Benedict XVI, 1927-2022

 Benedict XVI, 1927-2022

I have been meaning to write this essay since the death of Benedict XVI. I am just now getting to it.

Lots of light and heat have been released into the world by reactions to his death. Many people, inspired in most cases with much more genuine and personal emotion than my own, have written and spoken many things. With few exceptions, these have followed the trajectory of the generally-accepted understandings (and misunderstandings) of his life, and reactions thereto. 

I don't wish to add to these reactions. This is for a few reasons, mostly coming down to my own lack of personal stake. Benedict was the Pope when I became Catholic; but only for about a year and a half. I have a lot of respect and a certain degree of affection for this paralyzingly shy academic lover of classical music, cats, and Orange Fanta, but nothing like the personal devotion or hatred that inspire many others. Likewise, as a convert and a historian, my investment in the internal mass-media and ideological and cultural conflicts within contemporary Western Catholicism is more remote than most. 

I wanted to write something about Benedict XVI after his death, then, not to prove any particular ideological point or express any profound emotion, but simply to note and express my own recognition and cognizance of an enormous, epochal figure in the history of the Catholic Church.

Altercatio Heracliani (AD 366)

[I will be trying to get back into the swing of regular writing. In lieu of something original, here is a quick and simple translation of a fun 4th century text I haven't been able to find in translation online. It purports to be the record of a debate between the homoian Germinius of Sirmium and a Nicene layman in the mid-4th century. While clearly written from a Nicene perspective (and so not an official transcript from the diocesan chancery), the content seems highly locally specific and faithfully reflects mid-4th century Trinitarian debates. There is in my judgment little reason to doubt its basic authenticity as a picture of the theological debate within Sirmium at this period.

Also it's a lot of fun I think.]

The debate of Heraclianus the layman with Germinius, the bishop of Sirmium, about the Faith of the Council of Nicaea and the Faith of the Council of Ariminium of the Arians. This occurred in the city of Sirmium before all the people, on Friday, January 13, AD 366.

They led out Heraclianus and Firmianus and Aurelianus before all the people, with the bishop seated on his cathedra with all the clergy before all the people, at least those who were of age of the people. 

Germinius said to Heraclianus: "Why did you see fit to persuade people to support the homoousios, which vain men cobbled together?"

Heraclianus said: "And so three hundred and more bishops were 'vain'?"

Germinius: "What does he want the homoousios to mean?"

Heraclianus: "You, you preach among this people as a stumbling-block, and you learned to speak in Greek."

Germinius: "Eusebius [of Vercelli], that condemned exile, taught you this, and Hilary, who now has come back from exile."

Heraclianus: "I speak by the right and authority of the Divine Scriptures. Why do you dish up these things to me, to drive me out of the way of truth? We are contending about the divine laws! The possibility of speaking and debating is right here."

Germinius: "You as who, wicked slave? Are you a priest, or a deacon?"

Heraclianus: "I am neither a priest nor a deacon, but although I am the least of all Christians, I speak in defense of my life."

Germinius: "See how much he talks! Will no one draw his teeth?"

Then Iovinianus the deacon and Marinus the lector struck him.

Heraclianus: "This adds to my happiness and my glory."

Germinius: "Speak, Heraclianus! I baptized you: what did you receive from me?"

Heraclianus: "I received from you: 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.' I did not receive: 'in the greater god and in the lesser god and this created thing.' You also speak like this about the Holy Spirit."

Germinius: "If the Spirit was not created, Paul the Apostle lied, who said: 'All things were created through Christ in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible' [Colossians 1:16]. If, therefore, the Spirit was not created through him, therefore not all things were created through him."

Heraclianus: "If you command, I will speak."

Germinius: "Speak!"

Heraclianus: "It was written in Isaiah the Prophet: 'Hear me, Jacob, and Israel, whom I call. I am the First and I am for eternity: and my hand established the earth, my right hand solidified the sky. I will call them all, and they will come together, and all will be gathered together and listen. Who has announced these things to them? Because I love you, I have done your will against Babylon, that the seed of the Chaldeans be taken away. I have spoken, I have called, I have brought him and made his way prosperous. Come to me and hear these things. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, nor in a shadowy part of the earth: when these things happened, I was there. And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit. Thus says the Lord, who freed you, the Holy One of Israel: I am the Lord, who have shown you the way in which you should walk. And if you had listened to my commandments, your peace would have become like the light, and your justice like the waves of the sea, and your seed like the sand' [Isaiah 48:12-18]. Speak, therefore, now, you, bishop: about whom were these things written?"

Germinius: "You speak yourself."

Heraclianus: "It is right for you to speak: it is fitting for me to listen."

Germinius: "These things were written about the Father."

Heraclianus: "And the Father, by whom was he sent?"

Germinius was silent for more than one hour.

Heraclianus: "Evidently they were spoken about the Son of God and the Spirit of the Living God. Look, you have the Trinity proven, its divinity declared through the mouth of the Holy Prophet Isaiah."

And when Heraclianus had said these things, Germinius began to praise him, saying: "You have a good heart and you are wellborn, and we have known you from your infancy; be converted to our Church. 

To which also many others were saying: "Lord bishop! He himself was the one who fought against the heretics of dark Photinus. How now has he himself become a heretic?"

Germinius said: "I myself explained my faith to Eusebius and demonstrated it and satisfied him. As the Son of God himself says, 'The Father, who sent me, is greater than I' [John 14:28]. And: 'I have not come to do my own will, but the will of the Father, who sent me' [John 6:38]. For also about the Holy Spirit it is written: 'Unless I go away to my Father, the Spirit, the Paraclete, will not come to you' [John 16:7]. And: 'He does not speak from himself. He will receive from me and will announce it to you' [John 16:13] (These words he was saying to the people.) I myself have the true Faith, which is like this: I say the Father is unborn, invisible, immortal, without beginning, without end. But the Son I say has a beginning before the ages from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, but I do not say that he is the same as the Father is. For he himself says, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.' And: 'I have not come to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me.' The Holy Spirit I say is the Prince of the Angels and Archangels. For as the Son is not similar to the Father in every respect, so neither is the Holy Spirit to the Son."

Heraclianus: "The Father is greater, but in name only. For Paul the Apostle says: 'Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God' [1 Corinthians 1:24]. Do you not believe that the particular Power of God is both the Son of God and True God? For this Power is also the whole of God, and through this same power we know that all powers were made. For it is written: 'By the Word of God the heavens were made firm, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power' [Psalm 33:6] Understood, therefore, that through one power are all the powers in the heavens and on the earth and under the earth: through one power they came forth out of nothing." 

Germinius: "Therefore do you say that the Son is the same as the Father is?"

Heraclianus: "Thus it is written in the Gospel of John. When Philip the Apostle said, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us,' Jesus responded, 'So much time I am with you, and you have not known me, Philip? Whoever sees me, sees also my Father, and I and the Father are one. How do you say, show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?' [John 14:8-9]. Understand, therefore, that the Son is the same as the Father."

And Germinius was silent. But Theodorus the priest spoke up and said: "It is written where the Son of God says that 'concerning the day and the hour no one knows, neither the Angels, nor the Archangels, nor the Son, but the Father has set it in his own power' [Matthew 24:36]. How, therefore, do you say that the Son is the same as the Father?"

Heraclianus: "What sort of God do you preach, who is ignorant about day and hour?"

Theodorus said in confusion: "Thus it is written."

Heraclianus: "Have you not read that 'the letter kills, but the Spirit makes alive?' [2 Corinthians 3:6]

But when this one was silent, confounded and humiliated, Agrippinus said: "It is written in the Apostle Paul: 'When he has handed over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has made vain every principality and every power and virtue. It is right for him to reign until he has put all enemies under his feet; for he puts everything under his feet. Last of all the enemy death will be destroyed. When, however, he says, that all things have been put under him, manifestly this is besides the one who put all things under him. When, however, all things have been put under him, then also the Son himself will be put under him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all' [1 Corinthians 15:24-28]. 

Heraclianus: "If it must be understood like that, as you say, therefore God has a being belonging to a future time, for the end, because it does not now exist. For if thus it is written: 'That God may be all in all'... Therefore your faith is empty, you presume in vain to preach a God before time. How is that? I ask you: Is there one divinity, or two?"

Agrippinus: "There is one."

Heraclianus: "You spoke well. Therefore, the divinity which is subjected is no longer the paternal divinity."

But he said: "You deny that the Son is subject to the Father?"

Heraclianus: "By will, not by necessity. For so that you may know, that it was by will also that he washed the feet of his own disciples. For also in another place it is written: 'The Spirit of the Prophets has been made subject to the prophets' [1 Corinthians 14:32]. Therefore, because it is written, are the prophets greater than the Divine Spirit of God? For also in another place Paul the Apostle writes to Timothy: 'Every divinely-inspired writing is useful for teaching, for correction.' How, therefore, do you say that the Son of God is created, and also say that he speaks through the prophets, and the Paraclete speaks through the Apostles, who is called the Advocate? If therefore the Son has been established as God before the ages, as you say, and the Holy Spirit was created through him, now therefore every Scripture is not divinely inspired. And what will we do about about the multitude of such great testimonies? First Isaiah the Prophet, who says, 'Who will declare his ancestry?' [Isaiah 53:8] For also John the Evangelist says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' [John 1:1]. Is the Word of God able to be created? If he is a Word, whose Word is he? For also, concerning the Holy Spirit, Paul the Apostle says: 'No one sees the things which are in God except for the Spirit of God, who even discerns the depths of God' [1 Corinthians 2:11]. Who therefore is this Spirit, who knows the things which are in God? Is he not with God? Also it is written in Isaiah: 'Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?' [Isaiah 40:13]. If the Spirit of God is created, then he himself was at one time without spirit, although it is written in the Apostle Paul: 'We have not received a spirit of this world, but a spirit who is from God' [1 Corinthians 2:12]. And again he says, 'You are the letter of God, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God' [2 Corinthians 3:3]. And again he says: 'The Lord is Spirit; where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, there is God' [2 Corinthians 3:17]."

At this Agrippinus did not speak any more.

Germinius: "See how he blasphemes in calling the Holy Spirit God, although it is written: 'That no one is able to say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit' [1 Corinthians 12:3]. For also David says: 'The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make all your enemies your footstool' [Psalm 110:1].

Heraclianus: "I already said a little before that this was by will, not by necessity. For also concerning the Son of God it is written: 'I am going to my God and to your God, to my Father and to your Father' [John 20:17]. And in another place he says: 'I praise you, Lord, Father of Heaven and Earth' [Matthew 11:25]. Therefore is the Son of God not Lord and God, because he calls the Father Lord and God? Therefore, although these things are written, you do not blush to call him Lord and God. Why therefore were you ashamed to say that the Holy Spirit is God, although it is written, 'God is Spirit' [John 4:24]? And if anything human person has blasphemed against him, he will be forgiven neither here, nor in the future. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha than for those who sin against the Holy Spirit. For also Peter the Apostle said that the Holy Spirit is God, saying to Ananias and Saphira, his wife, who had committed fraud about the price of their field which they had sold. Then Blessed Peter said to Ananias: 'Who has persuaded you to lie to the Holy Spirit? You did not lie to a man, but to God' [Acts 5:3]. And immediately he fell down onto the ground and died."

Germinius: "How is the Holy Spirit God when it is written in Jeremiah: 'This is our God, and no other will be esteemed beside him. He has discovered the whole way of discipline and has given it to his own child, Jacob, and Israel, his own beloved. After these things he was seen on the earth and lived with men' [Baruch 3:35-36]. 

Heraclianus: Through ignorance you spoke well, showing that he prophesied that the Son is truly God, that God has lived among men. For so that you know that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father together with the Holy Spirit, understand that besides this Trinity no god is to be feared, worshiped, or honored."

Germinius: "Therefore Christ is brother to the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit?"

Heraclianus: "We do not believe that. For as the Father is one, one also are the Son and the Holy Spirit, one strength. For also the three are one."

Germinius: "How do you prove this?"

Heraclianus: "Through the Apostle Paul."

Germinius: "Where is this written?"

Heraclianus: "In his Letter to the Ephesians."

Germinius: "Read."

Heraclianus: "'You are one body and one spirit, as you also have been called in your hope of one calling. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God the Father of all, who is above all and in all for us' [Ephesians 4:4-6]."

Germinius: "Heraclianus, how do you arrange these things about the Faith?"

Heraclianus: "For when a ray proceeds from the sun, it is a portion from the whole; but the sun will be in the ray, because it is the ray of the sun, nor is the substance separated, but extended, as light is kindled from light. The material remains whole, undiminished; even if you draw even more portions from it you will have made them share its qualities. In the same way also, because this has been accomplished concerning God, also the Son of God is God, and both are one. In the same way also concerning the Holy Spirit and concerning God as a measure. Therefore he made another step, not a status; he did not divide, but proceeded. Therefore that Son of God, as was always preached before, descended into a certain virgin and in her womb was formed as flesh, is born as a human being mixed with God. Flesh ordered by spirit is born, grows up, speaks, and is Christ. This is my Faith."

When Heraclianus had said these things, Germinius was filled with anger and indignation and began to shout and to say: "He is a heretic, because he says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the whole of God. He is a homoousian; do not hold his Faith." 

And he demanded of the people, saying: "Let no one, no servant or handmaiden of God, meet with him, breathe upon him, because now he is dead." And he was swearing with an oath that he would banish him into exile. 

Heraclianus said: "The God who freed Israel from the hand of the King of the Amorites and the King of Basan, and who freed Paul from the hand of the Samaritans, he himself will free me from your hands."

And when he said these things, all the priests and deacons further said: "Let him not go out from here unless he has anathematized those bishops whom he named, whose Faith he said he holds." 

For this was said to Heraclianus and Firmanus with all the brothers. But they did not do this thing. 

Germinius said: <...> "It is not written."

And thus they dismissed them. And when they had dismissed them, a part of those comrades were shouting: "Let them be handed over to the governor and let them be killed, because they have made a sedition, and from one people have made two!" 

And they were trying to compel them to subscribe to the Faith of the heretics. And they were repeating this at the top of their lungs, saying: "Let them be handed over to the governor and let them be killed!"

Then Germinius said: "Do not do this, brothers! They do not know what they are saying. If bishops have been led astray, how much more men like this?"

And others were trying to compel them to humiliate themselves under their power. And this is what they did. And they escaped from their hands even to the present day.

Orthodox Schism, Orthodox War

Orthodox Schism, Orthodox War 

I have written a great deal on this blog before over the Orthodox Schism between Moscow and Constantinople, which was for several years one of the biggest Christian news stories in the world and one of the least reported on or discussed. In the last year, however, this story has mutated in ways that would have been impossible to predict, entirely because of the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

(If you have no idea what I'm talking about in regards to an "Orthodox Schism," I suggest you go and read this helpful explainer I wrote at the time of the initial break).

Put simply, the war has transformed the schism and now looks to extend it so far that global Orthodoxy is now perhaps on the verge of dissolution.

As I chronicled here, the early years of the Schism--once the OCU had been formed and Moscow had broken all communion and ties with Constantinople--featured increasingly extreme and increasingly ineffective efforts by Moscow to gain the allegiance and support of other autocephalous churches in the presumed hope of some form of sanction or excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. After the general failure of these efforts and increasing successes by Constantinople in getting autocephalous churches to recognize and enter into communion with the OCU, Moscow shifted tactics decisively towards aggression and attempts to divide the other churches from within. 

Even in the first phase, Churches that entered into communion with the OCU saw the ROC break off all ties with them--increasingly, though, Moscow began to aim at internal division of these Churches, selectively breaking communion with some bishops while retaining others. This culminated in the decision in January of this year to create an entirely new schismatic offshoot of the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria under Russian control--an act without precedent in modern Orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, however, while Moscow had largely failed in its efforts to gain the support of other autocephalous churches out of Eastern Europe, it had succeeded within Ukraine to a much greater degree than most observers would have predicted. The new independent, Constantinople-sanctioned "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" had suffered from significant growing pains, including problems caused by its relatively young and inexperienced leadership, the loss of its main political sponsor Petro Poroshenko, disappointment with the merely metropolitan and not Patriarchal status granted by Constantinople, and a painful internal schism that drew away many adherents. The old Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, meanwhile, had reasserted itself strongly thanks to its seasoned episcopal leadership, the loyalty of its believers, and a massive infusion of cash from Moscow, challenging the transfer of parishes, making the government step back from open support for the OCU, and rapidly building new parish buildings to replace their losses.

By earlier this year, then, the Schism seemed to be cementing a new longterm status quo, ending in what was more or less a draw on the initial terms of the conflict. Constantinople had succeeded in retaining its position as primary leader and point of contact for most autocephalous churches, fending off the clumsy Russian attempts to claim the status of alternative leader of global Orthodoxy; the ROC, meanwhile, had succeeded in retaining the key dioceses and parishes in Ukraine necessary for it to continue being the dominant force by population in Orthodoxy. Both had suffered significant losses--Constantinople in the loss of its ability to speak for and act in relation to the roughly half of all Orthodox believers in the ROC and in the dividing and diminishment of already-weak autocephalous Churches in the Middle East and Africa and Europe, Moscow in the halving of its parishes and population in Ukraine and the loss of positive contacts with most of the rest of global Orthodoxy--but both had retained the things most essential to their continuing existence. So it seemed it would proceed for the foreseeable future.

Then, of course, the Russian government invaded Ukraine.

An Apologia for American Evangelicism

An Apologia for American Evangelicism

There is a great need for narratives of the present and recent past that are not simply based on mass media or partisan politics.

The problem with most narratives of the recent past is that they are typically based on nothing--neither small-scale empirical experience reflected upon over time nor large-scale rational analysis of trends over time--and they are even more typically driven by unexpressed, hidden external goals: to win elections, get back at family members, salvage projects, denounce enemies, win arguments, and/or "own the libs."  Direct experience, even anecdotal experience, is extraordinarily valuable--so that in that way at least recent history is the ideal kind of historiography--but it becomes far more valuable when reflected upon and placed into a broader context, and not merely thrown into a blender with "other stuff" and served cold as one soggy inedible mass.

Economic history has made something of a comeback over the last decade, as incoherent, disorganized Leftism and increasingly organized Labor have had a general resurgence. It is still very much needed, however, and still very much not the norm. Religious history remains much rarer, and is just as much needed.

The history of American Evangelicism will prove, I think, to be one of the most important accounts for understanding the last roughly fifty years of American political and social history. But that history will have to leap over many high hurdles to make it into existence. At the present moment, accounts and analyses of Evangelicism are not wanting, but mostly come from (1) the crowing hatred of its partisan enemies, who have never understood it but have been growing ever more enraged by being defeated by it for so many decades, (2) the disdain and contempt of its natural enemies, the upper classes, the academics, the intellectuals, who always despised it but understand it now no better than they did in the '80s, and finally (3) its own former adherents, the "exvangelicals," who hate it and blame it as only disappointed sectarians can, for many genuine sins, but also for falling short of their current sectarian causes and failing to establish the utopia they were promised.

Evangelicism is, to say the least, no longer popular. Not only that, but it is increasingly, oddly obscured in the public and political world and mass media, as though it were entirely a thing of the past--except for among the exvangelicals, who speak of it like John Birchers of the United Nations, trying to constantly warn everyone of its crimes and its conspiratorial plots and its sole responsibility for all the problems of the world.

Yet for all that, it is simply true that the Evangelical movement was one of the most important religious and cultural and political events in America since WW2--and that things would have been, would be, very different without it.

This essay, then, is, if not an apologia in a strong sense, simply a basic, analytical theory of Evangelicism that places its nature in a broader context, and so works against accounts of it as a bizarre, uniquely wicked aberration. 

Technological Criticism

Technological Criticism

To be unable to criticize technology is to be insane. This particular kind of insanity is the hallmark of modern society.

Allow me to justify the preceding statements. 

The Logos of Techne

It is difficult to think of a word for what we call "technology" in any ancient tongue or culture. In fact, it occurred to me recently that the word is rather bizarre in itself--something approaching a contradiction in terms. Logos and techne were fundamental categories to the Greeks and especially the Greek philosophers, but they existed in strong contradistinction to each other. Logos is the realm of knowledge, of discourse, of accounting for a particular reality, whether by means of abstract philosophy, mathematical calculation, or narrative. Techne, in contrast, is the realm of craft, of skilled practice aimed at creation and action.

It is by this time a very old intellectual-history commonplace to point to the connections between magic and technology, even to say, as C.S. Lewis did, that the main or only distinction between magic and technology is that one worked, and the other did not. There is truth in this, but it is nonetheless somewhat deceptive. Techne or craft in the pre-modern sense is in fact closely allied to magic, precisely because by its very nature it defies logos in the sense of pre-determined abstraction and calculation. The magician is a practitioner of a craft, but like many pre-modern craftsman, his craft cannot be neatly set out in a mathematical simulation or technical manual; he operates on a mixture of innate skill, honed practice, habit, planning, improvisation, and technique. Wizardry operates on the guild system, with masters and apprentices; there is no magical proletariat. Books of spells or alchemical texts read much like the Byzantine recipes for paints and metal alloys that I translated earlier this year: succinct sets of directions for already skilled and practiced craftsmen to achieve practical ends, given in imprecise proportions, with many options and lots of freedom to alter and experiment baked in.

Technology, though, is not techne. It is not a skill inhering in a skilled laborer operating on technique and instinct beyond the realms of abstract knowledge and calculation. It is, by its very nature, totally calculated and determined in advance, through the distinctively modern and scientific obsession with applied mathematics. 

Neither, though, is technology logos in the general sense of that word. Plato in many of his dialogues provides what could be rather more fittingly described as technologies: that is, rational accounts of techne in general and its particular species, describing their rational ends, the skills involved, and how to become a better practitioner. Technology, while totally calculated, is aimed emphatically at merely practical and immediate ends; it is rarely analyzed in philosophical or moral terms, and no practitioner of technology would regard such analysis as essential to its nature or operation.

The Catholic Church and Coercion

The Catholic Church and Coercion

For the last five years or so, the American Catholic Internet-o-sphere has been awash with discussion and debate over "integralism," or more broadly over the political doctrines of the Catholic Church. I have been following these debates closely, and have a great deal of respect for participants on many "sides." However, I have been consistently annoyed by the failure of many participants to define one key term that comes up again and again in these debates.

This term is "coercion."

If one reads, as I have been doing, D.C. Schindler's recent book on Catholic political theory (based in turn on his father DL Schindler's excellent scholarship), one discovers that his central disagreement with the "integralists" is his insistence, following Dignitatis Humanae and Vatican 2, that certain forms of religious coercion must be excluded. Or, if one reads the "integralist" Thomas Pink's scholarship on Dignitatis Humanae, one finds that the heart of his (polemical) argument, following Leo XIII and the 19th century magisterium, that the Catholic Church is not a voluntary, but a "coercive" society with the right to apply punishments and sanctions to her children to compel them to keep their baptismal promises. Or, again, if one reads the great Pater Edmund Waldstein, the modern originator of the term and base definition of "integralism," one likewise finds an insistence, along with a genuine concern for the dangers of religious coercion, on the necessity of stronger societal and pastoral coercion for the salvation of souls. Or, again, if one reads many of the less interesting enemies and alies of "integralism," one finds on the one hand a visceral disgust at, and on the other hand a gleeful exulting in, the idea of religious coercion as such. From such debates, one could get at times the (absurd) idea that the heart of these disagreements lies in the simple question of whether or not the Catholic Church can ever apply coercion to any people under any circumstances--or the (even more absurd) idea that "coercion" is a simple and univocal concept.

But what is coercion?

We Are All Fascists Now

We Are All Fascists Now

The funny thing about contemporary American politics is that everyone seems to watch and read news constantly but no one actually seems to process and remember it.

The President of the United States traveled to a historical patriotic site and delivered a rousing speech, on the eve of an important election to rally the base against his radical, violent opponents, miscreants opposed to American Democracy and all the principles and values and traditions this country is based on: freedom, liberty, truth, and justice for all. Accompanied prominently by members of the military, he described these monsters' wicked refusal to accept their election losses and willingness to resort to political violence and rioting and conspiracy--in the process demonizing and committing acts of violence and intimidation against law enforcement and government officials. Most fundamentally, he accused them of doubting the essential goodness of America and the American people and the American government and openly denying the crucial dogma that "America is the greatest nation on earth" by attacking the heroes and accomplishments of American history and tradition. To support these people and their beliefs and their efforts, the President declared, was to attack the very basis of American identity and Democracy and so for all intents and purposes to cease to be an American. Against this existential threat, the President promised to fight with all his might and all the power of the American government and law enforcement--so long, of course, as you vote for him and his party in the upcoming elections. 

(ahem)

Yes, I'm of course talking about President Trump's July 4th, 2020 Mount Rushmore rally against the "Radical Left" and Black Lives Matters protesters.

And yes, I'm also talking about President Biden's September 1st, 2022 Philadelphia speech against "MAGA Republicans" and Stop the Steal protesters. 

The similarities between the two speeches show, more clearly than anything else could, that we have entered into a new phase of American electoral politics: one absolutely defined by (1) a widespread crisis of legitimacy, (2) an incoherent, reactionary, nationalism, and (3) the amoral appeal to State power and violence against one's enemies. 

To recognize this symmetry is not to hold that the two sides are simply the same, in fundamental beliefs, principles, or goals. It is rather to acknowledge that, at least in mass-media electoral politics, both sides are responding to the same basic circumstances, and being shepherded, to the degree that each side loses its principles and is led and embodied by incoherent amoral media figures like Trump and Biden, toward the use of the same methods in response to these circumstances.