The Trump Election

I was in a daze the day after Donald Trump won the 2016 election for President of the United States. How could this have happened? Hillary Clinton was ahead in virtually all the polls. I’ve read and listened to many analyses of what happened. I’m sure the analyzing will go on for many more years. Here’s my take on what happened.

I think Donald Trump won the electoral college vote because of convergence of a number of different groups voting for him. Initially I thought of using the word “coalition” instead of “convergence’. But I decided to not use that term because I don’t think he established a coalition. I think different groups decided to vote for him for their own particular reasons and the sum of all these groups together brought him enough votes to win the election. One group included white nationalists, Americans who believe we should be a nation controlled by white men. These people cheered his condemnation of Mexican immigrants, his call for a ban on Muslim immigration, his promise to deport all illegal immigrants, and his denunciation of a judge of Mexican descent as not able to be objective in hearing a lawsuit against Trump.

Another group that supported him are white evangelical Christians. More than 80% of those who voted from this group went for Trump. You would think that the many things that came out during the campaign about his crude language and behavior would have led to them rejecting Trump. But, apparently, his pro-life position and his pledge to appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court trumped all the rest (pun intended).

Trump also got the votes of the die-hard Republican voters. He got the endorsements of many Republican elected officials, even those he disparaged and told lies about (e.g., Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan).

Finally, he got the votes of many working class Americans who believe the system is not working for them. These folks came out in big numbers to give Trump wins in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In some of these states, Republicans had not won the popular vote for President in many years. In many states, working class people who don’t usually vote came out and voted for Trump. He hit the right chord with these folks. He called for change and this was very appealing for working class people whose real wages have gone down considerably over the past few decades. For some, their wages have gone down because manufacturing jobs, which paid good money, have now been replaced by service jobs with much lower wages. For some, the issue goes beyond the replacement of high-paying jobs with low-paying jobs.

In the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine, Arlie Russell Hochschild wrote an article about Donald Trump’s appeal to working class voters. Hochschild’s article is based on interviewing and spending time with 60 people in Louisiana over a period of 5 years, in an attempt to understand supporters of the tea party. One paragraph struck me as providing a good insight into his appeal.

She says that the “deep story of the right goes like this: You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you. Many of these line-cutters are black – beneficiaries of affirmative action or welfare. Some are career-driven women pushing into jobs they never had before. Then you see immigrants, Mexicans, Somalis, the Syrian refugees yet to come. As you wait in this unmoving line, you’re being asked to feel sorry for them all. You have a good heart. But who is deciding who you should feel compassion for? Then you see Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He’s on their side. In fact, isn’t he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard? As you wait your turn, Obama is using money in your pocket to help the line-cutters. He and his liberal backers have removed the shame from taking. The government has become an instrument for redistributing your money to the undeserving. It’s not your government anymore; it’s theirs.” Hochschild says she checked this story with the people she interviewed for her article and they agreed it was their story.

You may read the description above and say that it’s not an accurate portrayal of what’s going on in America. Whether it is or not, it’s an accurate description of how some Americans see their situation. We can’t just dismiss it out-of-hand. We have to acknowledge it. The failure to recognize what’s happening to the working class and lower middle class may be what caused Clinton to lose the election.

Here are some additional thoughts about the election:

American voters wanted a change. Hillary Clinton got almost 17 million votes during the Democratic primaries. Donald Trump got over 14 million votes in the Republican primaries. He beat out 16 other candidates (mostly career politicians). But we should not forget that Bernie Sanders also got more than 13 million votes in the Democratic primaries – these were also votes for change. In the general election, Clinton was seen as supporting the political status quo; while Trump was seen as an outsider and an advocate for major change in Washington. During the primaries, polls generally showed Bernie Sanders doing better against Trump than Clinton against Trump. We’ll never know whether he would have beaten Trump. But I believe his outsider/change message would have appealed to many of the working-class voters who went for Trump.

Also, Donald Trump lied. At times, he said one thing and then later said the opposite. At other times, he asserted things that were contradicted by facts (e.g., that President Obama was not born in the United States, that Ford was taking jobs from the US and sending them to Mexico, that the murder rate in our big cities has increased). He frequently denied that he said certain things that audio or video tapes could prove that he had indeed said. My wife, Pat, read an interesting analysis of this. The author believed that Donald Trump was not concerned with whether the things he said were true or false. The most important thing to him is winning. He emphasized during his campaigns that he is a winner and would make America a winner (we would win so much that we will get bored of winning). Thus, he said things he believed would help him win. Truth or falsehood was beside the point. Based on what I saw and read during the primary and general election campaigns, I think this is a pretty good analysis of how Trump operates. And now that he has won he is moderating many positions that probably played a big part in convincing people to vote for him (e.g., a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary, repealing Obamacare).

We also cannot overlook the voter suppression effort that Republicans have engaged in over the past half-decade. Under the guise of fighting voter fraud, Republican legislatures in a large number of states have enacted laws that have made it more difficult for traditionally Democratic voters to cast their votes. One Pennsylvania legislator admitted on camera that the purpose of that state’s voting fraud law was to help Republicans win elections. In Alabama, the new law required a voter ID. The state then closed more than 30 Motor Vehicle offices (where the IDs could be obtained) mostly in rural, majority-black counties. In Wisconsin, a federal judge ordered the state to provide voter ID to applicants within 6 days of receiving the appropriate documentation. But Motor Vehicle agencies in the state did not comply with the order. These voter ID laws were enacted despite the fact that actual fraud at the voting place is almost non-existent. A study by Prof. Justin Levitt at Loyola University found that from 2000 to 2014 there were only 31 instances of voter impersonation fraud out of one billion votes. The Nation magazine described voter suppression as the most under-reported story of 2016. Ari Berman’s article describes the results of these voter ID laws.

OK. We have to face facts. Donald Trump won the election. He didn’t get the most votes in the general election. But he did get the most electoral college votes. And that’s the way our system currently works. We have to live with him being our president for the next four years.

I have two take-aways from this election. One, there are a lot of people who are saying and writing that we have to give him a chance, we have to wait and see how he will govern. I agree with that. But, I also believe that we have to be vigilant. We can’t allow him and the Republican Congress to enact laws that violate human rights, foster discrimination, or violate the Constitution and say “Let’s wait to see how these laws play out.” We need to act quickly if these things occur and make our voices heard through letter writing, protests, etc. Two, the Democratic party abandoned the working class, which used to provide the base of its support. Bernie Sanders recognized this and there are other prominent Democratic politicians who also understand it (e.g., Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Keith Ellison). The Democratic party has given lip-service to addressing the plight of the working class; but it has not translated into meaningful action. In order to win future elections, the Democrats must return to their roots.

Money in American Politics

In 2014, the website The Hill reported on a study done by Martin Gilens and BenjaminPage, titled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens”. The Hill began its reporting with: “A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States.”

I recently read Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Her book provides a very detailed picture of how a small number of wealthy individuals and families has gained undue influence over our political system and our election process.

When I began the book, I expected that it would mostly focus on Charles and David Koch (co-owners of Koch Industries) whose combined wealth is estimated to be over $80 billion. A Center for Responsive Politics report stated that in 2012 Koch PACs spent $4.9 million in disclosed contributions and $407 million in undisclosed contributions (dark money). But Mayer doesn’t focus only on the Kochs. Her book chronicles many other wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations that have used their enormous resources to influence American politics.

Although Mayer describes a number of wealthy individuals and groups that have exerted influence over the past 50 years, currently the most significant wealthy individuals who have exerted influence over the political process are Charles and David Koch. Let’s look at them first. In 1980, David Koch ran for Vice-President of the United States on the Libertarian ticket. The Libertarian platform called for abolition of the following: campaign finance laws, all government health care programs (including Medicaid and Medicare), Social Security, all income and corporate taxes (including capital gains tax), the Securities and Exchange Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, laws impeding employment (i.e., minimum wage and child labor laws), public schools and compulsory education of children, the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, and all forms of welfare for the poor. The Libertarian slate got 1% of the popular vote that year. Despite the popularity of many of these ideas among some Republicans today, in 1980 they were far from the mainstream ideas of the Republican party.

After the resounding defeat of Libertarian Party ideas, David Koch and his older brother, Charles, decided that running for office was not an effective strategy. Instead they embarked on an effort to bring about support for the ideas behind the Libertarian Party’s platform. They did this by funding conservative think tanks (e.g., the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation), which produced studies to support their ideas. These studies sometimes did not rely on scientific and factual evidence (e.g., denial of climate change). They funded programs in colleges and universities, that were designed to foster free-market and anti-regulatory economics (e.g., the Mercatus Center and Institute for Human Studies at George Mason University).

The Koch brothers influence in this process is due less to their own donations (though they are substantial) than to their coordination of the donations of a large group of wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations. To advance their agenda, the Koch brothers sponsor twice-yearly meetings with potential donors to their conservative causes. The first donor summit in 2003 was attended by only 15 people. But, after Barak Obama’s election in 2008, the summits began to attract many more wealthy donors. Because of the secrecy enforced by the Kochs, the names of people who attended these summits are mostly unknown. The secrecy of the summits reflects the secrecy of the Koch donor network and of donations made by the Koch brothers themselves. Many donations are made to organizations that do not have to reveal the source of the donations. These organizations then donate to other organizations that may have to disclose their donors; but the disclosure only reveals the name of the organization they received the donations from. The original donors' identities remain a secret.

In Dark Money, Mayer traces the influence of money on politics back to the Scaife Family Charitable Trust. Richard Scaife, whose money came from his mother, a member of the Mellon family, was the largest funder of the Heritage Foundation from 1975 to 1985. Mayer points out that, along with other wealthy individuals, Scaife was reacting to a situation many corporations found themselves in during the 1960’s and 1970’s, following the “birth of the environmental and consumer movements”. Later, Scaife also funded the launching of ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), which has helped spread the conservative legislative agenda throughout state legislatures.

Mayer reports on many other wealthy individuals who have poured money into American politics. In many instances, it appears that their motivation is to influence the oversight of their business operations by the government and resulting fines. Mayer reports that the Olin Corporation was involved in controversial environmental practices involving the production of DDT and the dumping of mercury into the Niagra River in New York State. In an effort to influence government policies affecting corporations, the Olin Foundation funded the establishment of Law and Economics courses in law schools. These courses stressed “the need to analyze laws, including government regulations, not just for fairness but also for their economic impact.” The courses were a back-door way to get conservative principles into the law school curriculum. The Olin Foundation provided 83% of the funds to support this effort from 1985 to 1989.

Some of other examples Mayer describes include: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which drove the early “school choice” efforts; Randy Kendrick, who led the fight against Obamacare; the DeVos family (of Amway fame), which funded efforts to undo campaign finance laws; and Art Pope of North Carolina who, with $2.2 million spent on 2010 state races by his family and groups backed by him, helped turn North Carolina into a state dominated by the Republican party.

The influence of big money over our political system was given a big boost by the Supreme Court Citizens United decision in 2010. For the 2010 elections, Americans for Prosperity (a Koch brothers' organization) pledged to spend at least $200 million, American Crossroads (a Karl Rove group) $52 million and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $75 million. The focus of this money is to influence politicians to look favorably on the interests of big business and limit the government oversight of companies and corporations that, for the most part, if left to their own devices, will put corporate profits over the welfare of the American people. What influence can the average American have, compared to wealthy individuals and large corporations? One answer, of course, is that we can have greater influence if we join together. Remember the large amount of money that Bernie Sanders was able to raise for his Presidential campaign, with an average donation of $27 from individual donors?

In Dark Money, Jane Mayer documents the influence of dark money and of wealthy individuals and corporations on our politics. She does not offer recommendations to resolve the decreasing influence of average Americans on government policies. But, her comprehensive description of the problem we average Americans face provides a valuable contribution to our knowledge of how much the deck is stacked against us.

Changes in the Catholic Church since the 1960's

A lot of changes took place in the Church as a result of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). I’ve written about Mass being celebrated in the language spoken by the people attending it, rather than in Latin, and the altar being moved so the priest was facing the people instead of having his back to them. But these were only a small part of the changes. There was an emphasis on making the Church more relevant to the people. There was less emphasis on following the rules and more emphasis on understanding God’s love for us and bringing God’s love into the world. There was an increased emphasis on caring for God’s children who live in poverty, or are hurting or disabled. There was involvement in the Civil Rights movement and ministering to those living in the inner cities and poor rural areas of our country. I’ve written before about Fr. Brian McCormick and his ministry to the Wilbur section of inner-city Trenton (see my July 16, 2012 blog). I think his ministry there was very symbolic of the changes in the Church begun by Vatican II.

However, even soon after Vatican II some in the Church wanted to roll back the changes being made. During the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, there was a big focus on orthodoxy and compliance with the doctrine of the Church as interpreted by the Pope. There was an investigation into the practices of American nuns who saw their mission as ministering to the poor and needy. Fortunately, in my opinion, we now have a Pope whose focus is more on the pastoral care of Catholics (and people in general) and less on adherence to doctrine.

Often, the focus of the Church hierarchy is demonstrated through seemingly small actions, that are symbolic of the vision of the faith that they are pushing. For example, during the papacy of Benedict, there was a change in the translation of prayers used in the Mass that was ostensibly to make them more in line with the actual wording of the prayers in Latin. However, one of the results was to remove language that was simpler and easier to understand and replace it with language that most people will find less understandable and harder to relate to. For example, during the Creed at Mass, instead of being “born” Jesus is now “incarnate” of the Virgin Mary; instead of “one in being with the Father” he is “consubstantial with the Father”.

In Practicing Catholic, James Carroll writes about how, in the Church in which he grew up, before Vatican II, a main theme was our unworthiness as human beings (“Domine non sume dignus”; “Lord, I am not worthy”). With Vatican II, the focus changed to the love God has for us, that we are all his children. We see this with  Pope Francis and his emphasis on Mercy. But some prayers at Mass focus more on our sinfulness than God’s love and mercy. At the beginning of Mass, we pray the Confiteor, which begins “I confess to almighty God …” Until recently we recited “that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do …” This has been changed to the more severe wording “that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault …” The emphasis is back on our unworthiness. Frequently, during this prayer, I think “I haven’t greatly sinned” and it’s not “through my most grievous fault” (emphasis mine). I also think about the seventy and eighty year olds around me and have a hard time picturing them greatly sinning.

Another effect of Vatican II was an emphasis on simplicity. After my six years in the minor seminary at St. Charles College, I would go on to the major seminary (two years of studying Philosophy and then four years of studying Theology). In our minds, moving on to major seminary was a big deal. And there were symbols of this important step. In the minor seminary, we wore jackets and ties to chapel, classes, meals, etc. In the major seminary, we would wear cassocks (with a white surplice added when we went to chapel). During our last year at St. Charles, we would be fitted for and purchase cassocks and surplices. I remember specifically wanting to have a surplice that had a simple design. The one I purchased was made of heavy cotton, with no decorative aspects. I think this idea of simplicity was also reflected in changes to liturgical garments and vessels. Chasubles (outer garment worn by the priest during Mass) started to be made out of less silky-looking material and had a plainer design. Many priests ordained after Vatican II chose chalices (the cup used at Mass) that had a plainer design. I remember some of the chalices of the younger priests having a ceramic outside (gold on the inside) that more resembled a cup.  These newer designs reflected the concept of the priest being a humble servant of the people. Simplicity replaced the more elaborate designs that in earlier days emphasized adoration of a transcendent God. These days, we seem to be moving back to an adoring mode. For example, I’ve noticed that seminarians coming to our parish seem to be wearing surplices with decorative lace designs at the bottom of the sleeves and at the waist.

Here are links to some elaborate and simple styles of chasubles, surplices and chalices to illustrate:

Simple chasuble

Elaborate chasuble

Simple surplice (this is very similar to the surplice I chose for myself)

Elaborate surplice

Simple chalice

Elaborate chalice

I realize that there are those who believe that God is primarily a transcendent God (that is, that God is greater than human beings and our world and therefore our relationship to God should be one of adoration). One way of showing our adoration is to include in our worship services objects of great beauty to reflect how awesome God is. Others (I include myself here) believe that, while God is in fact greater than all we know and can imagine, he became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ, to show God’s love for us and that God’s presence remains among us. Fr. RichardRohr, founder of The Center for Action and Contemplation, has written that “Jesus does not ask us to worship him. He asks us to follow him.”

In many ways the spirit of Vatican II has dissipated over the years. Pope John XXIII emphasized the principle of collegiality (bishops sharing in authority with the Pope). The Second Vatican Council was a shining example of collegiality. But John XXIII died before the end of the Council and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI. In Practicing Catholic, James Carroll writes that Paul VI ordered the Council to not take up the issue of birth control. It would be handled by the Pope. Paul VI later issued an encyclical reaffirming the Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception. The windows opened by John XXIII have been gradually closing. But Pope Francis seems intent on opening them up again. He emphasizes serving the poor. He condemns the lavish lifestyles of some “princes of the Church” and has had showers built in the Vatican for homeless people to use. I was pleased to read an article in “Network Connection” (a publication of Network, a Catholic social justice lobbying group) that included an interview with John Gehring, author of The Francis Effect. In it, he said “I heard from these seminarians that the pope is challenging them to encounter people, to recognize that their most significant challenge is not to preach doctrine, but to attract people to the faith and tap into what he calls the ‘freshness and fragrance of the gospel’. They were touched that he didn’t move into the Apostolic Palace, for example.” He also said that they understood that “their job as seminarians is to learn about the doctrine of the faith, but they see a pastor who is pope challenging them to recognize that the greatest doctrine of the church is good news for the poor and mercy.”

A while ago I received a bookmark from the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) that featured a Pope Francis comic strip (this is a regular feature in NCR). I thought this comic strip provided a good visual representation of the outlooks and focuses of the last few popes.

I am grateful that we have a Pope who is looking forward and is preaching a gospel of love and mercy for all men and women.