Musings from Michael: The Meaning of Pope "Francis"

Published in The Huffington Post on March 14, 2013, The new pope has chosen the name "Francis."  Francis (1180-1225) was a rich young man who lived out a quite dissolute youth, before God finally caught up to him and seized his heart.  Francis chose a life of poverty and prayer.  He is one of the two most loved saints in the Catholic world today. For his simplicity, his poverty, and his love and joy in God's world.

The following is a prayer -- his prayer, the tradition says -- that helps to explain what the choice of the name Francis means: 

THE PRAYER OF ST. FRANCIS

Lord, make me a channel of thy peace, that where there is hatred, I may bring love; that where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness; that where there is discord, I may bring harmony; that where there is error, I may bring truth; that where there is doubt, I may bring faith; that where there is despair, I may bring hope; that where there are shadows, I may bring light; that where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

 Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted; to understand, than to be understood; to love, than to be loved.

For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.

It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.

It is by dying that one awakens to Eternal Life.

Read at The Huffington Post.

Get Ready for Catholicism 2.0

 Published in "The Huffington Post" on March 12, 2013 George Weigel is one of the pre-eminent commentators on Catholicism today, and author of, among others, a bestselling biography of Pope John Paul II. Weigel recently published Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st Century (and excerpted exclusively in the Huffington Post here).

 Weigel discusses the future of the church and the challenges facing a new pope with author, journalist, commentator and Catholic scholar Michael Novak, author of more than 25 books, including The Open Church.

 

Michael Novak: George, your new book could not have come at a better time -- these days it is being quoted daily in television interviews with cardinals who are streaming into Rome. I like its implicit image that the church through its long history seems to live in a cocoon for a century or so, and then break forth like a newly resplendent butterfly, reborn and fresh for new challenges. You show how long this new rebirth has been generating in the church, some 150 years. Pope John Paul II invited you into his friendship as you interviewed him for his biography over many months -- and you know now much he cherished the Second Vatican Council (1961-65) and wanted to rescue its main lessons from systematic distortion. Now you have found new words to get to the heart of this long-gestating rebirth.

And one other thing I notice: From so many quarters today we hear a super-aggressive hatred for the Catholic church, not least for its Pope. Yet here many of the major media so often contemptuous of the Pope are utterly fascinated by yet another conclave, summoned in an orderly way to choose a new Pope. What do you think your book is saying to the bitter critics of the church, first of all?

George Weigel: I hope it's saying that the church is alive, that the liveliest parts of the church are those parts that have embraced the symphony of Catholic truth in full -- and I even cherish the hope that some who are caught in the postmodern sandbox of self-absorption faintly recognize in Catholicism the possibility of a nobler, more humanly fulfilling path than living according to the mantra of "me, myself, and I."

Evangelical Catholicism is aborning for two reasons: the internal dynamics you described, which touch the church's understanding that she must always be purified so that the Gospel she preaches is mirrored in her own life, and the external environment, which is now so hostile to biblical religion throughout the Western world that only an affirmative orthodoxy, lived in mission, can meet its challenge -- and perhaps invite secularists to think again about the possibility of friendship with Jesus Christ.

Here in Rome, the basic division is between those who get this -- who understand with Vatican II, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI that the Church is a communion of disciples in mission and that everything and everyone in the Church must be measured by mission-effectiveness -- and those who want to retreat into institutional-maintenance Catholicism (in either its starboard or portside variants). If my books helps put all of this in a broader historical context, so that we aren't going through one more tedious round in the Vatican II Wars, then I'll be gratified.

Michael: On your side is that Catholics now number 1.2 billion human beings on earth -- one out of six -- and are growing rapidly, faster than Muslims.The atheist part of the earth is shrinking, as more and more persons lose meaning, purpose, and even the heart to defend themselves -- and fewer couples have children. But your central point is how Evangelical Catholicism will change the people in the pews, say, in America.

Do you expect that, quietly and one by one, more and more Catholics will seek opportunities to speak openly about the love and might of the Son of God within them? And during their lifetimes bring into our growing communion, say, three or four converts? In a generation that might mean 100 million new U.S. Catholics.

George: Evangelical Catholic pastors, like my friend Father Scott Newman in Greenville, South Carolina (to whom, with Russ Hittinger, Evangelical Catholicism is dedicated), give their people a new conviction about their baptismal dignity, a conviction that leads them into a richer experience of the sacraments and a more intense, daily encounter with the Bible. And the results are remarkable: at every Easter Vigil, 30, 40, or 50 new Catholics are either baptized as adults or received into the full communion of the church. They've often been invited to consider Catholicism by their neighbors, the parishioners of St. Mary's; they've been well-instructed by the parishes permanent deacons and Father Newman; and when they come into the community of St. Mary's, Greenville, they know that they, too, are taking on an evangelical, or missionary obligation. It's take years to build up this sort of momentum, but once it reaches what you might call ecclesial critical mass, it snowballs. And it has staying power, because the conversions involved are not merely emotional, but have real content.

This pattern replicates itself throughout the liveliest sectors of the church: among youth groups like FOCUS (which work on campuses); among the growing communities of religious women; in various renewal movements and new forms of Catholic community. There's a hunger in the West for something more substantial than the thin gruel of solipsism. That hunger can be met by Catholic clergy and laity who have been deeply formed by the Gospel, are transparent to the love of Jesus Christ at work in their own lives, and understand that inviting others into the fellowship of faith, and who, with John Paul II, know that the paradox of faith is that it increases the more it is given to others.

Michael: Our mutual friend Mary Eberstadt has written in her upcoming book, How the West Lost God, that family life is the natural language in which Christian life is first learned and comes alive. So I liked what you said about the "family church" as the living cell of faith. And I'm grateful for what you write about in "The Reform of Catholic Marriage." It's past due. The distortions that have arisen since the false readings of Vatican II have been ugly.

George: The marriage crisis throughout the western world seems to me both an impediment to the New Evangelization and a spur to it. The terrible social effects of the sexual revolution and the reduction of sexual love to just another contact sport have now become undeniable: women who can't find husbands; spouses who look on children as a lifestyle accessory; men who've been told by culture and society that sexual predation is a kind of right; internet pornography addiction wreaking havoc in young and old lives alike.

In the face of all this ugliness and unhappiness, the Catholic sexual ethic begins to look, not like some dreary laundry list of "No's," but as a very great "Yes" to human dignity, fidelity, promise-making and promise-keeping, and a badly-needed reaffirmation of the built-into-the-human-condition linkage between sexual love and procreation.

In an Evangelical Catholic context, these truths are often best conveyed by married couples who see their marriages as instruments for the evangelization of other married couples, especially those who may be struggling with the afterburn of the marriage culture breakdown. Marriage preparation programs in parishes -- again, often best conducted by married couples with assistance from priests and deacons -- are a great opportunity to invite engaged couples into a more integral and intense practice of Catholicism and the embrace of a robust faith that is an enormous help in navigating the rocks and shoals of postmodern culture, where solipsism is one of the biggest challenges to happy and fruitful marriages.

Michael: Looks like we've run out of space, George. A lot more I'd like to ask you. Can't wait to be able to talk to you in person, when you get back from Rome. Enjoy a good pasta for me at our regular haunts. Give my best to our friends.

Read at The Huffington Post

 

Benedict: The Quiet Pope, the Scholar (Huffington Post Column)

Benedict: The Quiet Pope, the Scholar

The Huffington Post Posted: 02/18/2013 4:52 pm

He didn't face an Italy being overrun by outside invaders as Leo the Great (440-461) and Gregory the Great (590-604) did -- or as John Paul the Great (1978-2005) did with the ugly Iron Curtain that walled him from the West during the years of his youth.

The conditions weren't ripe for another "Great." Yet Benedict XVI's scholarly writings, clear preaching, and letters addressed to the whole world made almost as profound a contribution to the life of the Church as the other three Greats did during their own papacies.

In Israel and the United States, Jewish leaders are ranking him as the best pope ever for the Jews. A broad band of disaffected Anglicans have welcomed Benedict's thoughtful efforts to think through a fruitful future for both communions, being sure that Anglican traditions and beautiful liturgy are kept intact. No pope in five centuries has affected England's culture more deeply, writers from Great Britain say. Does not his self-effacing manner seem rather English?

For decades, Benedict has preferred a highly biblical language and reflected deeply upon Holy Scripture, far more fully than Catholics characteristically do.

One friend, a well-known Baptist leader, once said to me of Pope John Paul II: "Hey! I'm as strong an anti-papist as any man living. But you guys at last have a pope who knows how to pope!" He liked John Paul very much. I suspect he likes Benedict's centering in Scripture even more.

* * *

Altogether, Benedict's renunciation of his office is a huge act of confidence in the future of the church. He has spent himself and is visibly weakened. And he knows that just two or three weeks after he leaves office, the church will calmly elect a successor in a law-like way. Before Easter a new pope will almost certainly be in place.

Looking about him, Benedict knows that the church now counts 1.2 billion communicants (one out of six of the world's inhabitants). The world is not becoming secular, as so many since Matthew Arnold have thought. The world is a huge sea of religious longing, founded in nature itself, and rooted in the infinite eros of inquiry. Alert human beings ask an endless stream of questions: Why are conscious beings such as we on this earth, under this great sky, with the wind on our faces? What ought we to do? What ought we to hope for?

Our endless drive to ask questions is the clearest sign in our own nature that we are driven by the infinite. We grow tired of anything less than the infinite, as we seek higher and deeper.

There is also the capacity in us to love infinitely. To love purely. To love un-self-centeredly. Another sign of the divine in us.

Benedict himself wrote most beautifully about such love. A certain form of love is the inner fire of God -- Deus Caritas Est.

Benedict may carry in his mind and soul more erudition about more eras of history and more cultures and languages than all but a handful of others on earth. But in his writings on the life of Christ -- the latest being on the infancy of Jesus -- he writes for you and me, not the experts. For them, the solidity of his work speaks for itself.

The pope's sober, scholarly writings have been planted like time bombs in the history of the next two generations, or more. They will keep exploding with light as readers slowly think them through.

* * *

I have known Joseph Ratzinger since we were both young men at the Second Vatican Council in 1963-64. He was already famous for the great work he did at the Council as an expert and writer for Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne, one of the early giants. Even as the youngest of the famous "Rhineland" theologians from Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Germany, Ratzinger soared in his reputation for deep, clear, and erudite creativity. All knew he would one day be a powerful figure in the worldwide church, but in those days one thought mainly of Italians in the papacy.

Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II were like brothers. They reserved time on Friday afternoons to go deeply into theology and the situation of the church now and in the future. As early as 1982, Ratzinger is known to have said to a group: No, communism is not a future menace to the church; communism is a dead idea. No serious person any longer looks to it as a reasonable account of reality.

My friends in Rome tell me that, powerfully popular as Pope John Paul II was among the people, Benedict -- by his shyness, diffidence, and respect for others -- quickly became even more so.

He has been a quiet pope, scholarly, deeply trustworthy with the confidences of others, seeking the good of all those around him. He has also been -- among the cardinals and among the public intellectuals of Europe -- one of the sharpest pencils in the box.

As early as 1992, Josef Ratzinger was elected to the French Academy as the successor of Russian nuclear physicist and human rights activist Andrei Sakharov. In 2004 Ratzinger debated the most public atheist philosopher in Europe, Jürgen Habermas, in Munich. To the surprise of many onlookers, most critics gave higher marks to Ratzinger in that courteous, respectful, and unsparing give-and-take.

After the death of John Paul the Great, I very much wanted his great friend Ratzinger to succeed him, old and frail of health as he was. Some of us thought he might not live three years. I am most grateful God gave him eight as pope, and hopefully many more as a hermit living in the small building being prepared for him at the Vatican.

Incidentally, that hermitage will solve the problem of his security very neatly. He will be cut off from the constant traffic of communications from all round the world, but his scholarship -- his true vocation -- can still continue, and in his weakness he can concentrate on union with God in hours of quiet prayer. As have many scholar saints.

The church in the near future is going to sail through very heavy and often antagonistic waters. It will probably continue to shed many members in the more developed, more pagan, more progressive nations. But on the great sea of humanity, these nations are few, dispirited, and losing influence. In the expanses of Africa and Asia, especially China, thirsty souls are coming eagerly to drink of the cool waters of quiet truths, by the millions.

Benedict has helped deepen the wells from which to take their fill.

 

 

The Myth of Romantic Love

Adapted from Michael Novak's book The Myth of Romantic Love  for The Huffington Post.

MYTH

Many people spend their entire lives looking for such love, wanting to feel such love, wondering, when they are first attracted to a guy or girl, if that's what they're now feeling. Above all, most people love being in love, love the feeling of loving, love even the mad passion of being in love. They are bewitched by the passion that would make them want to die rather than not be in love. (I saw this phenomenon often in summertime romances all around me in Italy in 1961 and 1962, when I was writing two novels there. In summertime in those days American girls came in droves and were romanced by young Italian Romeos as they had never before experienced. My hotel near the Piazza di Spagna seemed taken over by young lovers. Often the American girl, her schedule pre-set and unchangeable, departed tearfully, brokenhearted to leave.)

Central among the features of romantic love is the fact that it consists in falling in love with love, not with a concrete person. In its high form it scorns mere bodily, erotic, sexual love. In this pure form it prides itself on being "above" the biological love that is satisfied by pornography or by groping interaction with another human being. Romantic love loves the higher passion, the spiritual ecstasy of love, not the body. A woman in romantic love loves being swept off her feet, longing for more, to the point of death. "I would rather die" than lose the feeling of loving him and being loved by him.

To feel the ecstasy of passion, romantic love entails a boundless desire, a longing for the infinite, a longing to "slip the surly bonds of Time," to escape from bodily limitations into the realm of the forever and the infinite. It is a revolt against mere flesh, against the limits of the human condition. The body, it finds gross. What it loves is the rarefied spiritual passion that only romantic lovers know. It loves feeling lifted "above the herd," into a higher sphere. It is not a sated appetite, but in fact quite the opposite. It loves the feeling of never being satisfied, of being always caught up in the longing, of dwelling in the sweetness of desire. It feels a kind of murderous hostility toward rude awakenings.

This is why romantic love desperately needs obstacles. If romantic love were to lead too quickly to physical consummation, it would cease being romantic. For then it would require dealing with clothing in disarray, a mess to clean up, bad breath, and hair all disheveled. Then there would be a meal to fix, and -- bump! -- romance has fallen back to the lumpen earth. No, for the sake of romantic love, it is much better for fulfillment to be delayed, for obstacles to be put up, for a sword to be laid down between the longing couple, or a curtain drawn between them. For their romantic passion to persist, lovers must be kept away from one another, must never get down to the nitty-gritty of daily life.

Romantic love is to be contrasted with the Jewish and Christian vision of human love. It is plain from scripture that God expected -- nay, commanded -- his followers to be sexy: "Increase and multiply and fill the earth." Sexuality is a crucial part of human life, both for deeply personal growth and, second, for the continuance and prospering of the human community as a whole. Even toward the end of Biblical times, there were not more than 250 million people living on this earth. That left a lot of "increasing and multiplying" to be achieved. And that meant a lot of sexual acts.

But the Jewish and Christian view of the human being is that sex is a natural expression, not only of the body, but of the soul. For there is no separation of body and soul. The human person is one, not two: an embodied spirit, a spirited body -- one. The notion that there is an errant body (like a wild steed) to be disciplined by a superior soul (the charioteer) is from Plato, not from Judaism and Christianity.

The extent to which modern philosophy is still divided against itself -- soul separate from body -- is due to mistakes by Descartes and his progeny. There are still worrying, in a primitive manner, about a supposed "mind-body" problem. Instead of imaging that knowledge comes through clear ideas, Descartes would have been much more accurate to have recognized that all knowledge begins in the five senses. It is less true to say "I think, therefore I am," than to say "I sit, therefore I am." Our first brush against existence is through the body.

The "mind-body" problem? What kind of problem is that? From the beginning, soul has been embodied in nerves, sinews, muscles, flesh. And among living persons these have been inspirited. The human person is a unity, not a duality. A man caressing his wife is not practicing a merely physical act; his whole soul is speaking in it. Her "Yes" is from her soul and body, both. They are one -- as soul and body, as wife and husband.

 View full article at the Huffington Post.

 Click HERE to purchase your copy of the "The Myth of Romantic Love."

Goodbye, Judge Bork—Goodbye, My Friend

As it happened, I was able to spend a couple of hours between flights with Bob Bork just ten days before he died, and I got to tell him of my gratitude for so much friendship and laughter over the past quarter-century, of my admiration for his depth, and—embarrassing him, as I knew this would—of my love for him. Bob was of the strong stock that keeps emotions such as love to himself. That’s one reason I loved him. Robert_Bork_20121219103236_320_240On such occasions—his many friends loved him mightily and showed it in many angular ways—one could see him squirm with conflicting emotions. He certainly must not accept that, and yet a smile at the corner of his lips and a rising blush up his very white cheeks betrayed his pleasure. His method of fleeing from admiration and (God forbid) love was normally a scoffing rebuke, behind which came a wee smile.

His friends loved him because he was brilliant, always ready with witticisms and lightning insights, and altogether warm of heart himself. It was a joy to watch him with his children and Mary Ellen. Several of those around him thought his was the most radiant intellect they knew: The most famously bright people in Washington always deferred to him. His mind was radiant on things vast—and also domestic. We smiled at the way he and Mary Ellen joshed each other constantly, in the glow of unmistakable union.

Bob was a serious man about his deepest convictions, uncommonly self-aware down to a very great depth. For years there was no sign that he was even thinking of becoming a Catholic, as Mary Ellen was; he sometimes pretended to be an unshakably severe and reserved Pittsburgh Presbyterian—almost never explicitly religious at all. Of course, when he did seek instruction in the Catholic faith, he did so publicly during one of the worst possible and most humiliating years in the history of the American Church, 2003, just as the painful clergy sexual abuse scandal was at the height of exposure in the media. It was just like Bob’s courage (in his great intellectual courage) to go ahead in that unpropitious period.

It was just like his unfailing wit that it had not escaped his notice that baptism in that advanced year of his life carried a double blessing: It washed away all his prior sins, and arrived just when his seniority rendered unlikely all those that had brought the most pleasure.

Bob and Mary Ellen first met at a party of mine and Karen’s—a book party—and shortly afterwards Karen and Mary Ellen drove many hours together out to Notre Dame. Bob had lost his first and deeply loved wife to cancer some years before, and it had seemed to some unlikely he would remarry. On that car trip, Karen picked up signs that, given some time, it just might happen. We were glad.

We also had the immense privilege of taking Bob and Mary Ellen to dinner on the eve of his much-embattled confirmation vote in the Senate. (I always thought that Senator Ted Kennedy’s demagogic, malicious, and falsehood-ridden assault on Judge Bork, at the very beginning of the confirmation process, was the foulest deed of Kennedy’s leadership in the Senate—it properly won its own disgraceful public epithet.) After this dinner, Karen mentioned to me Bob’s astonishing equanimity.

Late in the dinner, he said something like: “At one time, I would have given my right arm to become a justice of the Supreme Court. But now, if I don’t, I will write more freely—not just in legalese—of ideas necessary to the republic in these years.”

At another point, he said something like: “I know some wanted me to kiss babies, and cut off my beard, and appeal more to public sentiment. But that’s not me. That’s how politicians behave. It is not how justices behave. I couldn’t possibly do that. It would have betrayed everything I believe about the law.”

Concentrating on friendship, we laughed a lot at that dinner. In the car, Karen admitted that she admired the inner spirit of Robert Bork more than ever. She herself was well experienced to the steel of spirit (and humor) needed in dark times.

Others may write better on Judge Bork’s pre-eminence among jurists of his generation, and the capaciousness of his mind in the history of law. Today I mourn, and want to honor a man great of spirit.

Michael Novak, one of the founders of First Things, was for more than two decades a colleague of Judge Bork at the American Enterprise Institute.

Published at First Things on December 21, 2012

 

Gratitude, Even in November 2012 (NRO Symposium)

For the last four or five elections I have believed that at stake was whether God still blessed America. In the eyes of our Founders, belief that He does (“With a firm reliance on Divine Providence”) is conditional on our national behavior. How can we expect Providence to bless our efforts, George Washington told his troops in 1776, if we do not live worthy of Him? My depression about the election lasted only one night. The rest of the week I was depressed by the mess the nation is now in, and the old policies the president promised to pursue during his campaign.

The president is well on his way to forcing our military down to levels unseen in the last 50 years — fewer ships for the Navy than in 1939–40; aircraft older than the young men flying them. We shall no longer have an ability to fight two wars at once — or even to fight one with unchallengeable military strength.

The president has already racked up national deficits so large they cannot be paid off in the lifetime of our children, and will still weigh down our grandchildren. Our generation is so “compassionate” we will spend money (for the poor, we say) that we do not even have.

On the other hand, experience shows that Providence, in failing to grant our prayers, normally has wiser things in mind. In a way, our present loss may be a reprieve for the Party of Liberty, such that it does not have to inherit the damage that is surely coming down on this nation during the next four years.

Obviously, the majority of the country does not grasp the peril our nation is in. So maybe it is in fact wiser that incoming perils be tied unmistakably to the New Statists, to their long-term discredit.

Our Founders concluded from their long search for the fatal flaw in all previous Republics that the most destructive of all social flaws is envy — envy of one class for another, one section of the city for another, one dynastic family for another. Envy is more destructive than hate, for envy never calls itself envy, but justice or fairness. Yet it leads ineluctably to social warfare, even at the price of self-destruction.

President Obama’s persistent effort to paint the top 2 percent of income earners as foes of “fairness” and the “common good” poisons national amity. That will have effects for years to come. To what good end? Private capital that would have been invested in jobs for future wealth creation will be seized by government. With what practical results?

Sometimes nations need chastisement before they get the point: There must be a high level of mutual respect in the daily life of a Republic, if there is to be unity, amicability, and a just estimate of the unique contributions of each sector to the whole.

Published in National Review Online on November 22, 2012

 

Two Theories on the Polls

Among nearly all demographic groups, the shift from Obama to Romney is significant Last weekend’s polls could not be closer. The Real Clear Politics average shows President Obama and Governor Romney at virtually identical percentages, separated by only half a point. However, two respected polls emphatically diverge: As of October 28, the National Journal poll showed Obama ahead by five percentage points, and Gallup showed Romney up by five.

There are two theories about this, one a center-left theory, and the other a center-right theory.

Everyone agrees that polls tally no more than public opinion (influenced by mood on a particular day) on the day they are taken. But the only thing that counts on Election Day is the actual vote, not the opinions of yesterday or last week. And actually going to vote, or applying for an absentee ballot and sending it in, takes far more effort than merely having an opinion. This is where the two theories about the voting public come into play.

The center-left theory is that the composition of the vote (by age, race and ethnicity, religion, gender, political party, and even the relative proportions of each) this election will be very similar to the composition of the vote in 2008.

The center-right theory is that in 2012, the vote among whites, women, and other demographic groups — especially Republicans and independents who actually come out to vote — will be a couple of percentage points lower for Obama and a couple of points higher for the Republican than in the 2008 vote.

It is not clear on Sunday who will be correct on Tuesday. The tabulation of the vote on November 6 will tell us that. Then it will no longer be a matter of theory, but a fact.

Of course, there are bound to be disputes and contentions over certain ballots, and the final count could be delayed by some days. On Election Day, any ballots challenged by one side or the other will be set aside for later examination (as in Florida in the 2000 Bush–Gore election).

For now, partisan passions sway each side, each claiming certain victory.

There are, I believe, powerfully credible reasons in favor of the center-right theory’s coming closer to the actual final vote. The main reason is that among virtually every demographic group, support for Obama is lower in 2012 than in 2008, which the center-left pollsters are not picking up in their template for the composition of the electorate. They are counting on the same number of independents, women, the young, Catholics, and other blocs voting for Obama in 2012. Almost certainly not.

Well, theory is one thing. Actual results are another. Results will show who was correct all along.

Today and tomorrow, in the American tradition many prayers to Providence will be said. These will be prayers in the darkness, for God’s actual will is not known to us in advance of the event.

Published in National Review Online on November 5, 2012

 

Why Romney Will Win

Do we want to become statist Europeans or remain free Americans? Many friends are telling me that most of the European media are expecting President Obama to be reelected. If so, they are likely to be shocked on election day. In the U.S., there are 26 national polling firms. The one I count most trustworthy is Rasmussen (which came closest to hitting the exact result for 2008), and the oldest and best known is Gallup. As of October 23 (just after the third and final debate), both showed Governor Romney beating the president with over 51 percent, and by between four and six points.

Even the poll of all the polls (reported daily at RealClearPolitics.com) shows Romney climbing everywhere and day by day pulling ahead in state after state.

For myself, I expect Romney to win by just over 52 to 46 percent, with two minor candidates gathering about 2 percent between them.

The United States has never before had to make a choice like this — between two different ways of life. This is a choice about whether we want the United States to become more like the European welfare states. Or, rather, to stick to our own traditional ways: risk, creativity, growth, and opportunity. Obama acts consistently to make the United States like Europe. No wonder many Europeans cheer him on.

Of course, Obama could yet win. The week remaining before the November 6 election might still hold many surprises. The Democratic party is famous, when it is losing, for launching October Surprises — dramatic actions, or sudden damaging revelations about the opposing candidate. Besides, our media (except for Fox News) have become extremist in their support for Obama.

Yet this lack of balance is not necessarily a disadvantage for Governor Romney. The press is misleading the public (and itself) about what is really happening on the ground, among ordinary people.

To keep one’s feet on the ground in the United States, one must watch which candidate working males — steelworkers, miners, gas-station attendants, truck drivers, and so on — are favoring. And which way marriedwomen are trending. Ever since Reagan, most working males and married women trend markedly Republican. They are especially strong for Romney.

By contrast, the Democrats, the Party of Government, strongly attract single women, both unmarried and widows. President Obama also appeals to the new “counterculture” that celebrates abortion, gay marriage, and a morally relaxed culture. They are locked in a “culture war” against traditional American virtues ( biblical, Jewish and Christian). In Europe, many refer to these as “puritan” values.

But, then, the narrow, strict “puritan” culture of Massachusetts and Rhode Island did not extend its sway to the South and the West.

“Out there,” Christianity was barely present in the “churchy” forms familiar to Europeans. The South and the West favored the relaxed style of the “free churches” — more informal, associational, open and friendly, “Spirit-moved,” even a bit enthusiastic.

Persons formed in this environment are less inclined to accept statism and its bureaucracies, and labor unions and their enforced electoral solidarity. They take pride in self-reliance, self-government, and personal self-control. Their type of living requires certain solid habits in people, not the “loose” ways of urban secularism.

Look again at the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, designed by the French to capture the American character. Lady Liberty is a very serious, sober woman — a second-grade teacher. In one hand she holds aloft the torch of reason and light against ignorance and impulse, and in her other hand she carries the Book of the Law. The American hymnodist captures this note perfectly: “Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law.” An inner law.

To be sure, urban secularism via television, the movies, and the popular-music industry has spread its magnetic allure all through the countryside by now. But the older ways still matter to churchgoers and married couples. Thus, “the culture war.”

More important just now is the havoc wrought on the American economy by President Obama’s statist actions. Middle-class families during the last four years have lost scores of thousands of dollars in the net worth of their homes (their largest investment by far). They have lost over $4,300 per family in real income. Prices of common, humble goods — coal, gas, electricity, food — have risen steadily. In daily life, everything costs more, from food for one’s family to fuel for one’s automobile. The pain is felt many times a day.

And still there is the huge weight of public debt — climbing every second of every day, and heading for an additional $5 trillion just in the last four years. This debt is an enormous tax laid on our children and grandchildren. Many count this as cross-generational theft, an immorality of the first order.

And opportunity! Opportunity is to Americans what security is to Europeans. Millions wonder, “Where has opportunity gone?” Few new jobs; 21 million people without jobs, including those millions who after four years have given up searching. Almost half of all university graduates last year could not find jobs, and have returned to live with their parents.

It would take us too far afield here to explain how President Obama’s abuse of religious liberty — especially but not only of the Catholic Church — has driven away many who voted for him in 2008. For instance, in 2008 a slim majority of churchgoing Catholics voted for Obama. This time, most of those Catholics who go to church “seldom or never” prefer Obama. But those who go to church “weekly or almost weekly” tell pollsters, by a margin of 59 percent to 34 percent, that they will vote for Romney this time.

Voters who swing from one party to another between elections count twice. They take one vote from Obama, say, and give that vote to Romney. At present, at least 1.5 million churchgoing Catholics say they will switch from Obama to Romney. That counts as a swing of 3 million votes.

Under Obama the poor have suffered more than anyone else. Millions have fallen into poverty — back to levels not seen since the late 1960s. The official poverty line is roughly $24,000 annually for a family of four.

It is always wise to think that your own side is behind, the other ahead. That way, your whole team works harder. By all accounts, this year the Republicans have more enthusiasm and eagerness. The Democrats seem less spirited. Recently every day shows more strength for Romney, especially in the most hotly contested states. But that, of course, can change. In an election campaign, a week can seem an eternity.

There is much nail-biting in the United States these days.

Published in National Review Online on October 30, 2012

 

Obama's Legend: Reagan Dug Himself Out of a Far Deeper Hole

President Obama hangs his whole campaign narrative on one legend, and it is false. The legend: that Obama began in 2009 from the worst financial hole since the Depression.

Not true. The economic hole in which Ronald Reagan began in 1981 was far deeper.

In January 2009, Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent. Average inflation for the previous year was 3.8 percent. The rate for a 30-year fixed-rate home mortgage was 6 percent.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent and on a steep uptick. The inflation rate was 13.5 percent. And the rate for a new home mortgage was 13.7 percent. The purchasing power of those on fixed incomes had fallen by 30 percent under Carter, throwing millions of seniors and others below the poverty line. There were gasoline shortages and long, long lines at filling stations. Carter himself described the mess the country was in as a “malaise.” Economists had to coin a new word for it, “stagflation”– a supposedly impossible combination of very high inflation with even higher unemployment. Carter based his presidential campaign on raising taxes on millionaires, crusading against “the three-martini lunch” (more likely among TV stars, agents, journalists, and others in the Manhattan crowd than among businessmen; it was a small and petty campaign based on resentment).

Closing out his fourth year in office in 1984, Reagan had brought the unemployment rate down to almost 7.3 percent. By the end of his second term, unemployment was 5.4 percent and the inflation rate had plummeted to 4.3 percent. During his full eight years, the economic incentives he put in place led to the creation of 16 million new jobs and the formation of some 2 million new small businesses. More Americans between the ages of 18 and 65 were employed than ever before, and the labor force had grown to historic proportions, partly because of an unprecedented number of women entering it.

Under Reagan, the gross national product, spurred by incentives rather than punishments, grew by $2.44 trillion, almost 83 percent. In other words, Reagan almost doubled the nation’s GNP — its national wealth and world-leading strength. He increased the amount of revenues through income taxes from $249 billion in 1980 to $413 billion in 1988. The wealthiest 1 percent paid a full 27.6 percent of the income-tax burden (up from 18.9 percent under Carter), and the share of total income taxes paid by the middle class went from 43.7 percent in 1980 down to 37 percent in 1988. The greatest boom in world history was under way, and Reagan’s reelection campaign motto was “Morning in America.”

Closing out his fourth year in office, President Obama has an 8.3 percent unemployment rate, the lowest rate of participation in the labor force in 30 years (63.7 percent), and more Americans out of work and out of the work force than in any of the preceding 30 years. There are also over 7 million more persons in poverty now than when he took office, a jump from 39.8 million to 47 million. And yet he chose “Forward” for his campaign slogan.

Reagan had an unusually high respect for incentives as a spur to job creation. Give people an incentive, they jump through hoops to earn it. They take the risk of forming small businesses by the tens of thousands, and they launch wholly new industries.

By contrast, President Obama seems to hold incentives in contempt. Imitating Jimmy Carter (with predictably similar results), he styles himself a “fairness president,” and sets up policies designed to punish those with incomes above $250,000. His campaign is mostly against millionaires. He will reap less investment, fewer inventions and new job-creating industries, and lower tax revenues paid by the wealthy. He is already producing malaise.

In brief, Reagan dug himself out of the far deeper hole; Obama has not yet dug his way out of his much shallower one.

Feel sorry for President Obama if you wish (he does). But feel more mightily sorry for the president who has to dig out from the ugly pit Obama will leave for his successor.

The next president will inherit the most massive national debt in history, which is pulling down the nation’s future by the weight of a trillion new dollars each year. On top of that, excruciatingly painful unemployment. On top of that, the shamefully unreformed Medicare system doomed, its own trustees say, to go broke by 2024 — just before any Americans under the age of 54 will be arriving into its dark emptiness.

Published by Michael Novak in National Review Online on August 14, 2012

 

Obama’s Mantra: The President is Wrong to Blame His Problems on His Predecessor

The central mantra of President Obama’s campaign is false. That mantra is: “The Republicans tried their plan for the economy and it failed. I tried a new plan and it worked.” As I pointed out on National Review Online yesterday, the facts are otherwise. Closing out his fourth year in office, President Obama has an 8.3 percent unemployment rate. He also boasts the lowest rate of participation in the labor force in 30 years (63.7 percent). More Americans are out of work than at any time in the preceding 30 years. There are 7 million more persons in poverty than when he took office, a jump from 39.8 million to 47 million. When pressed to explain these figures, the president points his finger at the state of the economy when he took office. That’s his excuse.

But the reasons for the 2008 economic calamity were set forth at least eight years before its onset by colleagues of mine at the American Enterprise Institute, led by the prescient, intrepid, and persistent Peter Wallison.

Wallison and the others did their best to strip the disguises off the darling ideas about housing held by Democrats Barney Frank in the House and Christopher Dodd in the Senate. Through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those two and other Democrats (with a minority of Republicans) were force-feeding government-guaranteed mortgages to borrowers who had no reasonable chance to keep up with monthly payments. Such borrowers would never before have been approved for mortgages. These empty-headed, thoughtless (albeit well-intentioned) approvals undermined the whole U.S. (and world) financial sector.

The collapse of 2008 was not due to a lack of revenues taken in by the IRS. In fact, the total revenue taken in by the IRS that year was very nearly the highest in IRS history. More impressive, 70 percent of all that revenue was paid by the top 10 percent of earners. The top 1 percent alone paid over 38 percent of all income taxes. The burden on the middle class (that is, the next 40 percent below the top 10 percent) was down to just over 27 percent of all income taxes paid. The bottom half of Americans paid only 3 percent of income taxes. Many from the bottom half got money back for the income taxes they did pay, and their payroll taxes went into their Social Security accounts.

Just who did not pay their fair share of the income taxes under George Bush in 2008? The top 10 percent? Does Obama really mean that paying 70 percent of income taxes all by themselves is not enough? Does he really mean that the top 10 percent should pay something approaching all the income tax, for the whole population? And that the bottom half should contribute almost nothing?

Bush began his presidency in the mild recession he inherited, which was exacerbated by the dramatic collapse of the dot-com bubble. Far worse than that recession were the orange balls of flames exploding from the Twin Towers on 9/11. In ashes and in smoke, heroes worked by lights against the darkness to pull the many dead bodies (and, amazingly, a few still-living ones) from the foul-smelling rubble.

That act of terrorism crippled the U.S. airline industry — it made millions of us afraid to fly for some weeks — and wrecked tourism, the restaurant industry, hotels and entertainments, some banks, and the stock market for many months to come. It caused the U.S. economy to lose a trillion dollars. It weakened the reserves of the financial industry. It taught the world how much damage could be inflicted by so small a blow — so primitive a blow — to a vast, complex, interrelated modern economy.

But Bush also had learned from Reagan that incentives (more than anything else) drive a free economy right back up. So Bush adopted the Reagan recovery pattern. My colleague Peter Wallison recently recounted how: first, one set of across-the-board personal tax cuts retroactive to the beginning of 2001. Followed by another series of tax cuts in 2003 to reduce investment taxes. That gave new businesses a fresh incentive. Once these incentives were in place, the nation sprang out of that nightmare-time quite quickly. Just as it had under Reagan (and as it had under Jack Kennedy in the 1960s).

As Wallison points out, the Bush tax cuts “stimulated consistent job and salary growth: an average of almost 1 percent a year in job growth between 2001 and 2007 and almost 1.8 percent growth in real wages and salaries over the same period.” Under Bush, U.S. GDP grew at a rate of 2.8 percent through 2007.

Wallison compares this with the Obama record in the 36 months between the end of the recession in June 2009 and June 2012: “In that period, when one would expect the fastest GDP growth — after a steep recession — the average has been 2.4 percent ... [while] job growth has averaged .64 percent per year, and real wages and salaries have been stagnant. Not a very good return on an $800 billion stimulus investment.”

A pitiful result, many of us think. Which only a naif would boast of.

In fact, 2007 was one of the economy’s five best years ever, in terms of the unemployment rate (4.6 percent) and the actual numbers employed (14.6 million); and also in terms of inflation (2.8 percent) and mortgage rates (6.34 percent for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage). The Bush economic policy worked smashingly well, until — the crash.

What crashed in September 2008 was the housing market. That crash was not caused by Bush-era tax cuts. It was caused by the house of cards that Congress had built of home mortgages, the bread-and-butter underpinning of many financial institutions. As Wallison points out, Bush did not do enough to stop the flood of very weak mortgage payments, often behind schedule, often in serious default, that were about to engulf the entire financial system. At that point, Wallison adds, the U.S. financial system was supporting half of all U.S. mortgages on very weak grounds, and “74 percent of these were on the balance sheets of government agencies like the GSEs [government-supported agencies] and the Federal Housing Administration.”

President Obama’s mantra blames President Bush for the collapse of 2008. But President George W. Bush did better in overcoming his recession in four years than Obama has done in his four years. And, as I noted yesterday, President Reagan did better than both, from a deeper hole.

To be blunt: President Obama’s economic policies have dug a hole far worse than the one he stepped into in 2008, and his mantra blames exactly the wrong economic theory. Pity his successor. Think of the mess that poor man will inherit.

Published by Michael Novak in National Review Online on August 15, 2012