Let’s Make America Tolerable Again
By PETER MAURICE
In the days leading up to the second presidential debate in St. Louis, and those following it, news outlets obsessed over a single story: Donald Trump had talked dirty to Billy Bush, cousin of “W,” about women. There he was, solid as a rock, dense as a doorknob, flaunting the arrogance of a “star.” After Jack, and Lyndon, and Bill, one might have believed America callused to crude carnal speech, but Trump’s grossness made even his most loyal supporters cringe.
The “counter-puncher” held a pre-debate press conference with a representative sampling of women who had repulsed Bill Clinton’s attentions — including rape. Trump’s attempt to neutralize the lopsided coverage failed utterly. Hillary may have sounded a bit more shrill than usual; and Bill looked as bilious as Scrooge visited by the ghosts of Christmas past. But Trump’s staging did nothing to “change the narrative.” After a few minutes in the spin room, the story was (except for Fox) dismissed as a tasteless stunt, a circus diversion from the “game-changing” exposé.
Over the following days anchors interviewed, papers mulled, TV panels clucked — in unison. A conspiracy nut might have suspected collusion. Republicans were urged to abandon Trump’s listing hulk. At least two dozen Republicans scrambled with Captain Ryan to the lifeboats.
Then, leading up to the last debate, a deluge of under-reported Hillary scandals broke: more pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation; Democrat stage-management of violence at Trump rallies; jibes by John Podesta about backward — but malleable — Catholics; the asymmetry of the public v. private Hillary; FBI reclassification of Clinton emails in a quid pro quo; incestuous rapport between the Democratic campaign and reporters — etc., etc, yawn, yawn.
The media moralists would not be distracted. They refused to divert their single-minded focus from the Big Story and continued to call for Trump’s head, with or without the platter. Never before had these fans of the Kennedys and Clintons witnessed such anti-woman language, such lewd display. A CNN panelist, who customarily expresses herself with all the vulgarity the medium allows, first heard the news of Trump’s language on her car radio. Her immediate reflex, said she, was to rush home and clutch her daughter.
Michelle Obama — whose husband’s first campaign triumphed with help from the hero of Chappaquiddick — wondered what kind of message we were sending to “our girls” if we could tolerate such smut. In a voice “trembling with emotion” (The New York Times), she feared loss of “our moral authority in the world.” This great country could never elect a man “who routinely degrades women.”
Jefferson trembled over slavery, reflecting that God was just. The first lady, devoid of a sense of irony, trembled for the nation that she was first proud of eight years ago. Yes, the one that exterminates more than a million of its unborn per annum; that sues shopkeepers who won’t celebrate same-sex marriage; and that now imposes diversity by forcing “our girls” to welcome “transitioning” boys into their locker rooms. She looks forward to the day when “the most qualified candidate ever” repeals the Hyde Amendment. Deplorables and clingers will then pay for “procedures” that offend their backward scruples.
Such is the nation whose moral authority Donald Trump threatens.
Throughout the media tempest, Trump was not without his defenders. His running mate, and prominent evangelicals, accepted his brusque contrition. The manly and forthright Jerry Falwell Jr. said that Trump, “beside himself,” had phoned to deny the latest charges after victims of decades past — with downcast eyes and supportive hugs from lawyers — had read their accusations for the cameras. Trump insisted that this was slander, preloaded for discharge when maximum damage could be done — before the final debate with the election just three weeks out.
James Dobson likewise forgave a “new Christian” who’d been chastened and tempered in the furnace of a year’s campaign. All of this testimony from “people of faith” failed to assuage the pundits or blunt the attack of Hollywood’s moral philosophers. Robert De Niro pronounced Trump “a dog, a mutt, a punk” whom he would like to “punch in the face.” Despite their self-advertised alternative lifestyle, and tolerance of what used to be called sexual deviance, the incorruptibles at CNN insisted that Trump had exceeded the limit, which heretofore had seemed limitless. Other channels concurred. Were these the same libertine liberals who used to abhor “witch-hunts,” who refused to expose President Clinton for exposing himself?
What was the Catholic hierarchy’s stance, if that’s not too strong a word? Excepting odd men out, like Bishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, they seemed reluctant to draw clear distinctions. I heard at a weekday Mass that we have two “flawed candidates.” The homilist gave no guidance, beyond a wan smile. A grave bishop on EWTN was more earnest than our homilist, but equally reluctant to impose his view. No wonder Tim Kaine, the “devout Catholic,” gets away with it.
The choice, Catholics might believe, is between the unthinkable and the unspeakable, with little to distinguish them — despite those five non-negotiables and a Hillary-controlled Supreme Court. Listening to His Excellency on EWTN, I recalled Disraeli’s uncharitable comment about the Anglican bishops of his day: “Not a voice has been raised by these mitred nullities, either to warn or to vindicate; not a phrase has escaped their lips or their pens, that ever…guided the conscience of a perplexed people.”
Catholics are indeed, perplexed. Not just the cafeteria Catholics whose views pollsters love to solicit, but sincere and orthodox folk who look to the hierarchy to guide them out of the swamp and back to the causeway. After a monthly meeting of the St. Louis chapter of the G.K. Chesterton Society, not one of the five members I spoke with was voting for Trump. Nor — I supposed without asking — were they voting for Hillary.
There are consequences to this plague-on-both-your-houses disdain. It may help to advance a further transformation of America. What will this transformation look like? Think of the less attractive features of Venezuela and Brave New World. As in recent elections, neutrality may deliver the “Catholic vote” to the party that promotes abortion, euthanasia, and a state monopoly on education. All pupils will learn that there are 50 different genders — all deserving marriage equality.
Only one party promotes this burlesque morality. According to emails that survived the bleach-bit, the Catholic Church is one of the forces standing in the way of progress and gender equality. But not for long if Sandy Newman and John Podesta — through shadow organizations like Catholics United — succeed in making the Church more “democratic.” After these revelations, will the USCCB don “Anyone But Clinton” buttons? Perhaps not.
For the Democrats are strong on immigration, poverty, affordable tuition, universal health care. The bishops lobbied for Obamacare, but didn’t foresee that the Little Sisters of the Poor would be asked to pay their fair share for abortifacients. Even after this unpleasant surprise, the USCCB remains reluctant to oppose Democrats like Biden and Pelosi and Kaine. Despite their zealotry for abortion and gender confusion, they are on the right side of so many Catholic social issues. Like love, the seamless garment covers a lot of sins.
Now that the last debate and the Al Smith Dinner are over, the media have more Big Stories, more Trumpisms to fixate on. Forget the Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood. Trump voiced his repugnance for “ripping babies out of the womb.” He called Hillary “nasty” and said at a “social occasion” that she “hates Catholics.” Such bluntness may be uncivil, but as Joe Sobran once said, Christ only commanded us to love our enemies — not to pretend that they are our friends.
It doesn’t take the probity of a Robert De Niro to detect the character deficits of Donald Trump. Still, one must choose. And here the hierarchy could have a vital role to play in a close election. Without endorsing a candidate, the American bishops could focus again on those “non-negotiables,” and, on the pragmatic level, have speakers in every parish to direct the congregation’s attention to the anti-Catholic, anti-natural law features of the Democratic Party Platform.
They might also remind pastors, as did Raymond Cardinal Burke, that politicians who promote the killing of unborn children have excommunicated themselves — and must be refused Communion (ah, how that awoke the drowsy worshiper). Stating this plain truth and others earned the cardinal the undying admiration of loyal Catholics — and demotion to being patron of the Knights of Malta; because, as Pope Francis said with shrewd naiveté, “he likes to travel.” It will take courage, and holy indifference to careerism, to follow his example.
+ + +
(Peter Maurice’s articles have appeared in Gilbert and Crisis, as well as in The Wanderer.)
