her best to either head it off or work around it.
Another factor, probably minor but certainly annoying, is that there are special-interest groups in the American church, like Priests for Life, who are providing homiletic materials about their causes. This leads to the dreaded preacher who preaches about abortion every single week. In the diocese where my parents live, I noticed a couple of decades ago that every single homily I heard in that diocese, regardless of the readings for the given Sunday, always mentioned three topics: abortion; the Eucharist; and Mary. I don't know whether there were explicit orders from on high to make sure that every homily at least invoked these three things, but it wouldn't surprise me: at that time, the diocese was led by a bishop who would issue that kind of a guideline.
But I think the predominant reason is: there is not a tradition in diocesan parishes of preaching social justice themes, and so those themes haven't been deeply embedded in the imaginations of preachers. When preachers imagine what a homily could/should be, they don't think of it addressing the common good or labor rights or the family. That isn't what sermons were about when we were growing up; it isn't what our mentors preached about; and it isn't what we hear other preachers preaching about today.
I'm suggesting that the boundaries of preachers' imaginations are somewhat constricted.
The exception to this, in my observation, are homilies prepared and preached by men (and women) in religious orders. The orders, some of them anyway, are doing work at the margins of society. Their imaginations have been "opened up". Diocesan priests, on the whole, aren't doing much pastoral work in areas of Catholic social justice. Most of them spend most of their time administering parishes and schools. They are interacting throughout the week with parish staff members, dealing with their programs and the issues that surround them. They are spending time in confessionals 2-3 times per month listening to a relative handful of parishioners unburden themselves of personal sins. I think these are the things that tend to map out the preaching imaginations of diocesan priests.
I should hasten to add: deacons are supposed to be living lives of service, and that service should be feeding their preaching imaginations. But for some reason, the deacon homilies I hear preached don't really embrace these possibilities. Instead, I think most deacons fall into the same "imagination traps" I've mentioned above: they unconsciously seek to model their homilies on the sorts of homilies they've heard all their lives, which tend to be diocesan priest homilies. The same preaching tradition that tends to constrict diocesan priests' imagination, does the same to deacons'. It's a shame. Deacon homilies could and should be qualitatively different than priests' homilies. They should be distinctively diaconal. But we deacons are still trying (or perhaps not even trying) to figure out what that means.
Francis teaches social justice all the time, both by words and actions. Preaching social,justice is teaching the gospels - teaching what Jesus taught in words and actions.Francis is emulating Jesus in his teaching of the gospel. So why do so few priests and deacons preach about it? The USCCB website has many resources. ( at least it did when I was involved with social,justice ministries in Catholic parishes). But I ERs week Francis gives talks. They are usually quite good. I read them on the America website but they are available on the Vatican website I believe.When my America subscription dies, I will find another source.
DeleteIt sounds like most priests and deacons simply don’t want to preach social justice or the environment. There is no shortage of materials on it. They could break down one of Francis’s encylicals like Laudato Si into bite sized pieces and cover the material over a period of time. But I suspect that a whole lot of bishops and priests don’t like what Francis teaches, so they continue the focus on pelvic issues.
Katherine, I read a couple of dozen comments.Too many to read all. I was surprised that several said they had left the church because of the right wing Bishops, but even more because the Uber- right wing priests that had come to their parishes. Some tried more than one parish before giving up. A couple of commenters said they had left years ago and love Francis and would come back if they could find a pro-Francis parish. I didn’t realize how many are out there like me - Catholics I can identify with. Catholics who get fed up tend to slip away quietly, often totally unnoticed by the “community “. I left my first parish after 30 years because of the new pastor. I had been active in some small ministry for most of those years. I heard nothing for two years.Then I got a letter chastising me for not dropping $ in the basket. Jim is always claiming that worshiping as part of the community is the reason Catholics should stay in parishes. But few parishes have real community. Most Catholic parishes are large buildings that can hold several hundred people at a time for one of multiple masses and most in the pews are not faces of strangers. Not what I call a real community.I thought in 2013 that Francis could bring me back. But I waited to see what was going to happen at the local level. And since it was endlessly increasingly conservative, I never returned.
ReplyDeleteWorshipping as part of a community is one of the reasons (but not the only reason) why I stay in a parish. I don't know if I have ever had a political conversation with a parishioner who was not also a family member. That includes some who are close friends. I just don't go there. I have listened to people's problems, taken food to them when they were sick, sung for their funerals, prayed for their intentions. It has gone the other way too. I wouldn't want to give that up, or disturb my own peace of mind by engaging in a useless conversation. It helps that we don't have a critical mass of rad trads here. If we had a priest who forced the Tridentine Mass on us and insisted that we couldn't receive Communion in the hand, etc. I couldn't do it. I'd have to find another parish. But I can put up with Trump voters if they shut up about it.
DeleteDavid Gibson in todays NYT opinions
DeletePope John Paul II spent his 26-year papacy (1978-2005) pushing the U.S. hierarchy in a conservative theological direction, assisted by his doctrinal chief and right-hand man, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who then succeeded John Paul to serve nearly eight years as Pope Benedict XVI. The election of Francis in 2013 flipped the script. Suddenly, the Vatican, with Francis at the helm, began pushing Americans to be more flexible, more pastoral, more inclusive and less doctrinally rigid. Rome is now the engine of reform, a historic reversal.
Francis is a world leader in combating climate change, and he insistently decries economic injustice and the treatment of migrants, while putting a new emphasis on the universal right to health care, housing and decent jobs.
Though Francis is as opposed to abortion as any of his predecessors, he sees the issue as part of the entire package of Catholic teaching on protecting and promoting life. Indeed, in Portugal, Francis criticized the fixation on “sins below the waist” while “if you exploited workers, if you lied or cheated, it didn’t matter.” Much of American church leadership, meanwhile, remains focused on a “pelvic theology” and is captive to the culture war mentality of today’s political conservatism. This American cohort — embodied in the old guard leadership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, networks such as EWTN and other influential groups — has money and media platforms, and they wield them to great effect. American conservatives don’t simply disagree with Francis or dissent from his teaching. They actually see themselves as more Catholic than the pope, and they’re not shy about saying so. Francis is “undermining” the faith or is teaching “error.” To some, he’s even a heretic or he is fomenting schism and his very legitimacy is in question. When Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Benedict XVI’s ambassador to the United States, dropped a 2018 manifesto of accusations against Francis, he concluded by demanding that the pope resign. Some two dozen U.S. bishops publicly vouched for Viganò’s credibility and many more were privately supportive. This is unprecedented.
Those committed to the institution no matter what may have simply ignored what has been happening in the American church. Millions left during the JPII/Ratzinger/Benedict years. Francis offered a chance to bring some of those millions back. But the relentless backward conservative march of American bishops and - even more importantly- of parish priests presents an enormous obstacle. Few Catholics have ever paid much attention to the bishops. But that changed as they started becoming more open in trying to impose their beliefs on everyone - I think this finally broke out into the open with the bishops opposition to Obamacare’s provisions to include birth control coverage in employee health insurance plans. The SC ruling supporting Hobby Lobby was one of the first “ victories” for conservative christians, especially the USCCB, signaling that separation of church and state, and genuine religious freedom, were becoming targets of the religious right. That has proven to be the case.
It kind of reminds me of Reformation era controversies, or maybe Arius and Athanasius going at it hammer and tongs back in the third century
DeleteGibson's article is in the Washington Post.
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/04/pope-wars-against-american-bishops/
There is little doubt that the American bishops are not aligned with Francis's priorities. They called me to a special session to promote the Eucharistic Revival, but no such session has been held on the Synod for deacons in my diocese.
Nevertheless, Gibson doesn't have it exactly right when he implies that, unlike Francis, the American bishops don't care about immigrants. The American bishops care deeply about immigrants - and put their money where their mouth is.
I've never had the opportunity to ask American bishops about how they navigate a Francis-led church, but I suspect that many of them privately agree with a remark I read somewhere recently to the effect that Francis has spent a handful of days, ever, in the US. I would guess American bishops privately think they understand the nation's pastoral priorities better than Francis and his European and Latin American advisers do.
I think Francis makes many people uncomfortable with his desire to charge ahead, regardless of the church's tradition and its edifice of teachings on faith and morals. Francis has stated that he believes that reality is more important than ideas. I think there are large sectors of the church which haven't bought into that precept.
The amount of time Francis has spent in the US is totally irrelevant. He has spent no time at all in most countries with Catholics in the population. But the organized, extremely well- funded anti-Francis movement seems to be primarily ( maybe exclusively- except for troublemakers in Rome) an American church phenomenon. I see no evidence at all that many American bishops have any pastoral priorities whatsoever other than trying now to keep the second and third generation Latinos from leaving too ( which they are). Their first issue- related priority is opposing abortion, second is opposing gay marriage, third is opposing transgender care. They also work hard to keep conservative Republicans in office because they will help them with their issues agenda. But above all, the paramount priority is money - including getting hold of taxpayers money to keep their schools afloat.
DeleteI wrote, "I think Francis makes many people uncomfortable with his desire to charge ahead, regardless of the church's tradition and its edifice of teachings on faith and morals. Francis has stated that he believes that reality is more important than ideas. I think there are large sectors of the church which haven't bought into that precept."
DeleteI would add one more key difference between Francis and the American bishops - and I think the run-up to the Synod really helps to highlight this: Francis sees the Synod as an opportunity for the church to encounter with the Holy Spirit. I am sure the American bishops profess faith in the Holy Spirit - but I am not sure they are ready to (to coin a phrase) "let go and let the Holy Spirit" lead the church to the extent that Francis apparently is. I think this is a difference in spirituality.
So you’re fine with the situation as the conservative, anti- Francis bishops continue to shrink the American church - fulfilling the desire to have a “ purer” church even if smaller?
DeleteAnne - no idea why you would think that. I'd like to see Francis and the American bishops more aligned. Perhaps the Synod will be an opportunity for them to grow more unified.
DeleteWell, from what I read, most American bishops have put minimal or no effort into the Synod - just one more way to tell Francis to shove it - we’ll do what we want and we don’t want the Synod.
DeleteKatherine, your experience of real community in your parish is unknown to millions of Catholics, including me. Your husband is a deacon - meaning that everyone knows who he is and who you are. You are also an organist, a cantor, and in the choir, heightening the familiarity of others in feeling comfortable talking to you. Similar situation with Jim. Years ago I got a phone call from a Jewish friend who lived only two blocks from our Catholic parish. She was concerned about a neighbor who was a member of the parish - the wife was very ill. There were three kids, and of course the husband had to work. She was appalled that there had been no outreach from the parish to help this family. She and a couple of other neighbors were doing what they could. When situations like this arose in her synagogue there was an organized effort to support the family - help with kids, meals, driving the sick person to docs, etc - all planned and organized. At our EC parish pre- Covid, there was a similar effort for parishioners needing support. There was a whole ministry dedicated to it. But not at any Catholic Church around here that I know of. I was active at my parish for thirty years.Even in such a huge parish I was involved enough that the priests knew me, knew my name. Yet when I disappeared from the pews I didn’t hear from anyone until the letter about resuming weekly donations arrived. A couple of people I had worked with in the Social Justice committee did say they were sorry I was leaving the parish, but then I never heard from them either. Bad enough for mr - but truly terrible that there is no real effort to care for parishioners in need. Not a real community for the average pew sitter.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, earlier in this thread (it feels like weeks ago, but it was only a few days ago), you asked, "Jim, did you happen to get a free copy of "The Synodal Process is a Pandora's Box: 100 questions and answers" sent to you at your parish mailbox?"
ReplyDeleteI stopped in the office earlier today, and it was waiting for me in my mailbox.
If I had a birdcage, I'd use pages of the book to line it.
Now I'm wondering if it was this mailing that provoked Francis's ire.
Jim, I know he knows about it, because it was brought up by a journalist interviewing him on the plane ride coming back from Mongolia. Francis answered the question rather obliquely, referring to ideology displacing creed.
DeleteCardinal Burke's unreserved endorsement of it is really not good.
DeleteHere is a bit of Cardinal Burke's Foreword to the book in question:
Delete"My heartfelt congratulations on the publication of Il processo sindale, un vaso di Pandora [English title: "The Synodal Process Is a Pandora's Box" - jp], which addresses clearly and comprehensively a most serious situation in the Church today. It is a situation which rightly concerns every thoughtful Catholic and persons of good will who observe the evident and grave harm which it is inflicting upon the Mystical Body of Christ.
"We are told that the Church which we profess, in communion with our ancestors in the faith from the time of the Apostles, to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic is now to be defined by synodality, a term which has no history in the doctrine of the Church and for which there is no reasonable definition. Synodality and its adjective, synodal, have become slogans behind which a revolution is at work to change radically the Church's self-understanding, in accord with a contemporary ideology which denies much of what the Church has always done and practiced. It is not a purely theoretical matter, for the ideology has already, for some years, been put into practice in the Church in Germany, spreading widely confusion and error and their fruit, division - indeed schism -, to the grave harm of many souls. With the imminent Synod on Synodality, it is rightly to be feared that the same confusion and error and division will be visited upon the universal Church. In fact, it has already begun to happen through the preparation of the Synod at the local level."
I don't suppose any of us endorse Cardinal Burke's views. I find his candor shocking. To be sure: many people have called for candor from church officials when it comes to hierarchs covering up instances of abuse. But this seems a different sort of thing.
DeleteYeah, Burke is pretty blatant and pretty arrogant. Part of me is okay with him being candid, because that degree of candid pretty much means he has zero chance of getting elected at the next conclave. But I also find it offensive. Especially since this booklet was targeted to the clergy and gets stuffed in their mailboxes. Its not the first time something like that has happened, either. I think Cardinal Dolan had a publication awhile back that was widely circulated about what we should look for at the next conclave ("Don't slip on a banana peel or anything, Francis.")
DeleteThe actual authors of the booklet that Burke wrote the forward for are some laymen with the "Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property". Which I gather is a right wing society originating in Chile. Right wing in Chile goes back to some really ugly stuff, I don't think a cardinal would want his name associated with that, but then that's just me.
To tradition and family, I can somewhat relate. But something tells me it's all about property, last but not least. Sounds like something some Pinochet era oligarchs would come up with.
DeleteThere is an article on NCR today about the bookband the group which sponsored it: https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/behind-synod-opposition-far-right-groups-political-activists-and-cardinal
Delete"bookband" should be "book and"
Delete