How Did We Elect Trump?

Flannery O’Connor, in her 1961 short story “Everything that Rises Must Converge,” tells the story of Julian, a recent college graduate, now living with his mother until he can find a job. Julian is miserable living with her, embarrassed by her racist and paternalistic attitude about blacks, typical of the institutional racism of the deep south. But in his mind, he had transcended his upbringing:

The irony was that in spite of her, he had turned out so well. In spite of going to only a third-rate college, he had, on his own initiative, come out with a first-rate education; in spite of growing up dominated by a small mind, he had ended up with a large one; in spite of all her foolish views, he was free of prejudice and unafraid to face facts. Most miraculous of all, instead of being blinded by love for her as she was for him, he had cut himself emotionally free of her and could see her with complete objectivity. He was not dominated by his mother.

What becomes apparent is that Julian’s judgment of his mother is far harsher than the bigotry borne of his mother’s ignorance—that his “rising” as an educated man has made him the bigger bigot, unable to appreciate the sacrifices his mother made for him, incapable of forgiving her for the way she was raised. In the end, his vicious judgment kills her, as she dies from an apparent heart attack, prompted by his repudiation. Thus O’Connor’s title: That which rises must (again) converge--distancing oneself and judging from “on high” destroys the very people that we might otherwise help rise, too.

The day after Donald Trump won the presidential election, I read a number of articles revolving around these themes: “How could we have allowed this to happen? How could we have elected such a bigot? What does this say about us as Americans? A Facebook friend summarized this sentiment succinctly:

"The DNC didn’t underestimate Trump.They underestimated how uneducated, xenophobic, racist and misogynist rural America is. Idiocy has landed.”

How did we elect Trump? Like Julian, like my Facebook friend, we have been harshly judgmental of working class, rural Americans— “deplorables,” Clinton called them--and the deplorables decided to give the intellectual elites of our country, those of us with advanced degrees and sophisticated tastes, a giant middle finger.

Take North Carolina, an important swing state in this election, as but a simple example: Obama won North Carolina in 2008, lost by 2 points in 2012, and in this election, Trump doubled that margin, winning by almost 4 points. Why has North Carolina turned increasingly "red" ? It didn't help Hilary's cause that last spring, the U.S. Justice Department decided Carolinians needed mentoring about proper bathroom policies for transgenders, suing them for discrimination. Rock stars canceled concerts in North Carolina and NBA executives rescinded a contract to play an all-star game there. But the people North Carolina held fast, resentful of being treated like the village idiots.

This wasn’t an endorsement of Trump. I’m not sure it was even a rejection of Hillary on a personal level. It was, however, a complete rejection of the intellectual snobbery of the ruling class, of which Hillary and “establishment” Republicans were the power-brokers.

Everything that rises must converge. Future presidential candidates, take heed.

Lesser of Two Evils?

I just finished watching the second of two presidential "debates," during which both candidates hurled insults at each other. There were virtually no policy positions discussed.  Comedian Jim Gaffigan nailed it when he tweeted, "I feel like I am watching America's funeral." 

Like so many others, I am deeply troubled by our choice for president. Hillary Clinton is avowedly pro-abortion, has repeatedly lied to the American people (including families of those who died in Banghazi), has required massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation as a means for wealthy persons and foreign governments to have access to her while she was Secretary of State, and has violated numerous statutes in handling top secret information on her private server. Donald Trump is a loathsome human being, whose misogynist bragging about his sexual exploits, his shocking lack of interest in educating himself about international politics, even after he emerged as the Republican nominee, his bullying tactics of not paying subcontractors what he owes them, and his bilking of ordinary people through Trump University make him a repugnant option. 

If you’re truly IN FAVOR of one of these candidates, and not simply choosing a “lesser of two evils” candidate, I question how you can credibly dismiss these negatives, but this article is not for you. Rather, I wish to challenge the “lesser evil” (LE) argument for this year’s election and advocate for “none of the above.” 

Proponents of the LE argument say it’s a binary choice, and that not choosing for one is a vote for the other, or a meaningless gesture that shuns one’s responsibility to make the “hard choices” that our democracy sometimes requires. But this is illogical. It’s not a binary but a tertiary decision: choosing “none of the above” is a third option, and a significant one. There’s a big difference between giving someone a + 1 in their vote count, and giving both candidates, in effect, 1/2 a point. 

Second, I believe the LE argument is misapplied here, at least as understood in traditional ethics. “Consequentialism” measures the morality of an act purely on the basis of its results, independent of the “act” itself. Consequentialism believes “the ends (can) justify the means.” By contrast, a “deontological” ethic tries to measure the morality of the act based on the character of the “act” itself—is the act good or bad intrinsically? Traditional ethics, as best articulated by the Catholic moral tradition, is partly deontological, with a clear focus on the  “means”-- the act itself must be good (or at least, neutral), even while the intentions of the actor must also be good (seeking good results). The LE analysis only comes into play when we are trying to weigh the unintended bad consequences of a "good" decision, such as the decision to intervene in a foreign country to protect citizens against terrorists, even if such an act inspires more terrorists. We weigh the "evil" of allowing terrorism to trample upon human life vs. the unintended "lesser evil" of the resentment an intervention inspires, choosing to protect innocent life and tolerating the lesser evil. 

I believe this is a historic election in that the very act of voting for either candidate is in itself a “bad” act, prior to any speculation of results or how much harm they will cause. Mrs. Clinton’s support for abortion is so consistent, so virulent and so fundamental to her political identity that I believe an affirmative vote makes one complicit in this enterprise. A vote for Trump is a decision that elevates a misogynistic, pugilistic and unbalanced egomaniac to the most powerful position in the world—a clearly “bad” act in and of itself, apart from whatever damage he is certain to do. 

Choosing between them, then, is to choose “bad” in the hope that one will prove  “less bad” in the end. Were that choice literally our only option, I might concede its necessity, but it’s not the only option. We can choose not to choose—to say, without apology, that a vote for either is so antithetical to our values that we refuse to be complicit in their ascendency to this high office. 

I also disagree that “none of the above” is a meaningless gesture or abdication of responsibility. Here’s why: There is no way to distinguish between your “LE” vote and the those who truly favor the candidate, but rest assured, the winning candidate will use the vote total as a “mandate” to push his or her agenda as forcefully as possible as president. But if you believe both candidates are so repugnant that your real reason for voting for one is to vote AGAINST the other, then you should want the winner to have as little mandate as possible. Could either claim to have a mandate if 10 million fewer voters chose “none of the above”? I doubt it.

That wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Perhaps the next four years will be an opportunity for Congress to truly regain its footing as an equal partner in the “separation of powers” as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The executive and judicial functions have increasingly usurped the legislative function in our federal government, and a president with historically low support could embolden senators and representatives to begin to reclaim what they’ve abdicated. 

Given who will be our next president, let’s hope so. 

The Case for Catholic High Schools

Where should we place our children for high school? 

Clearly, the question of academics will be an important part of our analysis, and my experiences with Catholic schools is generally very positive in this regard. Yet each Catholic school is different.  How well we teach Math, English, History and Science depends on the school. 

For the purposes of this article, I want to bracket the discussion of academic programs and focus instead on three philosophical and practical reasons to send your children to a Catholic high school.

An Integrated Faith Life

During Advent and Lent, our school hosts a Reconciliation services for our students. We start with a common prayer service in the gym, then invite kids for individual confessions with any of the 6-8 priests who help us, each placed in a different classroom. If students don’t want to go to confession, they stay in the gym. Typically about 75% of our students stand in line to go to confession, meaning each line is  8-10 students deep, which gives them a chance to examine their conscience and think about what they want to confess. 

That’s a pretty common practice in Catholic high schools. But you’d almost have to be non-Catholic to appreciate how weird this is: Teenagers, publicly admitting their own sinfulness to their peers, standing in line to confess their darkest secrets to a man they don’t know, raised in a culture that isn’t even sure there is such a thing as sin! But here’s what’s important: It never occurs to them it’s weird.  It’s simply normal. It’s what we do. 

Yes, Catholic schools have theology classes and public and secular private schools don’t. But I believe the most important distinction is that the practice of faith becomes so interwoven into the daily life of a Catholic school student that it becomes natural and normal, and even, at times, unnoticed, like breathing. Prayer before school, prayer at assemblies, before ball games, and in locker-rooms, become routine. Masses are frequent, service opportunities abound, and prayers for those in need are common. Slowly, inexorably, the Catholic faith becomes the lens through which a teenager understands his or her life— in an integrated, genuine way. 

No matter how faithful we are as parents in raising our children in the faith, no matter how frequently our children attend parish formation programs, no matter how exciting or gifted our parish's teachers,  faith formation becomes a "family" or "parish" thing, not part of their life as a teenager or student somewhere else. 

A Moral Tradition and Framework

The local newspaper recently published brief biographies of the valedictorians from area high schools and included snippets from their valedictory addresses, and it was interesting to compare them.  The differences were not a matter of accomplishments—they were all impressive kids—but one of context and world-view. By way of illustration, the valedictorian of the local Catholic high school, said “It will always great to be a yellow-jacket (the school mascot), but it’s even greater to be a saint.” In contrast, one young lady from a local private school, arguably the most academically accomplished of all those listed, said “Whatever your definition of success is—go for it!” 

I believe one of the most important reasons to send our children to Catholic schools is that they’ll be raised in a community that has inherited a moral tradition which is a “given”—an important thing in a culture that is increasingly hostile to the notion of a “teleos,” or to a Tradition, or any other coherent proclamation of “Truth.” In Catholic schools, we not only want to prepare children for college, we want them to become virtuous, and even more boldly, to become disciples.  We can talk more confidently about “right and wrong,” “should and should not,” and what God may be asking them to do. 

Surprisingly, one of the great benefits of the “given-ness” of this tradition is the freedom it gives us to speak plainly and honestly with each other, without quibbling over minutiae. G.K. Chesterton once said the problem with rejecting the “big laws” is not that we get liberty, or even anarchy. It’s that we get the small laws. I believe one of the great burdens of working in a public school today is the crushing level of intrusive policies, detailed scripting and documentation we demand of its teachers and administrators, required by lawyers to defend the school against those who disagree with their decisions. 

Local Influence and Control

People might assume, because of the visible hierarchy of the Church, Pope Francis and the bishops, that the Catholic Church is a “top down” institution, with all decision making authority centralized by the hierarchy and disseminated to the local Churches and schools. But in fact, the Church practices the “principle of subsidiarity”, which says that things are best handled at the most local level possible. 

Yes, there is a hierarchy that articulates and defends the deposit of faith. Yes, there is a “Cathechism” and “Canon Law” that spells out our teachings and codifies our practices. Yes, there are Catholic school central offices and superintendents. It’s instructive to realize, however, that Catholic school central offices are typically staffed by 80% to 90% less people than their public school central office counterparts. That’s because in Catholic thinking, “policies” are defined in broad parameters, within which the local schools have true freedom to innovate and to address the unique needs of their families. That’s why each Catholic school typically has its own board or advisory council: to establish local policies and procedures. 

I didn’t appreciate this difference personally until I was asked to be an accreditation consultant for one of the largest public schools in the state, a high school with over 2,000 students. The principal was a very good, smart guy, yet the scope of his decision making authority was severely curtailed. I remember asking him how much discretionary spending authority he had in his budget. He smiled ruefully, then said “Let me show you.” He then walked me down to the cafeteria, pointed to the coke machines, and said “Whatever profit they generate.”

By contrast, together with our local advisory council, I create the budget, establish tuitions and set salaries for each year,  and then send these to approval by the bishop. I then administer that budget, approving or not approving all spending requests, in accordance with the budget and what I believe is good for the school. If parents have a good idea how to make the school better, they share that idea with me and if it’s a policy issue, I discuss with the advisory council. If we think it’s a good idea, we implement it. 

Why does this matter? Good Catholic schools are responsive to parental or family concerns. They can be, because authority is vested with local leadership, and they have to be, since families can go elsewhere if their ideas are not taken seriously. In contrast, it’s difficult to create a sense of ownership with families if all decision making authority resides somewhere else. 

Equally destructive, if we strip local teachers and principals of the ability to act in entrepreneurial, creative ways, we undercut a lot of the impetus and enthusiasm for innovation that gives energy and a positive vibe to a school. We replace it too often with the language of powerlessness: “My hands or tied,” or “I would if they’d give us more money,” or “downtown would never approve that,” creating a culture that is pessimistic toward positive change.” And "a school culture,” the saying goes, “eats new strategies for breakfast.” 

Final Thoughts

Catholic schools aren’t perfect. The three Catholic high schools I’ve been in charge of in my career have stumbled from time to time, endured set-backs because I’ve hired poorly, or on occasion, have not been as vibrant a Catholic community as they should have been. Occasionally their principal makes bone-headed decisions!  Despite these setbacks, my four 20-something year old children have been greatly blessed by their Catholic high school education, having subsequently attended (or are now attending) excellent universities, with good jobs (so far), and the oldest two (so far!) in faithful, strong marriages. 

Catholic schools help young men and women become leaders, steeped in a moral tradition, informed by an active faith.  I am convinced they are our best chance of creating the kind of confident young men and women we need to build a more human, more fraternal world. 

Support Catholic schools, by sending them your children and grandchildren. Support them through your generosity. It could make literally an eternal difference in the life of your children or someone else's children!