Suchergebnisse

Gaza in the distance I have spent most of my career engaged in the five d's of dodgeball when it comes to the Mideast and especially the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Despite starting my career with the international relations of ethnic conflict, I managed a total of one piece of research on the Mideast, and that was more by accident than by design.  I got asked to join an edited volume project by a terrific Mideast scholar, Shibley Telhami, after one of my very best job talks (which did not produce a job).    Bomb shelter next to a kindergarten if I remember correctlyWhen I turned to doing civil-military relations, I was asked if I was including Israel in my multi-democracy study, and I said nope.  I have a better explanation for that--that as a very militarized society, its' civil-military relations are far less comparable.  Bus stop, shelter in a town that was probably overrun last weekendBut on the ethnic conflict side?  Maybe I refrained because the one time I raised it as an illustration in a job talk, it did not go well.  That lesson was certainly reinforced by the experience of teaching US Foreign Policy the semester the US invaded Iraq. That class quickly divided into pro and anti factions based on how the students identified with one side or the other of the Israel-Palestine conflict.   Perhaps it is because of a conflict between my background/identity and my scholarly work.  I often joked that the three things I learned in Hebrew school were: enough Hebrew (barely) to get through my Bar Mitzvah, much about the Holocaust and the history of oppression of the Jews, and that Israel was empty before the Jews got there and everything Israel does is right.  The last is the most relevant although the second obviously hits hard when more Jews died in one day due to violence this weekend than any other time since the Holocaust apparently.  I definitely was miseducated about the history of Israel.  I was also conflicted about my upbringing since I hated Hebrew school (I never fit in or came close), never believed in the religion, and came to realize my identity as Jew is defined by the reality that Nazis would have included me in their roundups no matter what I believe.  That is, identity is not defined by oneself but by the interaction of oneself with others, and as long as folks saw me as Jewish, it was less relevant what I believed.Open air prison ....So, that ambivalence then hits the stuff I have picked up from the work on ethnic conflict.  I can see via those lenses that ancient hatred is not really what is going here, but political dynamics in Israel and in the Palestinian community.  There is outbidding and pandering to extremists in both, which then feed the outbidding and pandering in the other.  Netanyahu feeds Hamas, and Hamas feeds Netanyahu.  When I visited in 2019, my first visit, as part of a group tour of IR scholars, I got to see how much has been locked in, that bad decisions beget bad decisions.  That Israeli generals told me that the only response to violence is to hit harder than they hit you, as if this were Chicago with the Untouchables fighting Capone.  I could see their point of view, but again, it was a path to more violence.  I left Israel, like many of those on the trip, sad and frustrated--that the future of Israel and of the Palestinians was bleak--that there was no way out and no one in or near power was interested in finding one.  And this happens.So, I see people saying that an unprovoked Israel deserves all of our support.  And I have to recoil a bit, as Israel has done a shit ton of provoking via its empowering of rabid settlers who have encroached on the Mosque and engaged in lots of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.  But I also recoil when I hear folks talk about Hamas being part of anti-colonial struggle, as, yes, the Palestinians do have legitimate grievances, but Hamas is an awful, theocratic, maybe nihilist entity that did truly barbaric things.  Yet, I also know that Israel is going to kill a lot of Palestinian kids in Gaza since, yes, the population of Gaza is about 50% under 18.  War crimes do not justify war crimes.  And more violence is not going cause this conflict to go away.  Pretty sure those towers are now destroyedBoth sides need far better governance, actors who don't benefit from the other side being radicalized.  But the institutions and dynamics of each are perverse and reinforcing.  I hope that Netanyahu pays a high price for letting this happen on his watch, but I seriously doubt that Israeli politics is going to move to the center as a result.  The flavors of the more successful parties in Israel are all variants of far right.  The left/center was broken by the second Intifada, and I doubt that these events will resurrect them.  I know less and understand less the Palestinian side, but I am pretty sure that air strikes are not going to lead to moderates taking power.  So, I have rambled without reaching a clear idea of who should do what. Which is probably fitting.  And also explains why I have been reluctant to discuss this stuff--not just a bad job talk in 1993, but because the reality is so difficult, twisted, and painful.Update:I got into a conversation with my sister during the weekly family zoom, and she pressed me on when have ethnic conflicts ended peacefully rather than through conquest.  I gave the easy answer: South Africa.  But that conversation reminded me of the basic rules of ethnic conflict:Most ethnic groups, no matter their history, are at peace: violence is rare.When there is violence, it ends. No place is constantly at war forever.The past constrains choices but does not determine the present.  It is up to today's politicians to decide what to do, and the incentives the structures/systems provide influence but do not determine.  Agency remains.Which means it didn't have to be this way, it didn't have to happen this weekend, while there are dynamics locking the parties in, those dynamics can be resisted, and, yes, outsiders could play some role in either exacerbating or ameliorating the nasty dynamics.

This dissertation examines the role of monetary trust in monetary theory and policy and its implications for an empirical study on central bank communications. The first part critically examines the role monetary trust has played in economic theory in order to distinguish between two schools of thought. In the first school, monetary trust is defined as a horizontal relation between individuals, an approach to monetary trust that was developed by the neoclassical tradition and that continues to influence monetary theory and policy to this day. In the second approach, monetary trust is viewed from a vertical perspective, focusing on the institutional context and social embeddedness of trust relationships. The conclusion that monetary trust is fundamentally hierarchical drawn from this analysis, motivates the empirical study of the second part. This part analyzes whether German and French central bankers are able to efficiently manage the communicative challenge of pandering to the different demands of their three distinct target audiences—the markets, the state, and the public at large. The empirical methodology for this analysis builds on the growing literature analyzing central bank communications to better understand the political and financial implications of monetary policy. I hope to contribute to this field of research by 1) creating a new database of 21 years of speeches and interviews of the Banque de France, the Bundesbank and the ECB (1999-2019), 2) devising a new method for analyzing communications that takes into account different audiences and 3) providing empirical evidence for the observation that monetary policy is not neutral, i.e., that communications are biased in favor of some economic groups over others. The results of this analysis show that French and German central bankers communicate differently at home and at the European level, and deliver a preliminary confirmation of the hypothesis that central bank communications distinguish between audience groups according to the hypothesized hierarchical taxonomy. ; Cette thèse examine le rôle de la confiance monétaire dans la théorie et la politique monétaires pour une étude empirique sur les communications des banques centrales. La thèse étudie d'abord de manière critique le rôle de la confiance monétaire en théorie et politique économique afin de distinguer deux écoles de pensée. Pour la première école, la confiance monétaire se définit comme une relation horizontale entre individus, approche développée par la tradition néoclassique et encore influente à ce jour. La deuxième école se concentre davantage sur le contexte institutionnel et sur la verticalité des relations de confiance. De cette analyse, l'observation selon laquelle la confiance monétaire est fondamentalement hiérarchique sert de fondement pour l'étude empirique de la deuxième partie. Celle-ci analyse les banquiers centraux allemands et français dans leur capacité à gérer efficacement le défi communicationnel consistant à répondre aux différentes demandes de leurs trois publics cibles : les marchés, l'État et le grand public. La méthodologie empirique s'appuie ici sur une recherche textuelle des communications des banques centrales pour mieux comprendre les implications politiques et financières de la politique monétaire en France et en Allemagne. J'espère contribuer à ce domaine croissant de recherche 1) en créant une nouvelle base de données de 21 ans de discours et d'interviews de la Banque de France, de la Bundesbank et de la BCE (1999-2019), 2) en élaborant une nouvelle méthode d'analyse des communications qui tient compte des différents publics et 3) en produisant des preuves empiriques validant l'hypothèse selon laquelle une politique monétaire n'est pas neutre, à savoir que les communications favorisent certains groupes au détriment d'autres. Les résultats de cette analyse sont conclusives en ce qui concerne les cultures de politique monétaire entre la France et l'Allemagne, et confirment l'hypothèse selon laquelle les communications des banques centrales distinguent les groupes d'audience selon la taxonomie hiérarchique avancée dans la première partie.

U.S. efforts to cobble together an international coalition to protect the freedom of navigation in the Red Sea against attacks by the Yemeni Houthi militias who demand an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war are stoking tensions with European allies.On January 8, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Charles Brown called his Spanish counterpart Teodoro Lopez Calderon to, according to the official U.S. readout, discuss the "ongoing illegal Houthi attacks on commercial vessels operating in international waters in the Red Sea." Pointedly, Brown "reiterated the U.S. desire to work with all nations who share an interest in upholding the principle of freedom of navigation and ensuring safe passage for global shipping."But according to recent reporting by veteran Spanish journalist Ignacio Cembrero, Washington has been pushing Spain a bit harder. U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos del Toro recently called the Spanish ambassador in Washington Santiago Cabanas to urge his government to join the U.S.-led anti-Houthi coalition, Operation Guardian Prosperity, and, according to Cembrero's reporting, even went so far as issuing a deadline to Madrid to deliver an answer by January 11. So far Madrid has refused to join the U.S.-led coalition and put its soldiers and ships under the command of Pentagon's CENTCOM in the Red Sea. During an announcement of the coalition's formation last month, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said Spain was among the members without, apparently, consulting with the Spanish government, causing considerable irritation in Madrid.To smooth the friction, President Biden called Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to emphasize the Houthi threat. If his intention was to nudge Madrid closer to the U.S. position, it clearly failed: Spain refused to join the U.S. and a number of allies in the joint statement they issued on January 3 warning the Houthis about the consequences of their continued attacks on the maritime freedom.The Spanish government's position did not go unnoticed in Sana'a: the Houthi vice minister for foreign affairs Hussein Al-Ezzi expressed appreciation for Madrid's "distancing from American and British lies on the freedom of navigation." Cembrero also reported that one unexpected collateral benefit of the Spanish government's stance was the release by Iran, the Houthis' chief external backer, of a Spanish citizen kept in captivity in Tehran for 15 months.Although the Spanish government never explained the precise motives of its refusal to join "Prosperity Guardian," Madrid, while having unequivocally condemned Hamas's attack on Israel, has also been vocal in denouncing Israel's "indiscriminate killings" in Gaza, which even provoked a diplomatic crisis between Spain and Israel. The protection of the maritime freedom in the Red Sea is indeed a legitimate concern: nearly 12% of the global trade and $1 trillion worth of goods each year passes through it. The disruption of this route forces the shipping companies to divert their itineraries which causes delays and adds costs. Yet the Houthis also made it clear that their attacks will end when Israel's halts its bombing campaign in Gaza. Indeed, there were no Houthi attacks on the international shipping prior to October 7, 2023.In this context, the Spanish government seems to have calculated that joining the anti-Houthi coalition would rather mean fighting the symptoms, and not the root cause of the worsening conflict in the Middle East, namely, Israel's pursuit of maximalist military goals in Gaza and its seeming attempts to expand the war to Lebanon.By any reasonable estimation, taking the fight to the Houthis would not result in a quick, swift military victory. The movement only emerged stronger after the nine years-long war Saudi Arabia and the Arab coalition it led waged against it, with a lavish military, diplomatic and intelligence support from the U.S., UK and other Western nations. The Iran-backed Houthis have also developed considerable home-made drone and missile capabilities, with a proven capacity to hit Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel and Western military assets in the region. No war on the Houthis would, thus, be limited to some surgical strikes. With a predictable failure of such strikes to "neutralize" the militia, there is a high probability of a mission creep that would lead the coalition to attack targets onshore in Yemen, and that, in turn, could lead to an indirect collision with Iran. The Spanish government's reluctance to assume the risks of being embroiled in a likely pointless war against Houthis and their Iranian backers is understandable, particularly given that Madrid also wants a ceasefire in Gaza.While Spain may have been the most explicit in its reluctance to join the U.S.-led coalition against the Houthis, it is by no means the only U.S. ally harboring reservations. Notably, France, the EU's militarily most capable state, refused to join the White House-led January 3 statement. Italy, although signed that statement, is not committing itself to fighting under the U.S. command. Other NATO allies, like Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, only agreed to send token military personnel. In the end, the whole project looks more like a U.S.–UK undertaking than a real coalition of allies and like-minded partners.Instead of causing division and stoking tensions with its allies over the prospects of a highly questionable (to say the least) military operation, the Biden administration should deploy its leverage to get Israel to agree to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and abandonment of any temptation to expand the war to Lebanon. If the Houthis continue their attacks in the Red Sea after a ceasefire, then the U.S. and its allies will have full legitimacy to strike back. For now, however, alienating allies like Spain and France by pandering to the most extreme Israeli government in history certainly isn't a price worth paying.

Given the bad hand Louisiana's Constitution dealt
him, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry did
his best and largely
successfully to fix problems created in the past few years with the state's
Industrial Tax Exemption Program.

ITEP reflects a constitutional power defined by
the mostly gubernatorial-appointed Board
of Commerce and Industry and the Department of Economic Development which
allows it to exempt manufacturing firms from property taxes from value added to
property used for discrete projects that create new or expand operations.
However, the Constitution vests the final power in the hand of the governor
whether to approve whatever emerges, so he can create the conditions for
acceptance through an executive order, in essence saying that unless requests
forwarded to him meet standards he articulates, he won't approve these.

Historically, such supervision was minimal,
leading to almost any project within the constitutional boundaries meeting
approval, until Landry's predecessor Democrat John Bel Edwards radically
changed the rules, and for the worse. Understanding the negative impact begins
with acknowledging that ITEP exists because of Louisiana's
confiscatory property tax rates insofar as these apply to business.

Because of the nation's highest homestead
exemption (plus a myriad of other smaller breaks), the state's rates are
artificially high because homeowning families, the majority of voters, don't pay
that but a reduced rate or nothing on all but municipal taxes if they live in
one. Instead, it is foisted on businesses, especially industrial concerns which
pay one of the highest per capita burdens in the country. The best
solution as to what to do with ITEP would be to get
rid of it entirely, but that would require an extensive overhaul of the
state's taxing regime that would take an entire term to accomplish.

So, ITEP then ideally serves as a palliative for
too-high property taxation of large business investment. Unfortunately, in two
iterations, Edwards changed this to making it a
mechanism holding out the possibility of redistributing wealth, or even
pursuing social justice aims. Three changes in particular opened the doors to
this noxious combination.

First, he gave three or four (depending on whether
a municipality was involved) kinds of local governments a veto power over an
application. Second, this veto power was particular to the local government
involved. Third, he insisted that application demonstrate the project's
completion would create jobs.

Together, these created a catastrophic situation
for economic development, beginning with the complexity introduced. If Board
approval came, then each of the three or four local governments got a crack at
it, which in a small of number cases produced split decisions, creating
bureaucratic complexity both within the tax collector (sheriff) and the
business, where the latter served as a disincentive to invest.

In even fewer cases, they all vetoed the idea, which
provided an even greater disincentive. In fact, advocacy literature disguised
as quality and honest research even admitted tangentially that the new policy discouraged
applications even as it trumpeted that few rejections occurred. But you can't
turn down something if it never gets submitted, either out of fear it'll be
wasted effort or simply not even contemplated because of the new rules, and you
can't reap the economic benefits of these projects never undertaken.

But the worst of all was the job creation
requirement, which betrays both a fundamental misunderstanding of economic development
and its use a cudgel to further political careers and special interest agendas.
Political hacks and courthouse gangs liked the idea because then they could
draw a direct line to their approval and a claim their actions put people to
work.

Worse still, they could use that as a bargaining
tool to further agendas inimical to economic development, if not the well-being
of the community as a whole. A classic
example came from the Orleans Parish School Board, which issued its own set
of criteria for project approval that focused heavily on wealth redistribution and
pandering to special interest agendas, rather than focus on policy that would create
a rising tide to lift all boats.

Job creation is a potentially desired output from
a tax break decision. But economic development is far more than that, and can
be exclusive of that. The outstanding exhibit of why job creation can't be the
end-all-be-all of tax policy is the state's Motion
Picture Investors tax credit, which costs $13,300 per (mostly part-time)
job created, and doesn't even return a quarter on the dollar of this to taxpayers.
You don't have to create any jobs to make a decision where forgoing tax dollars
boosts productivity and tax revenues that ripple through the entire local economy.

Wisely, Landry recognized these flaws and corrected
them. He simplified the local review process to include for every decision just
the chief executive or first among equals from a parish, school district,
sheriff's office (the sheriff or designee), and, when needed, mayor to vote
collectively on the matter.

Better, he made this a nonbinding advisory opinion,
so local governments no longer can throw up extraneous requirements. Best of
all, he removed the job creation criteria and made the final decision – if
approved by the Board with local input – his on the basis of overall economic development
that recognizes the state's punitive property tax structure for manufacturing
concerns needs rebalancing to encourage capital investment.

He kept a provision that wouldn't make exemptions retroactively
applied and only for meaningful spending that could boost productivity. He also
capped the break at 80 percent – including the option to go to 100 might have been
better – for five years, plus as many more renewed once.

This is a far better use of ITEP, if we must have
it, that will focus on aiding all participants in the state and local economies
rather than select special interests. Landry continues to mean business that
the state, after years of indifference if not hostility to this idea from Edwards,
is open for business.

A recent musing about Louisiana population loss
contains a lot bathos, signifying the difficulty, if not unwillingness, that
the state's leftist institutions have in accepting what's plain to everybody
else.

Last week, the Baton Rouge Advocate ran a piece
about the latest 2023 census numbers, which show most Louisiana parishes lost population.
The state as a whole lost over 14,000 people in 2023, bring the total loss from
compared to 2015 to nearly 120,000 even as the country as a whole, and most
states, grew in numbers. In fact, the state's 0.31 percent loss trailed in percentage
terms only New York, and of the seven states that did lose population, four
were among the largest blue states, with purple Pennsylvania barely slipping
and only West Virigina among red states joining Louisiana.

Only Ascension, Beauregard, Bossier, Calcasieu, De
Soto, East Feliciana, Iberville, Lafayette, Livingston, St. Bernard, St.
Tammany, Tangipahoa, Vermillion, and West Baton Rouge gained – a few barely –
and none over one percent. Metropolitan statistical areas were a mixed bag:
energy-intensive areas Lafayette and Lake Charles and northshore Hamond and Slidell-Covington-Mandeville,
plus Baton Rouge eked out gains but Shreveport-Bossier City, Monroe,
Alexandria, Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, and New Orleans-Metairie shrunk. In
fact, New Orleans led the country in MSA slumping at 1.15 percent, while Houma was
fifth worst at 0.85 percent, Alexandria 16th worst at 0.60 percent,
Shreveport 36th worst at 0.43 percent, and Monroe 46th worst
at 0.34 percent. Hammond's 0.92 percent growth was best in the state and 92nd
best nationwide.

Louisiana's rural areas fared even worse than its
urban, while overall suburban areas held their own. That 50 parishes lost
population flummoxed the Advocate, which went on an extensive expedition
in search of explanations why since the 2020 census this had happened.

Natural disasters clearly had a role, but this
masked some notable divergences. For example, Lake Charles was coming back from
its travails, but Houma wasn't. And obviously a lot of places hadn't had
adverse weather events strike them in the past three years.

So, setting aside idiosyncratic elements, it had
to be policy, and to her credit Alison Plyer, the longtime chief demographer of
New Orleans' Data Center, hit upon that when queried by the reporter. But, as students
will tend to do in answering essay questions, they may guess correctly right
answer but provide the wrong reasons to explain it.

Plyer fell victim to this in two ways, although
one was only a partial bogey. She observed the poorer health statistics
reflected by Louisianans compared to almost every other state, which would lead
to earlier deaths offsetting births. Set aside, of course, that this is a temporary
effect; changes in cohort life spans would influence extremely marginally
overall population so long as the birth cohorts remained constant, so an
ongoing fall caused by shorter lifespans would make sense only in the context of
a sudden drop in life expectancy that isn't occurring (even if a relatively
rapid one such as during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic happens, it also
happened elsewhere, so relative change among states would be extremely marginal).

Yet that shouldn't be happening in Louisiana, using
the left's assumptions, because Medicaid
expansion! Now almost eight years old, that was supposed to provide all
sorts of additional health care people were missing to improve their lives. In
reality, a large minority of its new clients years ago simply dropped their private
insurance (or their employers did it when expansion rolled out) to get a new
freebie, so it's not like they didn't have health care insurance already. If,
of course, they could access Medicaid, with its limited providers and a lowest common
denominator approach that degraded the quality of care. And while you can throw
health care at people, you can't make them live healthy lives that would decrease
their health care usage. So, for the extra $450 million or so a year Louisiana
taxpayers pony up to subsidize other people's health care, there's very little
bang for the buck or explanatory power for population loss (if anything,
hanging out a new benefit not available in nearly all of the fastest-growing
states should attract residents).

But Plyer also made a very ignorant statement. Not
her observation that higher educational attainment helps to drive population
growth, but that state taxpayer subsidization falling a third since 2008 on a
per higher education student basis indicates that Louisiana spent less money on
tertiary education. In fact, in fiscal year 2008 $2.766
billion for 201,557 students
was budgeted for higher education or $13,723 per student, while in FY 2024
that will be $3.453 billion for 217,618 students or $15,867 per student, an
increase of 15.6 percent. The hoary and tired contention that Louisiana has "disinvested"
in higher education is an exhausted myth.

Yes, policy is the explanation, but not derived
from the blind alleys in the article. It's very simple: the cause is Democrat Gov.
John Bel Edwards' big spending, tax raising, benefit boosting (such as Medicaid
expansion), social justice pandering regime, insufficiently resisted by a Republican
Legislature short on leadership that only deigned to rein in Edwards' worst
attempted excesses. It discouraged producers from producing, if not their staying
in the state, and encouraged wasteful spending, criminal coddling, and more
people jumping on the wagon. It not
only led to depopulation, but fewer jobs than when he took office, anemic
personal income growth that barely outpaced inflation, crime rates heading
higher at an above average pace, and a coarsening culture that pandered to ideological
special interests.

And, of course, it was the three central cities
with Democrat mayors and solid Democrat majorities on their city councils – New
Orleans, Shreveport (although it now has a GOP mayor), and Alexandria – which were
among the worst performing local jurisdictions. However, notice how Lafayette and Lake Charles, run
by Republicans, bucked the trend.

Those shortcomings are the wages of liberalism and
are the kinds of things that drive people away – but leftist institutions aren't
going to admit that and will try to find any lame excuse to deflect from that. What's
obvious to everybody else they refuse to see, which makes the musings in that
article largely irrelevant, if not entirely counterproductive to reversing the state's
depopulation trend.

 Nikki Haley's "what about slavery?" statement reminds us that the 2024 campaign is one of ethnic outbidding--specifically, white nationalist outbidding.  I have been writing about ethnic outbidding for quite some time, in my own academic work, and then applied to the US especially in the age of Trump.  To be clear, the concept is not mine.  It was most clearly articulated by Donald Horowitz--that when multiple politicians or parties compete for support from an homogenous group in a heterogeneous society, they will be tempted/pressured to outbid each other in their promises to be the best defender of that group.*  In 2016, Trump was best positioned to win this auction, this competition for ever more extreme voters, as he was willing to say anything, including banning Muslims, and, yes, his personality feeds into it as he always wants to top other folks.  After the 2020 election, Fox News felt pressure from its right, as it initially recognized Trump's defeat, but started to lose market share to OAN and other far right outlets.In the 2024 race, the competition to be the best white nationalist (I tend to prefer white supremacist but YMMV) is so evident with non-white candidates like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott appealing to the white vote.  Many have noted the irony or hypocrisy of those running to lead the Party of Lincoln getting all soft on slavery.**  Haley once was on the right side of history, lowering the confederate flag from government buildings when she was governor of South Carolina.  But that was before Trump changed the permission structure of Republican politics.  Now, to compete at the national level, one must establish one's white nationalist bona fides by being pro-confederacy.  [Save me the BS about state's rights, as SC's secession and pretty much every other one was based on the selective state's right to support the institution of slavery and oppose the rights of non-slave-holding states to regulate their own borders].  To be clear, ethnic outbidding refers to pressures and temptations--the fear of losing white voters to other candidates or the temptation to pander to extremist voters to get a leg up on more moderate candidates.  Candidates and parties still have agency. They have a choice to make, often a tough one, but they can choose to go another way at some cost.  Fox could have been willing to risk losing some market share to far right outlets.  Nikki Haley could have risked losing some share of the electorate to others, with the hope that she could corner the market of reasonable Republicans (if such a beast still exists).  The challenge is that we know that the most enthused voters show up at primaries, and those tend to be those on the extremes.  But in this time of increased threat of autocracy, there is an opportunity for a Republican to take a stand.  This is not just wishful thinking or idealism--the white nationalist vote is going to Trump.  Whatever is left will go to DeSantis and others who fit the bill--white "Christian" men.  Nikki Haley could be the candidate that grabs other voters.  Again, she has agency, she has a choice to make, and, until this week, she had somewhat of an advantage with her background--not just being a person of color (perhaps in denial about that) and a woman, but someone who had pulled down the confederate flag in a previous job.  She had the credentials to try to be the savior of the GOP.  And Haley tossed it away.  Out of weakness. Due to cowardice.  She simply is not going to win an outbidding race against Trump or against the other dudes in the race.  So, we can blame the structure of the American politics--the winner take all process where small numbers of voters in primaries set the agenda--but we cannot let these politicians off.  They have responsibility for their stances.  We got here because of GOP weakness and temptation.  In 2016, GOP candidates didn't attack Trump directly because they wanted his voters--the deplorables that Hillary Clinton so aptly called them.  In 2024, the cowardice has a physical element to it--that Trump supporters have threatened violence.  But cowardice it still is--to run for Presidency and sell out whatever values one has and ultimately endanger oneself and one's family.  Again, Haley may think of herself as white, but she isn't to to white nationalists to whom she is pandering.  Indian-Americans may not be at the top of their hate list, but I am pretty sure Great Replacement Theorists worry about South Asians replacing white folks, just as they worry about Jews, Black Americans, Muslims, etc.  Structure and agency are in play here--we need to hold accountable the politicians who pander to the worst instincts in people and we need to remember that Trump and Haley wouldn't be doing this stuff if it did not work, if there was not an audience for it.* This is not just an American thing, of course, as Horowitz was inspired by the Sinhalese case in Sri Lanka.  These days, Canada is having a bit of the outbidding dynamic as the Conservative Party of Canada feels pressured by a small far right party run by, well, an idiot.  That case illustrates it is not just pressure but temptation.  The temptation to split off voters from the heterogeneous party.** You don't have to be an historian to know that the two parties switched their positions/places on the rights of African-Americans to be free and to vote, but it doesn't hurt.  Follow Kevin Kruse on social media to get the basics as he has responded extensively to the whole "hey, the Dems were the party of racism" stuff.  It is called partisan realignment for a reason--the parties and voters realigned in response to the response to the civil rights movement.

 I woke up in the middle of the night because I am old and I ate and drank too much.  I couldn't resist schnitzel and strudel as I am in Vienna for a talk and for some other shenanigans (more on that in another post).  And then I saw Phil Lagassé's post on the Conservatives and if they might spend on defence if elected.  On that general topic, I am a skeptic as I think the CPC cares more about deficits than about defence, and the place to cut the budget is, alas, defence.  That is where the money is.  This was true under Harper.  I don't know what Pierre Poilevre believes in, other than opportunism and pandering to the far right, but I don't think he will commit lots of money to get Canada to 2% of GDP (on the other hand, he could tank the economy, and that is the other way to get there).  Oh, and to be clear, I think we need to spend significantly more on the military--I am just not going to threat inflate to get us there.Anyway, Phil said in his piece that we need to spend more to deal with the threat in the Arctic, and I had to scoff. Which led to a fun exchange in bluesky, reminiscent of the old days on twitter where we would argue and people thought we hated each other.  Hint: I don't co-author with people I don't like.  Ir don't co-author with the same person several times unless we get along very well.  But it is both fun and educational to push back against one of the very sharpest defence minds in Canada.Specifically, Phil said: "Canadians know their Arctic is vulnerable."  And my ensuing commentary focused on that: what exactly is the threat to Canada from on high?  And should we consider this the most significant/dangerous threat?  My point is that it is way back in line.  Phil says we need to have better situational awareness up north.  My rejoinder is: no invasion coming, just some spy ships on the water and below it.  Others chimed in: more ships going through the northwest passage means more environmental stuff could go awry.  And, I agree.  But where does that line up in the threat picture?  Here's my cranky, awakened with acid in my throat, ranking of the threats facing Canada. Climate change: Canadians are paying a high price for the changing climate even if we could joke about being a beneficiary as our winters get mostly shorter.  Milder?  Variance is more certain than anything else.  Anyhow, people are dying in floods and fires, much property is being destroyed.  When I speak of threat, I think of real harms to Canadians, to the economy, to governance.  Climate change is first and it is not close.  I was mocked by someone via email when I said this on TV,  but I have never been a super lefty, green environmentalist type in my work.  It is just the reality that in dollar amounts and in lives, the warming planet is harming Canadians in a big way and it is only going to get worse. A recurring theme is that many of the threats either cannot or will not have the military as the lead agency.  This actually comes the closest given that the provinces underinvest in emergency management, knowing that the military will act if asked and won't present a bill.Pandemics: how many people were killed by covid in Canada?  Nearly 60,000, which is more than Canadians killed in all foreign wars combined if one leaves out WWI.  Plus many people now have long covid.  It did a heap of damage to the economy, and, if you care about deficits (I don't really), guess what blew a big hole in the budget? I am very glad the Liberal government poured a ton of money into the economy as we didn't have runs on food banks during the height of the pandemic.  I just wish Conservative-led provinces actually spent the money allotted to health care on.... health care.  Will covid be the last pandemic?  No.  Indeed, given what it has done to attitudes about vaccinations, quarantines, and masking, I doubt we will respond as well next time.  Scary, eh?  The military was called out because other agencies lacked capacity, but this was really a medical/scientific thing, so let's not allocate a ton of money to the military for pandemic preparedness.Cyber attacks.  Wars are distant, but cyber attacks are hitting Canadians every day, disrupting people's lives, hurting various businesses and public agencies, and pose a significant threat where some country could bring down our power or harm dams and more.  Is this the military's job?  Partially but not really.  We don't need people who are trained to fire weapons and ready to deploy abroad and all that stuff to fight a cyber war.  We need smart folks at well equipped desks.  We definitely need to have more money spent on the military to survive and thrive in a cyberwar environment, but the CAF is not really our answer to thwarting cyber attacks against the Canadian public.Far right violence.  We live in a time of increasing attacks by xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, racists, anti-semities, Islamophobes, and white supremacists (these hates tend to travel together).  Yes, left wing extremists can have many of these attributes, but
it is clear that the violence is almost entirely coming from the far
right. These haters are doing real harm to Canadians right now, and the trend is in the wrong direction.  Can the military do anything about this?  I think the general rule of not having the military police the public is a very good idea.  Instead, the military's role is mostly to make sure it is not training the next generation of far right terrorists.  Disinformation.  This is, of course, related to the prior one, but it also involves foreign actors who are trying to tilt election outcomes.  We are increasingly living in a time where people can't trust what they see and hear, or they are trusting the wrong actors.  This leads to develop dangerous beliefs--like vaccines are poisonous, that the government in power is engaging in great, deliberate harm against its ideological opponents, and so forth,  While the Liberals have screwed up many things, they need some trust in government to operate on our behalf, just as the Conservatives or NDP would need people to trust in institutions.  The military should not be the primary actor at home on this either even as they engage in info ops abroad.People might I was joking about the increases in truck/SUV size being a threat, but more than 2000 people died in car accidents in 2023, and the trend is going up, even if one cuts the peak covid years from the dataset.North Korean missiles. While China and Russia have nuclear missiles, I have a bit more faith in the workings of deterrence and a bit less worried about accidental/deliberate first use.  North Korea would not have any reason to attack Canada, but I could imagine that their aim might be that good.  Of course, what is the CAF's role in this?  Providing warning that Vancouver is doomed and then helping to respond to the aftermath.  We have no defences against ballistic missiles nor will Canada have any such systems  anytime in the future.  I am a skeptic about American strategic defense (although tactical anti-missile systems seem to range from pretty good to amazing), but I do think Canada should join the US system as the ABM treaty is very dead.  This is a military job and would justify the massive investment in NORAD modernization.  Otherwise, it really is a system to warn us to give us a few minutes to kiss our loved ones goodbye.  Oh, and manage relations with the US.US relations!  The Canadian economy and its security crucially depend on the US, and, oh my, Canada will be so very, very fucked if Trump were to win. Democracies have lived beside authoritarian regimes before (hey, Finland!), but so much of Canada's position in the world relies on this huge market and this peaceful border and cooperation with the US.  When was the last time Canada fought abroad without the US beside its side?  UN missions?  Guess again as the UN relies heavily on American support to do its ops.  One could argue this would mean less wars for Canada--no more Afghanistans (which was purely to help its ally).  But Canada would be even at greater risk of being bullied by the China's and Saudi Arabia's of the world.  And, of course, by Trump himself.  But again, this is not the CAF's job to prevent or mitigate this.  If Trump is elected, most of the problems above get worse and this item zooms to the top.Maybe here goes: incomplete understanding of what is happening in the Arctic. Yes, that stuff up north is still Canada, but the threat to Canadians up there is not really that posed by Russia or China but by the lack of infrastructure and by the aforementioned climate change, pandemics, etc.So, if the military is not needed for this stuff, or only needed for domestic emergency ops, why spend tens of billions on it?  Why increase spending?  It comes down to this: the military is an instrument of policy.  This means that it can and is used to further Canadian government objectives even if most of those objectives are not about thwarting threats to Canada.  Canada has consistent interests in the world for which the CAF is a key tool, such as helping to foster stability in Europe and Asia.  Canada, like the US, has learned that when those continents catch fire, it damages Canadian interests and hurts Canadians.  A war in the South China Sea with or without the Canadian navy would be catastrophic to the Canadian economy.  War west of Ukraine would also be quite damaging.  NATO itself is an important interest that requires the Canadian military to invest in itself and in NATO missions.  Ultimately, Canadians want to do good in the world and want to support the international order, whether we call it liberal or rules-based or American hegemony or whatever.  Because we understand that Canadians have more influence within institutions than outside of them, that the rules have favored the Canadian economy, and helped the Canadian people to enjoy the fruits of international cooperation.Ultimately, one wants a well armed, well trained, well staffed military to prepare for the worst.  In my ranking of threats, I focused on both likelihood of the threat being realized and the amount of harm that is likely if the threat happens.  Climate change is at the top because it is happening and is not going away and is going to do heaps of damage.  The threat in the Arctic is lower down because it is unlike that any foreign actor will attack that way and the damage they can do is not that great, again compared to everything else.Oh, and what is also a threat?  Having an under-funded, unprepared, ill-equipped military sent off to war--that way lies tragedy.  So, yes, spend more, but let's not exaggerate where the threats are coming from and what the role of the military is.

Do Spew and 2 rhyme?  I sure hope so as I begin my review of the year that was.  The last time I blogged less than I did in 2022 was ... in 2008, when I didn't blog at all.  What explains the decline?  Partly exhaustion, partly a decline in imagination, partly other social media sucking up my time (the podcasts, now tooting as well as tweeting), and partly the reality that I have written enough stuff before that when the topic comes up, it is just easier to repost.  Maybe a look at this year's posts will tell me a bit about what inspires me to write here and what does not, although survivor and recency biases may mesh nicely with my confirmation bias to prevent me from learning that much.  Hmmm.JanuaryI started by pondering whether JK Rowling has utterly destroyed her legacy--whether I can still consume Harry Potter stuff.  While I concluded that I could still enjoy the world she created, even as she betrays damn near all of it, my behavior, my choices, says otherwise as I had multiple opportunities to watch HP movies while hanging out at my mother-in-law's over the holidays and dodged all of them.  Something I had not done in the past.  Later in the month, I returned to the theme of what kinds of stuff can I read and enjoy given the complex realities of our time.  I wrote about how it has become harder to watch and read cop shows given what we know about cops these days.  I am finishing the latest John Sandford book which features multiple cops, Virgil Flowers and Lucas Davenport, solving a serial murder spree by bitcoin assholes, and have found it fairly compelling (unlike the most recent Jack Reacher book).  So, maybe I am less affected by the topics than by the behavior of the artist?The month ended with the start of the occupation of Ottawa by extremists--far right white supremacists.  The year ended with an examination of whether the government should have invoked the Emergency Act.   Um, yeah, but because the emergency was that the provincial leaders were cowards who wanted the feds to own it.FebruaryThe extremists in Ottawa became a focus for me, as it did for most of my city, for most of the month with posts on: outbidding, explaining why the Conservatives were pandering to the extremistsanger, discussing how pissed off this made me, triggered indeed.policing, as I learned that Canadians think that the cops should not be directed by the politicians as if policing is not inherently political,my take on the Emergency Act.And then the past came back to bite Ukraine and me.  My previous work on irredentism became relevant again with Russia's invasion of yet more Ukrainian territory. In this post, I explained the basics of irredentism--that it is always bad for the country doing the invading even as it may or may not be bad for its leader, that domestic dynamics are key, and so on.March The focus of March was very much on the war in Ukraine.  I argued via a bit of screenwriting why a No Fly Zone was a bad idea. I elaborated about the disease of MOAR.  And, yes, I then invoked my work on irredentism to explain why Putin was willing to kill Russia's kin in order to "save" them.  I wrote about limited war, a topic that got new energy this week as some retired generals expressed much frustration at the unwillingness of the US to send deep strike weapons to Ukraine.I also blogged about my appearance before the House of Commons Defence Committee.AprilThis month had only a few posts, with nearly all focused on CDSN events.  The outlier was a post discussing the appearance of Minister of National Defence Anita Anand in my Civil-Military Relations class. That was super-cool--a great way to finish off that course.MayI marked my 300,000th tweet before twitter's death spiral... maybe I caused it?I discussed the two events organized by the CDSN Undergraduate Excellence Scholars--a conference and a hackathon.  I also went to Germany for another conference. Woot!My last post took a first look at the Arbour report, where a retired Supreme Court Justice assessed the Canadian Armed Forces and why it has fallen short, yet again, on reforming itself when it comes to sexual misconduct.  I took a quick tour of the 48 recommendations.  June I didn't write much in June, but two of my posts continued my examination of the Arbour Report: here and here.  In the first one, I pushed on a point that will become a key question in my next project--what is the proper rule of a defence department or ministry or agency?  Arbour says DND is to support the CAF, and, no, nope, nuh uh.  This does help to explain a big problem with this and previous reports--having a very limited view of what DND's job is.  I also focus on the lack of a recommendation for an Inspector General, which is now a topic of research of this year's Visiting Defence Fellow.I also marked my 10 years in Ottawa with this post. I am so glad that the tides of the academic job market washed me ashore here.  It was not my plan, but it has worked out wonderfully.JulyJuly was a month of ups and downs.  I started the month by pondering how long might the autocratic moment in the US last if Democracy were to give way.  The most pivotal building at my old summer camp burned down, but there was much resilience that day and beyond to give me hope for its future.One of the ups was the new season of Battle Rhythm.  I am forever grateful to Stéfanie von Hlatky for helping us launch our podcast, and I was sad to see her move to admin stuff at her university.  But we got re-energized by a new crew of co-hosts.  Artur, Anessa, Erin, and Linna have provided a variety of perspectives since they joined us.  I am most grateful to Melissa Jennings for doing most of the heavy lifting in this effort and to Carelove Doreus and Racheal Wallace for their carrying the rest of the load.  It has been a big year in Canadian civil-military relations, and one of the highlights was the decision to adjust the uniform standards to make the CAF more welcoming to more people.  I addressed these changes with some accidental foreshadowing of the awful Vimy speech by one of those responsible for the culture crisis that prevented the CAF from adapting sooner.The month, which started with COVID finally hitting me and Mrs. Spew thanks to a conference trip to Berlin, ended in an upswing with both Beulahfest as my mom celebrated her 90th birthday and, yes, Stevefest, as I did a heap of stuff to celebrate another year of me. AugustNot many posts this month as I was very busy organizing and then hosting the first in-person CDSN Summer Institute.  It was one of the original ideas animating the big grant application, and it was great to see it finally come to fruition with so many sharp people speaking and participating.  Plus it was an excuse to have a reception or three.  Just a great week worth all the effort by the CDSN team.Much news about classified documents thanks to Trump hoarding documents he should have had anymore, so I shared what I had learned during the year I had a top secret clearance and worked every day in a SCIF--secure compartmented information facility.Finally, I said goodbye to a key part of my life--ultimate frisbee.  I just kept getting injured and could not stay on the field.  I could still throw well, but that whole running thing proved to be too much.  I very much miss it, it gave me friends across North America, it gave me some level of fitness, it gave me heaps of silliness, and nothing can fill the hole it left behind, alas.  SeptemberAnother light month for blogging.  I wrote a guide for those visiting Montreal for the American Political Science Association meeting.  The focus of the month and of my career these days was/is civil-military relations.  I wrote about the retired generals and SecDefs providing advice on how to manage this relationship. And then I addressed a recurring challenge up here--should the Canadian military prioritize domestic emergency operations? Whether the CAF wants to or not (not), climate change is going to make this happen.  It already has.  I am getting more and more interested in studying domestic emergency ops in part because few defence scholars have done so.  Nothing like having a wide open field to pass the disk into.  Oh wait, that was last month's post about ultimate.One reason I didn't post more in September is that I was headed west to Disneyland and to visit my daughter (not necessarily prioritized that way?).OctoberI gave thanks for all kinds of stuff as Canada celebrates Thankgiving in October when Americans debate the role of Columbus.I spent the rest of the month preparing both the CDSN Midterm Report for one of our funders and a conference to mark the midway point in our SSHRC grant.  It was great to hear from the co-directors of the various research efforts--Civ-Mil Relations, Personnel, Security, and Operations.  We were once told that the CDSN was just me and my friends dong stuff, but, to be clear, when it started, many of those who joined as co-directors were not friends and some were barely acquaintances.  Now, we are friends, but isn't that how networking works when it works well?  I am very proud of what we have put together even if it put a major dent in my blogging.November Was the theme of the month commenting on other people's mistakes?  Seems like it with a post on twitter's dramatic decline thanks to Musk and then the craptastic speech by a retired general.  That post generated more hits than any other this year and is in the top five of my 13 years of blogging.  The related tweet was also the most tweeted/impressioned tweet of the year and then some.  It led to a post addressing "woke" and being "anti-woke," which helped me think about vice-signaling, the flipside of virtue-signaling. I got to put on my old NATO hat when some errant missiles from Ukraine's war with Russia landed in Poland.  I did much media as well to explain that NATO does not work the way may folks think--that there is nothing automatic about it, even if the attack had been deliberate.One reason I blog less is that I simply have not been writing that much about pop culture here.  Why?  Mostly due to lack of time.  One exception to this was thinking about the International Politics of the second Black Panther movie.DecemberThe year ended with much CDSN and much cookies!I went to Winnipeg for the first time for a CDSN workshop on Domestic Emergency Operations.  This is the focus of one of our four MINDS (DND) funded research projects.  I learned a great deal from sharp people both in and out of the government.  There is much work to do here, and I am glad we have made this one of our foci over the next three years. Once again, we held an end of the year conference, the Year Ahead, which addresses some of the issues on the horizon.  This year, we also launched the new CDSN Podcast Network at the event!  The CDSN Podcast Network brings together four podcasts--Battle Rhythm, Conseils de Sécurité, SecurityScape and NATO Field Report.  We are open to adding others down the road.  Along the way, we fixed our Apple podcast feed.  I am most excited not just for having a new home for BattleRhythm but connecting and amplifying some student-run podcasts.I finished the year with a heap of baking--cookies for friends around Ottawa.  The basic idea is this: I want to eat a lot of different kinds of cookies.  But then making so many different kinds means finding people who are willing to take most off my hands or else I will gain a heap of weight (winterfest did that anyway).  I enjoyed my first cookiefest in 2020, which was the first time I saw many people after months and months of quarantining.  So, I keep doing it, now armed with better equipment (kitchen aid stand mixer makes it much easier than the first cookie fest) and more recipes.  It is not just the baking and the eating.  I got to chat with a bunch of great people as I delivered the cookies.  If the cookies are joy (and, yes, they are), giving joy leads to receiving much joy.One of the interesting dynamics of 2022 was the re-emergence of blogging.   That many folks started writing on substack, which, to me, seems like blogging but with the chance of income.  I have not moved over there as I am pretty happy with this perch. It does not make me money, but I doubt that people would pay that much for my half-baked (semi-spewed) writings.  One of my New Year's Resolutions is to blog more.  My guess is that I will be more successful at that than the ones focused on dietary restraint.May you and yours have a terrific 2023!

Almost two years since his election, as Obama's popularity continues to sink, many are left wondering what went wrong with his presidency. But before that question can be answered, a more careful consideration of the situation he inherited seems in order: two unwinnable wars, the Guantánamo legal limbo, a badly damaged international reputation and an economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Great Depression, during which close to ten million jobs were lost. That was the state of the country when he came to power in 2008. In two years Obama has not solved any of these problems completely, but has made headway in many of them. In the context of a slow and jobless economic recovery, and faced with a vociferous opposition which has turned down every chance at bipartisan cooperation, the question should perhaps then be how Obama's level of support among the population remains this high (43%).The President still has the backing of Democratic voters, but has lost the support of Independents. Even those who would never consider abandoning him are suffering from an "enthusiasm gap" that may affect their turnout in the November 2 mid-term elections. With unemployment still hovering around 9.5% and with little prospect of change in the near future, the disillusionment of the electorate is understandable (43% support Obama today, compared with 60% in early 2009). But it is worth pondering how much of this discontent against the party in power is derived from the failure of policy and how much from the divisive political game played by the opposition.In all fairness to Obama, shrill accusations of socialism and big government were raised against him as soon as he came to power and had to immediately address the banking, mortgage and automobile meltdowns. Acerbic Republican opposition to any measure adopted by the Executive since then, has dominated the political discourse and made it almost impossible for the Administration to present evidence that, without its actions, the economic recovery would have taken even longer. It is hard to prove a negative proposition. Republicans have had a receptive audience in the low, mostly white middle class, many of who have taken to the streets under the Tea Party banner, to fight in one voice both against government "take over" of health care and (incongruously) in defense of Medicare (the government-sponsored health program for senior citizens).There is rich irony in hearing the word "socialist" hurled as the ultimate insult to a President who has bailed out the big financial institutions and the two largest automobile industries without nationalizing them, and who has signed a health care reform bill that does not include the controversial public option, which had been the centerpiece of his planned reform but was deemed too liberal by members of his own party. But reason and logic have no role to play in the polarized political atmosphere that we are experiencing today. Emotion and fear are much more productive in the views of the opposition, to help them re-take the House and perhaps even the Senate in this fall election.Timid Democrats in the House and Senate, afraid to lose their newly acquired seats in states and districts that voted for McCain in the 2008 presidential election are also abandoning the president. A posse of four or five of Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats has helped dilute the health care legislation by removing the public option from the bill, and have taken off the table legislation to curb carbon emissions and promote green energy sources. There are different hypotheses of why Obama has been unable to maintain high support rates in spite of having had important legislative victories (TARP, Stimulus spending package, extension of unemployment benefits, health care and financial reform). Former (Clinton's) Labor Secretary Robert Reich and NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman argue that Obama's stimulus was ridiculously small, given the state of the economy in January 2009. They blame the President for not using the majorities in the House and Senate to pass bolder legislation. By compromising, Obama disappointed the liberal wing of his party, but more importantly, lost the Independents at the center, who simultaneously believed the Republican rhetoric about "Big government Socialist take over" but resented Obama's bailout of Wall Street. Contrary to the fear-mongering claims of the deficit hawks about the debt, Krugman points out that "far from fleeing US debt, investors are eagerly buying it, driving interest rates to historic lows". Reich insists that Obama missed an opportunity to push the limits of politics, establish a new framework of redistributive policies and regulations, and become a transformative president. Although this view undoubtedly has some merit, it ignores the brutal backlash against government spending that affected every Democrat in the House and Senate and made them fear for their jobs. A larger stimulus would have faced even stronger opposition from among the party's own ranks and seen some defectors. Obama is a pragmatic leader who governs as best he can, given the huge constraints of the current political context.Jay Cost from Real Politics offers a different explanation: Obama's geographic coalition was never broad enough because he failed to win the hearts and minds of middle and rural America. It is from those sectors that Independents have abandoned support for the administration in droves. In other words, Obama's major constituencies were in the major cities on the two seaboards and from the suburbs, and included Blacks, youth and university educated white professionals. Even in those cases in which they voted for Obama, white rural America, and blue collar workers never were quite convinced that he would fight for them, and the Wall Street bailout confirmed their suspicion. Underlying it all, there is, of course, the prevalent racism that permeates most sectors of American society and emerges in the form of distrust toward the Commander in Chief: Obama has to prove his loyalty to the country in ways not demanded from others. He has to pay the price of being the first Black president.A third hypothesis that is circulating among pundits is that Obama's focus on health care was misplaced, that he should have concentrated all his attention on economic recovery and job creation instead. Indeed, it was during the 2009 summer of discontent that the electorate became irreconcilably divided and that Republican-launched corrosive ads dominated the airwaves, and rumors about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma" pervaded City Hall meetings. A general distrust of the federal government and of all incumbents inside the DC belt, while nothing new among the American electorate, re-emerged with new virulence.It is in this context that the Tea Party movement cut its teeth and started dominating the headlines. Spurred by the GOP with the intention of mobilizing the population around anti-tax, anti-federal government sentiments, the Tea-partiers launched national campaigns against all incumbents, and in the process became a voice for the profound anger, fear and frustration that the poor state of the economy and the sustained unemployment rate has caused in the population. Pleased at the frenzy stirred up by the movement, Republicans have complacently let it lead the way, exercising no restraint on their wildest propositions (see below) and allowing it to do the work for them as the voice of the opposition. This is already having unwanted consequences, as extremist Tea-party –fielded candidates from outside party ranks are challenging party insiders in gubernatorial as well as Congressional primary races.Like the eponymous rebellion that took place in Boston in 1773, the Tea Party's main philosophical thrust is against taxes, centralization of power and government overreach. Unlike it, it is also anti-immigrant. Because of the prevalent uncertainty about the economy, their discourse resonates with the electorate. To fight the federal government initiatives, they are finding their best institutional allies in the State governments, courts and legislatures. Indeed, judging by the poisonous political environment, the polarization of the electorate, and the state-based challenges to the federal government, at times it seems that only a Lincolnian figure can save America from another civil war.The so- called "States Revolution" is visible in many fronts. Five states have passed legislation against parts of the federal health reform law, and around 20 states are challenging its constitutionality through the court system. Several states legislatures are getting ready to pass laws modeled after the anti-immigration law in Arizona, which was deemed unconstitutional by a district court but has broad support in the population. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court, as challenges and counter-challenges continue. Interestingly, Obama is in fact deporting more undocumented workers than any of his predecessors, but his reform proposal would give a pathway to citizenship to these workers if they have a job, register with the US government, and pay a fine and back taxes. Immigration has been a thorny issue, with allies and foes on both sides of the aisle. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who gave amnesty to all illegal immigrants in 1986, and George Bush's proposal in 2006 was very similar to Obama's. This is hardly a philosophical issue on which the two parties diverge; it is just a populist cause that is being used by Republicans to stoke the flames of right-wing populism and racism prevalent in main sectors of the population.The backlash against undocumented workers is of such magnitude that it has come to encompass all immigrants. It has now taken the unlikely form of a movement to abolish or amend the 14th Amendment, a foundational provision dating from 1868 which grants citizenship to all born in the United States. The changing of the birth right rule is "worth considering" according to House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) because "it gives an incentive for people to come to the United States illegally to give birth here." This is outrageous pandering by the Republican Party who has always fathomed itself to be the staunchest defender of the Constitution, which they consider a sacred text to be read literally, with minimal interpretation. Such is the spirit of the times. Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, the two most important and moderate voices on Immigration Reform have changed their positions (Mc Cain because he is facing a tough primary in his state of Arizona, against, who other, but a Tea Party candidate!) and have both agreed that it is worth a debate. This is not only unprincipled on their part, but also terrible long-term politics, since by taking this stance on immigration they are removing the possibility of regaining the support of the largest growing group of voters, namely the Hispanic or Latino population for years to come.Given the strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiment prevalent in the population, the results of the mid-term election are hard to predict because some Republicans may lose seats, too. However, the current projections of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia give the Republicans a net win of 32 seats in the House, 7 seats in the Senate (they would need 10 to become the majority) and 6-7 governor seats. The coming mid-term election is being compared to the 1994 "revolution" led by Newt Gingrich which gave Republicans a majority in both the House and Senate. Just like Obama, Clinton was an "outsider" who was handed the presidency partly thanks to his charisma, but mainly because people were disappointed at George Bush Senior, and did not re-elect him. Clinton made health care reform the centerpiece of his first term but failed to get it through Congress. He did manage to pass a controversial crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, which the Right traditionally opposes. He also raised taxes. Republicans attacked him with an abrasive campaign in favor of lower taxes, second amendment rights and smaller government, and won. Two years later, however, with a brighter economic outlook and a pledge to balance the budget, Clinton was re-elected.But the parallel should not be exaggerated since there are many differences as well. First, Obama did pass health care reform, and that should count have some weight among his supporters, hopefully enough weight to bring them to the polls November 2. Second, the Republican Party's image was not as tarnished in 1994 as it is today, mainly because they hadn't had a majority in Congress for a long time. A New York Times/CBS News poll this past February found that 57% of those polled has negative views of the Republicans this time. The anger is aimed at Washington as a whole and this may help Democrats. The main concern of Democrats in the House and Senate today is the demographics of mid-term elections: older (over 60) white voters, who are the core group of the Tea Party movement and the most outspoken against Obama and this Congress, are also the most likely to vote in mid-term elections. And the "enthusiasm gap" on the Left may induce many Obama supporters to stay home. On the other hand, the Democratic Party learned the lesson of 1994 and is better prepared for the fight: they have been raising money from early on, setting up voters' registration campaigns and trying to mobilize the same base that brought Obama to power two years ago. They stress his activist legislative agenda and its accomplishments: financial reform, health care, extension of unemployment benefits, an energy bill that came short of cap and trade but will meet some green energy goals. More importantly, they are framing the election as a choice between going back to the policies that got the country into the Great Recession, or moving forward with the new policies of corporate responsibility, accountability and more federal supervision of financial institutions in order to avoid similar crises.However, what is clear is that the anemic state of the economy and the high and sustained unemployment rate make all other tactics irrelevant. Uncertainty rules supreme in the minds of the electorate and with it, a fear of what the future may bring and a lack of confidence in the federal government. The Republican opposition is united and vociferous and its message simple and clear: no more taxes, no more deficits, no more government intervention, close borders to immigrants and focus on private job creation through tax cuts; what the federal government won't do, states will. The President should probably counterattack in kind and engage in this ideological battle, but he is not temperamentally suited for it. He dislikes ideological arguments because he wants to be the President of all Americans, as he pledged during his campaign. The next big decision Obama needs to make is whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire after Labor Day or to extend them for two or three years. He has announced his intention to maintain them for the middle class but to end them for the wealthiest individuals, those in the highest 2% income bracket. It would bring their income tax up from 35% to 39%, not a dramatic raise but one that will be resisted strongly by the opposition. Although Obama has a good argument to make (that the $700 billion dollars thus raised would help him reduce the deficit dramatically), there is fear in Congress Democrats that a two- week debate about tax cuts will help Republicans. In a perversely cynical way, perhaps a Republican win in the congressional elections may not be a bad thing after all, and may yet help Obama: let the Republicans make his case for him, that he himself is reluctant to make. Let them stand the public scrutiny and let the public judge if they can provide better, more novel solutions to job creation, to Afghanistan, to immigration reform. A weak performance by a Republican-dominated 112th Congress, an economy that is bound to recover as it enters its next cycle, and a Palin-Huckabee ticket may still get Obama re-elected in 2012.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

Issue 65.2 of the Review for Religious, 2006. ; Franciscan Legacy Vocation Religious Implications The Spirit QUARTERLY 65.2 2006 evtew Religtous sters.dia e,.wztl~,, Go dialogue~ with ourselves; anddialogue accordingto cba~s:~of CatboUc reli~o~'l~(~ As Pope Paul I satd~ our way of bet!g church Review for Religious (ISSN 0034-639X) is published quarterly at Saint Louis University, by the Jesuits of the Missouri Province. Editorial Office: 3601 Lindell Boulevard ¯ St. Louis, Missouri 63108-3393 Telephone: 314-633-4610 ¯ Fax: 314-633-4611 E-Mail: review@slu.edu ¯ \~el) site: www.reviewforreligious.org Manuscripts, books for review, and correspondence with the editor: Review for Religious ¯ 3601 Lindell Boulevard ¯ St. Louis, MO 63108-3393 Correspondence about the Canonical Counsel department: Elizabeth McDonough OP ° Pontifical College Josephinum 7625 North High Street ¯ Columbus, Ohio 43235 POSTMASTER Send address changes to Review for Religious ¯ P.O. Box 6070 ° Duluth, MN 55806. Periodical postage paid at St. Louis, Missouri, and additional mailing offices. See inside back cover for information on subscription rates. ©2006 Review for Religious Permission is herewith granted to copy any material (articles, poems, reviews) contained in this issue of Review for Religious for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specific library, clients within the limits outlined in Sections 107 and/or 108 of the United States Copyright Law. All copies made under this permission must hear notice of the source, date, and copyright owner on the first page. This permission is NOT extended to copying for comlnercial distribu-tion, advertising, institutional promotion, or for the creation of new collective works or anthologies. Such permission will only he considered on written application to the Editor, Review for Religious. 0 religious Editor Associate Editor Canonical Counsel Scripture Scope Editorial Staff. Webmaster Advisory Board David L. Fleming SJ Phili'o C. Fischer SJ Elizabeth McDonough OP Eugene Hensell OSB Mar~ Ann Foppe Tracy Gramm Judy Sharp Ciare Boehmer ASC Stephen Erspamer OSB Kathleen Hughes RSCJ Louis and Angela Menard Bishop Terry Steib SVD Miriam D. Ukeritis CSJ QUARTERLY 65.2 2006 contents prisms 116 Prisms 118 138 franciscan legacy Custodians of Franciscan Households Michael Blastic OFM enters us into the meaning of Franciscan fraternity through developing three elements: 1) a life lived in brotherhood, 2) experienced in a household, and 3) qualified with patience~ Questions for Reflection / Group Discussion Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist Regis J. Armstrong OFMCap centers his reflections on the .spirituality of Francis of Assisi by focusing on five passages of Francis's writings that d, eal with Eucharist. vocation 153 159 Imitation of Mary and the Religious Vocation Julius D. Leloczky OCist invites those following the special call to religious life into a prayerful meditation on the role of Mary as model and mentor. Prayer Just Because I Said So Mary Joseph Schultz SCC considers the importance of commitment and what it means "to give one's word." Personal Reflection / Group Conversation l~eview for Retigious 166 177 r O ji us imp ic io s Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correct"? Vimal Tirimanna CSSR reflects on his experience as major superior and as president of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors of Sri Lanka to share his concern for the proper use of afithority. Identifying Identity among Nonclerical Religious Brendan Kneale FSC clarifies identity for men and women as embracing two dimensions, personal and social, which are mutually supportive. 186 spiri Led by the Spirit: Julian of Norwich Andrew Ryder SCJ notes the central role of the Spirit in the writings of Julian of Norwich. The Holy Spirit is the dynamic, active agent who brings us into communion with the life of Christ and the Persons of the Holy Trinity. epar rn n s 202 Scripture Scope: The Miracles of Jesus 206 Cdnonical Counsel: The Importance of Procedural Law 211 Book Reviews 65.2 2006 prisms do we think of when we hear the word service? We quickly rush to the n0tion of activity--what we do, how we act, how we spend our days and perhaps even our nights. But in our Catholic tradition service and to serve God have a far richer meaning than just activity. We find the first and foundational stage of service in a traditional saying, "They also serve who only stand and wait." By way of contemporary example, we notice that the esteemed waiter at table is the one who watches and is attentive to what is needed by the people dining. Such a waiter spends a lot :of his or' her time just "watching and waiting." In a similar way, the Christian who wants to serve God should spend a lot of time "watching and waiting." A good part of the watching and waiting is identifiable as praying. It is the prayer of one who listens to God--a God who is speaking in his revealing word, a God who speaks through his human messengers, a God who speaks through nature and through events. A person who listens is one who is obedient, for the roots of the word obedience lie in listening. The young Samuel in scripture describes his listening in the phrase, "Here I am, Lord." In the sacramental oi'dination of ministers, such listening is caught by the expression "ready and willing." It is the attitude of Jesus before the God he calls Abba. The second stage of service is made evident in the stance of surrender. It is the giving over of ourselves to. another in love. As Catholics we are being invited to enter Christ's eternal stance of surrender that is celebrated in every Eucharist. Jesus sacramentalized his total gift of self to God and to us in the giving of his body and his blood at the Last Supper. Historically, that gift was made especially in his passion and death. But the risen Jesus continues to invite us to enter into his eternal stance of surrender in every Eucharist we celebrate. For us, our surrender is measured by all the discrete moments of our life. We might say that, nourished by Jesus' body and blood, we are living "into" our surrender. Finally we come to thai stage of service whose mean-ing we think we have exhausted when we describe activ-ities. It is true that there are many ways of serving as a Christian, and these services are an essential element of living our faith. A faith that is not lived out in action is no faith at all. It is noteworthy that Protestants have often described their Sunday worship as services. Although we Catholics have ordinarily not used this designation, the Mass truly can be identified as a se~'vice, and it contains all the stages of service that we have described. The Liturgy of the Word certainly demands all of tls to be obedient, to be listeners, to be people ready and willing to be formed and directed by God's word. In the Liturgy of the Sacrament we are invited to enter into Jesus' eternal stance of surrender, and we come forward at communion time to ratify that gift and so experience our increasing identity with Christ by letting him be our daily bread. And every Eucharist sends us forth with the mission to share our faith and ~o serve God and his people. At the Last Supper Jesus asked all of us to claim our identity with him by following his example--he signified this by a particular activity as he washed the apostles' feet. Whatever our activities, following the risen Christ, we are identified as "ones who serve." . David L. Fleming SJ ,117 65.2 2006 franciscan MICHAEL BLASTIC Custodians of Franciscan Households legacy In a Newsweek web article posted on MSNBC, Melinda Henneberger wrote that "Katrina has reminded us that Christian morality should be about responding to the wretched and loving the unlovable--not about other people's sex lives" (14 September 2005). While the United States describes itself as a Christian nation, in the aftermath of Katrina we have seen that this label is deceptive. Citing Bill McKibben, "The Christian Paradox" (Harper's, August 2005), who pointed this out, she wrote that American practice really rewards dependency, and so it is better to hold on to your cash. McKibben himself reported on a poll concerning religious practice in the United States. He noted that only four in ten Americans can list more than four of the Ten Commandments, and only five in ten can name the four Gospels. He said that these Michael Blastic OFM presented this paper on Franciscan brotherhood at a province meeting in November 2005. His address is The Franciscan Institute; St. Bonaventure University; St. Bonaventure, New York 14778. Revie~ for Religious statistics really do not matter, but what does matter is that three out of four think the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves" (actually a proverb of Ben Franklin's). Approximately 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian, with about 75 percent claiming they pray to God daily and 33 percent going to church weekly. McKibben points out a number of paradoxes. We are second to last among developed countries in government foreign aid; nearly 18 percent of American children live in poverty--here we come in last among the rich nations-- and 26 percent of households lack sufficient food. We are the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate of four or five times that of Europe. We have prison populations five or six times Europe's rate. We are the only Western democracy that executes its citizens; our marriage breakup rate is more than half, and higher than Europe's. tf one measures Christian identity by Jesus' teaching of helping the less fortunate, we come off poorly indeed. ~ Given these statistics, McKibben argues that Americans have replaced the Christianity of the Bible with another creed which ignores Jesus' radical and demanding focus on the other--"Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus made it clear who the neighbor is--the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. "On and on and on--a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love," to quote McKibben. I know I am not reporting something you do not already know. But I believe that this social context of North America as described by McKibben, visible in the unjust social reality revealed in Katrina's aftermath, is important for reflecting on our Franciscan life. In fact, 1119, 6~. 2 200~ Blastic ¯ Custodians of Frandscan Households such a social context was the occasion for Francis of Assisi's conversion. Here I want to be very clear. Francis of Assisi's conversion was not explicitly, and primarily religious. It was a movement from a social order base& on the creed "God helps them who help themselves" to a social order based on sharing and sacrifice and "Love your neighbor as yourself"--in other words the creed of Jesus. In his conversion Francis first and foremost experienced what it means to be human, and what it implies for social life. The Franciscan movement results from Francis and the brothers learning what is required for human beings to flourish as God intends. From the opposite perspective, it is the medium of fraternity that is the message. A Franciscan fraternity evangelizes to the extent that it embodies human flourishing on the personal, social, and ecclesial levels. First I will describe briefly the early Franciscan experience and vision of fraternal life, and then I will suggest how this may help all of us live our lives as brothers. :120 A Place for Human Flourishing I would describe Franciscan fraternity in this way. I~ is (1) a life lived in brotherhood, (2) experienced in a household, and (3) qualified with patience. I deduce these elements from the Rule of 1223, the Rule that we profess as our form of life. (1) It was the Italian scholar Raoul Manselli who identified Francis's encounter with lepers as the turning point in his conversion. As Francis records in his Testament, that encounter radically rearranged his values and led him to leave the commune of Assisi in order to live with those lepers. He was drawn out of himself so that he could see, perhaps for the first time in his life; the reality of human beings who according to the definitions Review for Religious of life in the commune of Assisi simply did not exist. There was no place in Assisi for the unclean, the unworthy, the unholy, the unbearable, the unlucky, the untouchable, and the unloved. Encountering these suffering human beings, the lepers, Francis showed them a merciful heart. He looked at ., , them and touched them, he stayed with them and shared life with them, he comforted them and served their needs. And Francis tells us he did not do this for himself. He did not go to the~lepers to make himself better. He did not use . them as objects in an ascetical exercise to overcome himself (though this is how hagiographers will understand it). Francis gives the credit for this experiential truth to God: "The Lord led me among them, and I showed them a merciful heart" (Test 2).1 With God's nudge, Francis recognized the lepers as brothers and sisters, as creatures of the same God, as having equal dignity in the eyes of God the Creator. While Assisi's values and practice denied this truth, Francis was led into it by God's grace (what was bitter became sweet), and 'he left Assisi to live among these newly discovered brothers and sisters. Leaving the world of Assisi, Francis ~hus stepped into God's world--creation--where everything was estab-lished by the Creator in relationship. This is the truth that he would later celebrate in the Canticle of the Creatures. Creation sings, creation flourishes, simply by being what it was created to be, by being in relationship with all that exists. In his Testament Francis says, "The Lord gave me some brothers" (Test 14). Experienced as the reality of relationship as established by the Creator, brotherhood is Francis did not go to the lepers to make himself better. 121 65.2 2006 Blastic ¯ Custodians of Franciscan Households embodied in the rule in terms of obedience. According to chapter 2 of the Earlier Rule, after those who come have given everything to the poor as they were able, and after the year of probation has ended for them, "they may be received into obedience" (LR II:l 1). Once received into obedience they may not wander "outside obedience" (ER II: 10). The rule speaks of obedience as a place, the space into which the brothers are received. While monks are received into a monastery after their novitiate probation, Francis's brothers are received into obedience. Obedience becomes a synonym for the space in which the brothers live. What characterizes obedience then is that it is the space of relationship, One could substitute the term relationship for the term obedience throughout the early Franciscan writings and not change the meaning of the texts. The relationships of brotherhood define the space in which the brothers live. This is especially significant given that the rule understands the brothers to be itinerant, even though by 1223 this was beginning to change somewhat. Brothers began living in convents in cities. Brotherhood, then, or better our relationships as brothers, is what defines the space in which to live our life according to the Rule. And, as Francis makes clear, brotherhood is only possible if one. turns toward the other, only if one gets out of oneself and willingly places oneself in relationship to the other. This turning toward others is the basis for contemplation in the tradition; it does not imply separation or solitude, but rather engagement and an ecstatic way of being in the world. A second defining element of Franciscan fraternity is Franciscan mission. After lepers, probably the most recognized symbol of Franciscan life is San Damiano and the speaking crucifix. While this story~appears rather late in the hagiographical tradition (1246), it expresses a fundamental purpose of Franciscan life. Francis received a Review for Religious mission to repair God's house, which was being destroyed: "Francis, don't you see that my house is being destroyed? Go, then, and rebuild it for me" (L3C 13). While in the past we translated those words from the Legend of the Three Companions too simplistically as "Rebuild my church," the hagiographical tradition consistently uses the term house in accounts of this event. And, while Francis initially understood that invitation from the cross to mean the broken-down building of San Damiano, he would come to understand that the mission was rather one of repairing a space in which Frariciscan ' holiness was experienced domestically, the. lives of men and women who have been~.broken and destroyed as human beings can be rebuilt and flourish. House and family are central to the brothers' experience of the Christian life. Their relationship to God is expressed in terms of the household. For instance, in the Second Version of the Letter to the Faithful, we read: And the Spirit of the Lord will rest upon all those men and women who have done and persevered in these things, and it will make a home and dwelling place in them. And they will be the children of the heavenly Father, whose works they do. And they are spouses, brothers, and mothers of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are spouses when the faithful soul is united by the Holy Spirit to our Lord Jesus Christ. We are brothers, moreover, when we do the will of his Father who is in heaven; mothers when we carry him in our heart and body through love and a pure and sincere conscience; and give him birth through a holy activity, which must shine before others by example. (2LtF 48-53) Here we can see that for the early Franciscans holiness was experienced domestically. This suggests two things: 65.2 2006 Blastic ¯ Custodians of Franciscan Households 124 (1) we are family with the Trinitarian God we believe in, and (2) our relationship with this God is accessible and lived in the ordinary, everyday experience of domestic life. This is an important characteristic of Franciscan .practice, and suggests family life and not church life as the means for working out our way to God. How does Francis envision rebuilding God's house? Bonaventure's insight in his Major Legend of St. Francis is right on the mark here. He comments that, after receiving this mission in San Damiano, he eventually moved to St. MaiT~ of the Angels; he "lived there in order to repair it" (LMj II:8). The repair of God's house is not so much the action of preaching or teaching. The repair is accomplished by life in brotherhood itself, by living among and with brothers and sisters. The term conversatio is used to describe this "living among" in two places in the Early Rule. Francis encourages the brothers to rejoice when they "live among (quando conversantur inter viles . . .) people considered of little value and looked down upon" (ER IX:2); and "they can live spiritually (possunt duobus modis spiritualiter inter eos conversant) among the Saracens" (ER XVI:5). Using the Latin word conversatio, the root of the term conversation, the Rule envisages life as a conversation, and depends on the monastic sense of conversatio as manner of life. The brothers' manner of life is thus to be conversational--sharing life with brothers and ~isters in this conversational manner rebuilds the house of God. In another text of the Later Rule, this conversation is described more concretely: I counsel, admonish, and exhort my brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ not to quarrel or argue or judge others when they go about in the world; but let them be meek, peaceful, modest, gentle, and humble, speaking courteously to everyone, as is becoming . Review for Religious Into whatever house they enter, let them first say: "Peace to this house!" According to the holy gospel let them eat whatever food is set before them. (LR III:10- 12, 14) Here we see how for the brothers the mann(r of being with others is the primary means for accomplishing the mission, and is itself the message. The gospel is about life, a way of life, a way of being with and relating to others with the peace that is God's gift freely given in Jesus. The brothers simply speak the gospel honestly with everyone, beginning with one another. But, before the brothers can speak the word of the gospel, they must live the word of the gospel. Here recall the emphasis Celano gives to this fact in his Life of St. Francis, "[Francis] was no deaf hearer of the gospel" (1C 22). Coherence of life and message is the norm. The brothers' honest conversation and engagement with the world and people invites recognition of the presence of the kingdom already in their midst. Conversation, though, is a skill that must be learned, and many of the prescriptions of the rule that describe behavior in a negative way can be read as impediments to the quality of conversa'tion that the brothers engage in as part of their mission. This understanding of household and conversation can be seen in chapter 6 of the Later Rule. There poverty is described as "not making anything one's own" and living as "pilgrims and strangers in this world" and "never seeking anything else under heaven." After describing the brothers' poverty this way as modeled on Jesus Christ, "who made himself poor for us in this world" (LR VI:3), the Rule spells out the implication of this poverty for the life of brotherhood: Wherever the brothers may be and meet one another, let them show that they are members of.the same family. Let each one confidently m~ke known his need 125 65.2 2006 Blasac ¯ Custodians of Frandscan Households to the other, for if a mother loves and cares for her son according to the flesh, how much more diligently must someone love and care for his brother according to the Spirit! (LR VI:7-8) Literally the Rule suggests here that the brothers should demonstrate that they come from the same "household," the same family (ostendunt se domesticos invicem inter se). Thus, having nothing, living itinerantly, and desiring only this, the brothers can be at home in their relationships. The brothers should feel at home in the love and. care they have and express for one another. Poverty is the condition for brotherhood. This is an important consideration because poverty can dehumanize. Rebuilding God's house implies offering an alternative to the dehumanizing effects, of poverty. Today we can include everything from forms of work, to abuse, to social structures. The life of brotherhood should provide for humanizing relationships, expressed in turning toward others in their real needs, and their responding with real and mature care. This house is built by God's Spirit as a place where human beings can flourish. Our fraternal life is meant to help human beings prosper, grow, and thrive as "human persons fully alive" and thus to fulfill our mission to repair God's house. A third dimension of fraternal life has to do with what it means to be human. For me, this knowledge comes with the.stigmata of Francis. The stigmata involves unanswered questions. Thomas of Celano in his Life of St. Francis supplied the time, place, and context for the event of the stigmata, but while doing that he was much more interested in unraveling its meaning. Celano recounts that, while at La Verna two years before his death, Francis "saw in the vision of God a man having six wings like a seraph, standing above him, arms extended and feet joined, fixed to a cross" (2C 94). Celano's words suggest that Francis's vision was of a human person taken up into God, burning with desire (like a seraph), and crucified. They suggest the divinization of the human person. Celano is not describing history here. He is interpreting an event whose full meaning was beyond history. He understands the stigmata as demonstrating the fullest potential of being human embraced by God in the incarnation. In Jesus, God embraced the human condition with all of its limitation, fragility, weakness, and vulnerability and, in this embrace of the human condition, revealed God's own divine nature. I.n other words, the crucified flesh of Christ revealed the nature of God. The event of the stigmata reveals both the meaning of God and the meaning of Jesus Christ's human nature. The humanity embraced by Jesus is the same as Francis lived, to the point of knowing it in his own wounds. Marked with the wounds of Jesus, Francis becomes the leper, an icon of the crucified Jesus. Celano says: "While he was unable to perceive anything clearly understandable from the vision, its newness very much pressed upon his heart. Signs of the nails began to appear on his hands and feet, just as he had seen them a little while earlier on the crucified man hovering above him" (2C 94). Francis becomes what he sees, that is, what he has been seeing from the moment God turned him to the lepers to contemplate humanity there as a living icon of Jesus Christ, crucified and fixed to a cross. What does it mean to be human, then, for the early Franciscans? It means to embrace th~ full reality of the human condition as frail, weak, fragile, and vulnerable, and even scarred and wounded. The human person is an image of the Lamb who was slain, who carries even now in glory the scars of the passion. Being scarred and wounded like Jesus is not about imitating Jesus' suffering and pain on the cross. Rather, it is the consequence of t)27 6~.2 2006 Blastic ¯ Custodians of Franciscan Households self-sacrificing love, of being totally for others, without holding anything back: To be truly human means to bear patiently the human condition of weakness, fragility, and vulnerability. In the stigmata Francis demonstrates that it is possible for a human being to be Godlike, to love as God loved, to be totally and completely for the other, and in addition he demonstrates that human persons are capable of compassion, human persons are capable of bearing the pain of.the other. This, it seems to me, is what the Rule describes as the action of the Spirit of the Lord in one's life: I admonish and exhort the brothers in themLord Jesus Christ to beware of all pride, vainglory, envy and greed, of care and solicitude for the things of this world, of detraction and murmuring. Let those who are illiterate not be anxious to learn, but let them pay attention to what they must desire above all else: to have the Spirit of the Lord and its holy activity, to pray always to him with a pure heart, to have humility and patience in persecution and infirmity, and to love those who persecute, rebuke, and find fault with us. (LRX:7- 0) The eight vices that are listed at the beginning of this text are social vices; they have to do with how one relates to others and to the things of this-world. These vices describe one who is living "from the outside in," that is, one whose meaning and behavior are determined by things, by social position, by prestige, power, and clout, all of which lie outside a person. The Rule admonishes the brothers to a life of poverty, having nothing of one's own and desiring nothing more than the action of God's Spirit. They are not to live from the outside in, but from the inside out, by expressing the Spirit of the Lord in outward behavior. The Spirit transforms us flesh and blood into an image of Jesus, the suffering servant of God. Review for Religious Another way of expressing the action of the Spirit here is in our bearing with everyone and everything in patience and humility. The Saying on True and Pe,fect ffoy, recorded as a conversation between Francis and Leo, says that, as they arrive back at the Portiuncola one night, they are refused entrance because of the time of day and because they are stupid and not needed. They are told to go to the Crosiers for lodging. Francis says that, "if I had patience and did not become upset, true joy as well as true virtue and the salvation of my soul would consist in. this" (TPJ 15). The experience of the 'presence of God so transforms human existence that even persecution and sickness become ways to follow Christ. The experience of the Spirit of the Lord thus expresses itself in patience. The Latin term patiens indicates a willingness to endure or undergo something, to be capable of bearing hardship; it implies that one is vulnerable, able to be wounded. For Francis, patience is an attribute of God. In the--Praises of God, written shortly /. after he experienced-ffie sugrnata on Mount La Verna, he says to God: "You are love, charity; you are wisdom, you are humility, you are patience, you are beauty, you are meekness, you are security, you are rest" (PrG 4). Francis sees Jesus as the face of God, who made himself vulnerable in this world, who exercised patience through life and death. But it is the incarnation even more than the passion and death that Francis looks to, because in the incarnation Jesus put himself into the position of weakness, frailty, vulnerability, and limitation Francis sees Jesus as.the fa~e of God, who made himself vulnerable in this world, who exercised patience through life and death. 6~.2 2006 Blastic * Custodians of Franciscan HouseboMs and. in this revealed the full potential of being human, showing that the acceptance.of human vulnerability is salvific. Here the Rule gets to the heart of Franciscan fraternity because it challenges the brothers to be simply human, to live from the inside out, to be patient in suffering and sickness, to be vulnerable and open to the other, in short, to follow the footsteps of Jesus Christ. Authentic human life can flourish in Franciscan households that are built by brothers who turn toward each other, who engage in honest conversation as a way of life, and who patiently embrace their humanness in weakness, fragility, and vulnerability. Guarding the Franciscan Household The term "guardian" does not appear in the text of the Rule of 1223. It will appear inAater writings such as the Letter to the Entire Order and the Testament. No job description can be found in the early Franciscan writings, but it is understood that as guardian a brother exercises a ministry among brothers on the local level. What the Rule says about the ministry of "those brothers who are the ministers and servants of the others." (LR X:I) certainly applies to guardians. They are to "receive [the brothers] charitably and kindly and have sufficient familiarity with them that these same brothers may speak and deal with them as masters with the servants, for so it must be that the ministers are servants of all the brothers" (LR X:5-6). The ministers must deal with the brothers as family. While this quality of service must characterize the ministers, those who are subjects must also live the sacrificial nature of obedience in their relationships with the ministers and others. This sacrificial quality of obedience. Francis learned from Jesus, especially in his agony in the garden as described in the Second Version of the Letter to the Faithf!~k Rt.view for Religious Then he prayed to his father saying, Father, if it can be done, let this cup pass from me. And his sweat became as drops of blood falling on the ground. Nevertheless, he placed his will in the will of his father saying: Father, let your will be done; not as I will, but as you will. His father's will was such that his blessed and glorious son, whom he gave to us and who was born for us, should offer himself through his own blood as a sacrifice and oblation on the altar of the cross: not for himself, through whom all things were made, but for our sins, leaving us an example that we might follow his footprints. (2LtF 8-13) Jesus' obedience to his father was a struggle to say yes to his father's will, and this is really the only thing Francis says about the passion. Francis never speaks of the pain or suffering of the crucified Jesus, as if the entire passion took place in Jesus' struggle to accept his Father's will. And the Father's will, as Francis describes here, is that Jesus be completely for, others, that Jesus be for us. The passion is about struggling to be for others, and thi~ brings us back to the very nature of what it means to be brother. The brother is one who turns toward others, who is totally for others without holding anything back for himself. This js true obedience, because it is the fulfillment of what it means to be in relationship with others. Given this general sense of service, caring for the Franciscan household might be practiced in the following ways, I. I began with the common American Christian belief and practice that "God helps those who help themselves," a creed that can affect us in various ways. This creed is not authentically Christian, and it is eminently un- Franciscan. It supports behavior and practice that become destructive of God's house. All the brothers are responsible for calling each other to lives of genuine other-centeredness, to lives of authentic obedience 131 65.2 2006 Blastic ¯ Custodians of Franciscan Households experienced as fraternal relationship, and to the poverty of having nothing as one's own. Interdepehdence rather than radical independence, mutuality rather than self-centeredness, arid healthy need rather than the fullness of isolation are true qualities of fraternal life. This kind of fraternity is not a given, nor achieved easily or quickly, but remains the goal toward which we live. The guardian's task of caring for fraternal life implies attention to the absence or presence of creeds that conflict with real fraternal life. II. One hard-to-retrieve aspect of fraternal life today, given our institutional structures, is itinerancy. Francis and his brothers lived as pilgrims and strangers in this An important itinerancy !sAhab., while moving abbut; W~ are .s.t.ill at home with each o her: ° world. They were itinerant brothers, literally. They were "houses" on the road--perhaps medieval versions of mobile homes! Itinerancy was a clear aspect of Franciscan identity in contrast to monks--monastic institutions were terrified of wandering monks, called gyrovagues in Benedict's Rule. The. monastic ideal was stability, and part of the difficulty of fitting mendicants into the structure of the church had to do with their itinerancy. The friars were often perceived mistakenly (?) as monks gone bad. How do we recover that dimension of our life? Perhaps by recovering the meaning of itinerancy as metaphor--by not remaining fixed in one place, by taking different perspectives on the same reality, by always being on the way without ever believing that we have arrived, by not claiming the center for ourselves, and so forth. It is easy to get bogged down in our ministry or work, and to Review for Religious disconnect ourselves from the fraternity for reasons of ministry or work, though there can be valid reasons for this. An important aspect of itinerancy is that while moving about we are still at home with each other; our friaries are parts of a much larger provincial fraternity. For fraternity to be healthy and life-giving, it has to be on the move, never settled into stubborn custom or settled convenience or old fears of anything new o'r different. The fraternity must be on the move in a metaphorical sense in order to stay healthy and focused on its purpose. The fraternity has to be kept on its toes, and the guardians' care for households is an appropriate way of keeping the brothers on the move. III. As we have seen, Francis's mission to repair God's house had to do with the quality of human life. It had to do with a style of life or conversation that was inclusive, respectful, honest, and engaging. Conversation does have guidelines. In his book Plurality and Ambiguity, David TracT says: "In conversation we find ourselves by losing ourselves in the questions provoked by the text. We find ourselves by allowing claims upon our attention, by exploring possibilities suggested by others" (p. 19). He suggests some guidelines for honest conversation: ' Conversation is a game with some hard rules: say only what you mean; say it as accurately as you can; listen to and respect what the other says, however different or other; be willing to correct or defend your opinions if challenged by the conversation partner; be willing to argue if necessary, tQ confront if demanded, to endure necessary conflict, to change your mind if the evidence suggests it." (pp. 18-19) To paraphrase Tracy in Franciscan language, we might say that, to have an honest conversation, one must act according to the real d~mands of being brothers in relationship, one must be for the other in honesty, in 65.2 2006 Blastic ¯ Custodians of Frandscan Households integrity of life, in respectful listening. But Tracy's words, too, have already described the dynamic of a healthy fraternity. Real fraternal life is possible only if the brothers can have honest conversations. This is a real challenge because I can be so convinced of my truth that I cannot hear anyone else's truth. Conversation brings into play the truth about being human that Francis witnessed to in the stigmata--being vulnerable, being able to be touched by another, It takes much effort and practice to engage in honest conversation of this kind. Well worth the effort, the honest and earnest conversation in my fraternity will affect the quality of my presence and ministry outside the fraternity. Honest conversation iwfraternal life will also improve another central aspect of our life together, our prayer. To move beyond communal vocal prayer to faith sharing or shared prayer, honest conversation is important. If I cannot engage my brothers in honest conversation, how will I share my faith deeply with others. Perhaps there is a correlation between the friary chapters that demand honest conversation about life and ministry and the friaries that have much, or at least some, quality faith sharing. While the guardians cannot force this to happen, they can'challenge the brothers to develop friary chapters as an exercise in honest conversation. Moving from honest conversation into shared prayer is a logical and easy step. IV. Perhaps the best description of the guardians, given this description of Franciscan life, is that they are mentors. They support, challenge, inspire, and foster discernment of what is true, worthy, and life-giving among the brothers. You can find. a fine description of the mentor in Big Questions, Worthy Dreams by Sharon Daloz Parks (Jossey-Bass, 2000). She describes a mentoring Review for Religious environment as one that "can and necessarily must assist in creating norms of discourse and inclusion that invite genuine dialogue, strengthen critical thought, encourage connective-holistic awareness, and develop the contemplative mind" (p. 142). Sounds like a tall order, but we have all experienced a mentoring environment. Franciscan fraternity is similar to what she describes: "Mentoring environments are communities of imagination and practice. Humanizing practices, as we use the term here, are ways of life, things that people do with and for each other to make and keep life human" (p. 154). Parks describes three practices of a mentoring community: (1) the practice of the hearth, that is, places that invite reflection and conversation and times for doing this (hopefully the chapter provides this); (2) the practice of the table, not something that Franciscans have problems with generally, but is table time really a priority, or do we do what most Americans and families do today, simply eat on the run and alone in order to get on to something else? (3) the practice of the commons, a place where people meet and share their interdependent lives, a practice of learning how to stand with each other over time. That is a description of the recreation room, "a place within which to confirm a common, connected life. ¯ . that conveys meanings and orients purpose and commitment" (p. 157). Practices .like these facilitate fraternal life and build up the Franciscan household. For me, the religious genius of Francis and the early brothers lies in their ability to appreciate and value the human as the religious. The brothers understood the Gospels as showing us what it means to be really and simply human as brothers and sisters in contrast to social structures that are often antihuman. To be a healthy human brother or sister is to be a holy human person. Our way of being human is the message Francis was 6~.2 2006 Blastic * Custodians of Franciscan Households called to share. God's house is repaired and renewed in brotherhood and sisterhood, where human .life in its weakness, fragility, and vulnerability is embraced and celebrated and endured and supported in patience and healthy relationships, and where honest conversation is practiced and promoted. This is the vision of fraternal life that the early Franciscan writings set out. By our common profession we are all responsible for seeking this goal. The challenge is, I believe, to live that common profession, not in an ideal place, but in the "space" of th~ brotherhood that God has given us. With his brothers, the guardian has to be an expert in being human in order to be an effective servant. The guardian is charged only with calling us to be faithful to what we say we are. The guardian thus invites and challenges us to be fully human and to flourish in fraternal life. The guardian cannot do this or be responsible for this by himself. It takes all of us just as we are in the: glory of our frail, weak, limited, and vulnerable humanity. Our life is not about rapid perfection. Our life is about truth, the truth of the gospel which we embody together as brothers following the example of Francis and his brothers, who simply tried to follow the footprints of Jesus. We are called to be brothers to our brothers, to turn toward each other, to engage each other in honest conversation, to embrace our own and our brothers' weakness, limitation, frailty, and vulnerability. Desiring nothing else but this, we are heirs of the .kingdom of heaven, the place God has created that we may flourish as human beings! (see LR VO. May God give us peace! Review for Religious Note 1 All citations of the early Franciscan writings and of the Franciscan hagiographical texts in this paper are taken from Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Vol. 1, The Saint, and Vol. 2, The Founder, edited by Regis Armstrong, J.A. Wayne Hellmann, and William Short (New York: New City Press, 1999 and 2000). Questions for Reflections / Group Discussion 1. Michael Blastic OFM was addressing guardianship in a particular Franciscan Province. What elements from his presentation do I find applicable to my own life? 2. What do I need to do to make practical in my way of living some of his reflectiOns on livihg together? 3. Have I ever been mentored by someone? If so, what are the effects of my being mentored? Have I ever considered my owr~ role of being a mentor? What would I need to do ? gently her fingers his head against her lap wherein he rested once before held now between her bloody l~ands her head bentover her task carefully removing the thorfis the skin pulling, resistant, bleeding a little even now gently her fingers so as if not to hurt him she winces as the thorns come out Sean Kinsella 65.2 2006 REGIS J. ARMSTRONG Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist I~ was Pope Paul VI who first used the word harisms" officially in the context of consecrated life.1 He did so in his apostolic exhortation of 29 June 1971, Evangelica~ testificatio, ~11, where, in writing about "the charisn{s of founders," he echoed the teachings of chapter 5 of Lumen gentium and those of Perfectae caritatis and, in doing so, challenged consecrated women and men to focus on their unique gifts to the church. Even the most casual observer of the history of consecrated life notices that, since the Second Vatican Council, the vocabulary of consecrated religious is far more conscious and respectful of particular charisms and, among these, the followers of Francis of Assisi are noteworthy. Part of the reason for the Franciscan preoccupation with their unique charism or charisms is a curious difficulty in arriving at objective knowledge of the ever Regis J. Armstrong OFMCap, editor, translator, and author, first presented these reflections on 31 January 2005 to the faculty, staff, and students of the Theological College of The Catholic University of America, where he is a professor: 220 Curley Hall; Washington, D.C. 20064. Review for Religious popular Francis of Assisi. Until the late 1970s much of our knowledge of Francis's spirituality was mediated through the hagiographic literature that surrounds him. Significantly, the 14th-century Little Flowers of Saint Francis was-~-and perhaps remains--the most widely read source for popular knowledge of the 13th-century saint. Strangely, firsthand acquaintance with the saint was limited to three, possiblyfour,'of his writings and, was only broadened when in 1976 a critical edition of his thirty-eight known writings was published and quickly translated.2 "Deceptively simple" is one way of describing those texts. While some might dismiss them because of their transparency, or view them as irrelevant because of their historical context, Francis's gospel insights continue to challenge those who study them, and their timelessness seems to draw an increasing number of reader~. The task before me is to reflect on what the spirituality, let. us say the "charism," of Francis and his followers might offer to priests and others. At this time of Eucharistic emphasis, it seems appropriate to focus on five passages of Francis's writings. The first of these, a short, fundamentally liturgical prayer, appears in the last of the saint's writings, the Testament. In it he recalls the earliest days of the Franciscan fraternity. The second is taken from a set of documents that Francis wrote upon his return from the Islamic world in 1220. The third comes from a collection of writings' that elude dating but reflect a more mature Francis who has come to grips with what gospel spirituality consists of. The remaining .two seem to have been written during the last year of his life. Three prominent gifts emerge in these writings: the gift of faith, the gift of the Spirit, and the gift of the priesthood, three gifts that form a prism through which to gaze upon the Eucharist. I offer you this prism convinced that Francis's writings envision a Eucharist-centered life and, for a 65.2 2006 Armstrong ¯ Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist priest, one that is defined by v~hat he does each day: celebrate what is at the very heart of his life. The Gift of Faith Francis's Testament, written in stages toward the end of,~his life, opens with a set of reminiscences that many see as defining his vision¯ After speaking of his embrace of a leper, the beginning ofhis life of penance, he describes ., o his life of faith. ,!'And the Lord gave me such faith in churches that I would simply pray and speak in this way: "We adore you, O Lord Jesus Christ, here and in all your churches throughout the world, and we bless you, because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.'" The early biographers Thomas of Celano and St. Bonaventure maintain that he later taught this prayer to his very first followers. The prayer is ecclesial and soteriological in nature, expressing as it does an understanding of the role of the church in the accomplishment of redemption. Those familiar with the liturgical texts will recognize it as appearing in the Liber Responsalis of Gregory the Great, where it is an antiphon for matins on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.3 In his Documenta Vitae Religiosae, the monk Arnulphe encouraged its recitation upon entering a church and approaching the (ross.4 What is distinctive, however, is Francis's addition: ". ¯ here and in all the churches throughout the world." His version of the antiphon brings us from the abstract church to a particular, here-and-now church and to those scattered throughout the world. True, Eucharist is not We are made aware,of Francis's understanding the church pla e of encounter or adoratiom Review for Religious present or even implied in the prayer. We are nonetheless made aware of Francis's understanding of the church as the place of encounter or adoration, that is, the sacred space in which the pray-er is reminded of the central place of the cross in our redemption. Curiously, Francis sees this practical, tangible gift of faith as something flowing immediately from the embrace of a life of penance. Should we follow his train of thought in this document, Francis suggests that his discoqery of God's presence began with his encounter with a leper and continued with his entrance into a church, where he discovered what was being asked of him. These Were indeed the first dramatic steps of his spiritual journey, from a chance meeting with the leper to ,his "stumble" into the church of San Damiano, where he discerned his ca|l, His biographers rightly suggest that the two are united, in the Franciscan approach to God, two essential elements on faith's journey,s ,~ Note the focused pragmatism of this passage. The Lord's gift of faith demands expression in the ordina~ day:to-day ebb and flow of life. Francis's faith expresses itself in reverence and respect for the sacred place, the sacred place of encounter. His companions later described him with a broom in his hand gathering the priests of an area and encouraging them to keep clean ,their churches, altars, and everything connected with ~the celebration of the divine mysteries.6 Afew years~ later, the Fourth Lateran Council (canon 20) and Pope Honorius III were to address this matterZ This theme of showing reverence for the place and the accoutrements of worship is easily seen in an exhortation he wrote to all the clergy.8 For years the only existing copy of this was one found in a 13th-century missal in the Benedictine monastery of Subiaco, which boasts of a visit Francis made there during a trip to Rome. This manuscript shows the influence of 65.2 2006 Armstrong ¯ Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist the decrees of Pope Honorius encouraging implemen-tation of the Fourth Lateran decree. Recently, however, an earlier manuscript of the letter was discovered, one that may have been written before or immediately after the council and confirms Francis's insistence on reverence and respect fog churches and sacred vessels.9 In both exhortations a prominent theme emerges, the central place of the Eucharist. Although Francis never uses the word Eucharist, he does write of "the Body and Blood of the Lord," thereby suggesting the concrete way in which he regards the Eucharistic presence of Christ. "In this world," he writes, "we have and see nothing corporaliter [corporally] of the Most High except [his] Body and Blood, and the words through which we have been made and redeemed from death to life." In that light, it is difficult to ignore his repeated encouragement of respect and care for what we might consider the insignificant things of worship: reservation, cleanliness, decorum, even liturgical books.° Once again Francis's addition to that liturgical antiphon--"here and in all your churches throughout the world"--emerges, so'that we see a faith that is not cerebral or otherworldly, but practical and down-to-earth. Corporaliter! If the Most High chooses to come to us corporaliter, then we. must carefully respect the matters of our worship corporaliter, in simple specific ways. Francis repeatedly and simply calls his followers to be attentive to the details of worship. These are instruments with which God enables us to proceed, in Hugh of St. Victor's words, "from the visible to the invisible." The Gift of the Spirit This leads us to an undated set of Francis's writings: his Admonitions, a title that does not express well in English the nature of these twenty-eight teachings. Each "admonition" simply presents a few biblical passages or l~evie~ for Religious images and then some practical application to daily life. This form is a common catechetical tool used by medieval instructors in the faith.~° The first admonition begins with a series of biblical passages that initially seem unrelated unless they0are viewed as examples of "seeing and believing." Francis's starting point in this first admonition is the struggles of faith of the apostles Thomas~and Philip, given that God "dwells in unapproachable light,' and "no one has ever seen God." He proceeds to the role of the Holy Spirit, who enables them and us to see things differendy, to see with what Tl~omas F. Torrance calls the Spirit's "epistemological relevance." l~ In this .way Francis leads us into the very heart of trinitarian life--the Father looks upon the Son in the Spirit, and the Son looks upon the Father in the Spirit. Francis challenges us to understand what spirituality is, namely, a Spirit-filled life: All those who saw the Lord Jesus according to the humanity and did not see and believe according to the Spirit and the Divinity that he is the true Son of God were condemned. Now, inthe same way, all those who see in the form of bread and wine the sacrament that is consecrated [literally, sanctified] at' thd altar by the Lord's words through the agency of the priest, and who do not see and believe according to the Spirit and the Divinity that it is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, are condemned. To be sure, the challenge of seeing and believing is prominent, but it is cast in the context of the Spirit and the Divinity. Many commentators on Francis's writings suggest that his vision of the spiritual life is besv defined by a simple statement found in his Rule: "Let [the brothers] pay attention to what they must desire above all else: the Spirit of the Lord and its holy activity." ~2 This being the case, the Spirit's activity in making Christ the center of our lives is primary and, in this instance, 143 65.2 2006 Armstrong ¯ Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist 14'4 becomes the medium through which we gaze. upon Christ. The Spirit brings us to gaze upon Christ with "the eyes" of the Father and, by our conformity with Christ, to gaze upon the Father with "the eyes" of the Son. We are confronted with what Catherine Mowry LaCugna calls "the practical Trinity" and with Karl Rahner's words: "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity.''t3 Far mor~ simply, Francis understands the Spirit as calling us to look upon both the incarnation and the Eucharist in a trinitarian way, seeing the incarnate Lord Jesus and the Eucharistic Lord Jesus as the Father does, with.the eyes of the Holy Spirit. As Francis describes it in the first of his ~ldmonitiones, the Spirit's presence in our lives challenges us on three levels with each celebration of the Eucharist. It reminds us of the incarnation, with the Son's daily embrace of humility, self-emptying, and vulnerability: "Behold, he humbles himself each d~ay (Ph 2:8) as when he came from the royal throne into the Virgin's womb (Ws 18:15); each day he himself comes to us, appearing humbly; each day he comes down from the bosom of the Father (Jn 1,: 18) upon the altar in the hands of a priest." The Spirit's presence also prompts alertness to the revelation that comes from the Eucharist as well as from the incarnation itself: "As [the Son] revealed himself to the holy aposdes in true flesh, so he reveals himself to us in the same way in sacred bread." Finally, in light of this, the Spirit's presence fosters contemplation of the Eucharist with what Francis calls, in words reminiscent of Bernard of Clairvaux, ".spiritual eyes" 14: "And as they saw only his fleshwith their physical sight, yet believed that he was God as they conteInplated him with their spiritual eyes, let us, as we see bread and wine with our bodily eyes, see and firmly believe that they are his most holy Body and Blood living and true." , Revie~v for Religious These three sentences from Francis's Admonitiones provide insight into his understanding of a Spirit-filled life. We could concentrate on these thoughts about Jesus' humility, self-emptying, and vulnerability, or we could focus on his encouragement of "adoration," that primary Spirit-inspired activity which many commentators consider the heart of his theology of prayer. There is another, more noteworthy contribution, however, that Francis makes to Christian spirituality, one that gets overlooked: his concern that our lives be conformed to the Eucharist, that they somehow imitate the life of the Eucharistic Christ. Curiously, very little has been written about this, possibly because of that troublesome word imitation, a word Francis never uses and one that enters strongly into the vocabulary of Christian spirituality only in the 14th, not the 13th, century.15 The more common word for this was conformity. Bernard of Clairvaux says wonderfully that Christ is the form to which deformed man must conform in order to be reformed. One is called to bring one's form into line with the form that is Christ. In the spiritual literature of the time, this is brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit. Contemplation of Christ in the Eucharist, contemplation with "spiritual eyes," is primarily the Spirit's doing.16 In Francis's understanding of the call, the Eucharist demands the daily embrace of the virtues of humility, self-emptying, and vulnerability that the Incarnate Word lives and reveals each day. The Eucharist demands the daily embrace of the virtues of humility, self-emptying, and vulnerability that the Incarnate Word lives and reveals each day. 65.2 2006 Armstrong * Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist 1461 The Gift of Priesthood This brings us to selections from Francis's last two writings, the first of which is actually a return to Francis's very last, his Testament, with which these reflections began. After reflecting upon the gift of faith, Francis continues: Afterwards the Lord gave me--and gives me still-- such faith in priests who live according to the rite of the holy Roman church because of their orders that, were they to persecute me, I would still have recourse to them. And if I had as much wisdom as Solomon and found .impoverished priests of this world, I would not preach in their parishes against their will. And I desire to respect, love, and honor them and all others as my lords. And I do not want to consider any sin in them because I discern the Son of God in them and they are my lords. And I act thus because in this world I see nothing corporally of the Most High Son of God except his most holy Body and Blood which they receive and they alone administer to others. It is a rather curious statement coming from a man facing death, one that contains bits and pieces that tantalize biographers of Francis and historians of the Franciscan movement. There are sufficient anecdotes in the early lives of Francis to suggest that he was indeed ridiculed, abused, and demeaned. More significant are the number of papal decrees insisting that Francis and his brothers be given permission to preach, suggesting that doors were indeed being slammed in their faces. The dying Francis transcends all this and leaves as his legacy an example of "respect, love, and honor" for priests as those who are his superiors, his "lords." Once again that refrain surfaces: "I see nothing corporaliter of the Most High Son of God." Here it does so in reference to priests, who "receive. and administer to others" the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord. All Review for Religious that he may have endured--persecution, being taken advantage of, imposed on--is put into context. Francis refuses even to take notice of a priest's sin--that judgment, he maintains, belongs only to God--because of the priest's sacerdotal intimacy with the Eucharist, with the Body and Blood of the Lord. Naive? Simplistic? Challenging? In our day especially, these attitudes seem unrealistic and, in light of recent scandals, disingenuous. To understand them, we must turn to passages from the last and perhaps most beautiful of Francis's writings, one that almost certainly was written at the same time as his Testament, that is, at the end of his life. Only a man comfortable with himself could have written The Letter to the Entire Order. While clearly written by the "inspirational" figure of the brotherhood, by Francis himself, the letter does not hesitate to admit to negligence or weakness, to being "ignorant or unlettered" and "useless and unworthy." Many of its themes resonate with Francis's earlier writings, especially those on the Liturgy of the Hours and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The maturity of Francis's Eucharistic spirituality, however, appears clearly in this passage: Kissing your feet, and with all the love of which I am capable, I implore all of you brothers to show all possible reverence and honor to the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom that which is in heaven and on earth is brought to peace and reconciled to theall-powerful God. This comes from the Francis who a year or so earlier had the mystical experience of Greccio, where the Christ Child appeared in his arms. This comes from the Francis who shortly afterwards had that other mystical experience of Christ Crucified, which left him with the stigmata. This comes from the Francis who then composed one of the most mystical of all writings, The Canticle of Brother i147 65.2 2006 Armstrong * Francis's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist 148 Sun, where his vision of the peace and reconciliation brought by Christ to all creation is expressed in remarkable poetry. In light of this, what follows is one of his most penetrating challenges: In the Lord I also beg all my brothers who are, or who will be, or who desire to be priests of the Most High that, whenever they want to celebrate Mass, pure themselves, they offer the true sacrifice of the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ with purity and reverence, with a holy and unblemished intention, not for any worldly reason or out of fear or love of someone, intending to please human beings. But, desiring by the sacrifice to please only the most high God himself, let every will be directed to God as far as grace makes possible because there he himself acts alone as he pleases. Here we see the call of the priest to live corporaliter in light of the life corporaliter of Christ now revealed in the Eucharist. The call to purity and to celebrate with purity, the call to be single-minded, and the call to have my every desire directed by God comes from an ongoing call to conversion. The example of the reverence of Mary, the Mother of God, and of the Baptist help bring that call to us. Francis's challenge is simple yet profound: "See your dignity, my brothers [who are] priests, and be holy because He is holy. As the Lord God has .honored you above all others by this ministry, for your part love, revere, and honor him above all others. It is a great misery and a miserable weakness when you have him present in this way and are concerned with anything else in the whole world!" Tree-Huggersmbut Much Much More What does Francis of Assisi, a medieval, Umbrian- Italian mystic offer to American priests in this vital endeavor? My good friend Luke Patrick O'Connell once Review for Religious teased me by characterizing Franciscans as "tree-huggers." Luke, however, was introducing a rather profound discussion on the theological concept of charism. He was attempting to draw me out on what the followers of Francis contribute today to the life and growth of the church. It is a good question, one with which I continue to struggle on many different levels. Pope John Paul once observed that what makes Francis of Assisi so appealing to people of all ages and cultures is his dominant image of God: the One who is all good. "It is what makes you optimists," he suggested, "and, therefore, prophets of hope." Francis's biographers Thomas of Celano and Saint Bonaventure wrote that "he savored in each and every creature, as in so many rivulets, the Fountain of Divine Goodness." In Francis's own writings, however, it is clear that he found God's goodness, the gifts of faith and of the Spirit, more and more overwhelming in the mystery of the Eucharist. In the light of that gift, the daily revelation of God's incredible goodness in his Son, the priesthood became for Francis a reflection of what Eucharist is all about: God's daily humility, self-emptying, and vulnerability. In a word, the Christ of the Eucharist defines the priest! One's sacerdotal character must be molded by the Eucharistic Jesus, who each day places himself in the hands of this priest. Clare of Assisi frequently comes to mind in pondering the mystery of a vocation. Clare begins her own Testament Francis found God's goodness, the gifts of faith and of the Spirit, more and more overwhelming in the mystery of the Eucharist. 1149 6Y. 2 2006 Ar~nstrong ¯ Francis~s Cbaris~n, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist reflecting on the role Francis played in that call. She writes: "Among the other gifts we have received and do receive each day, and for which we must express the deepest thanks to our glorious God, there is our vocation, which the more perfect and greater it is, the more are we indebted to him. Therefore the Apostle [writes]: 'Recognize your vocation.'" In her theology, the vocation is given anew each day and demands each day our most profound thanks. For a priest, Francis would add, each day that gift and that gratitude for the priesthood grow in intensity as the daily celebration of the Mystery of Faith ever so gently teaches the priest its meaning. Thus he writes: Let everyone be struck with fear, the whole world tremble, and the heavens exult when Christ, the Son of the living God, is present on the altar in the hands of a priest! O wonderful loftiness and stupendous condescension! O sublime humility! O humble sublimity! The Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles himself that he hides himself under a little piece of bread! See the humility of God, brothers, and pour out your hearts before him! Humble yourselves that you may be exalted by him! Hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves, that he who gives himself totally to you may receive you totally! Notes ~ Information on charisms may be found in Elizabeth McDonough, "Charisms and Religious Life," Review for Religious 52 (1993): 646- 659. Review for Religious 2 Die Opuscula des H1. Franziskus yon Assisi: Neue Textkritische Edition, ed. Kajetan Esser (Grottaferrata, Rome: Collegio S. Bonaventura di Quaracchi, 1976). This text was the basis for Francis" and Clare: The Complete Works, trans, and intro, by Regis J. Armstrong and Ignatius C. Brady (New York: Paulist Press, 1982). All translations from the writings of Francis and Clare are taken from this volume, though sometimes modified. 3 Gregory the Great, LiberResponsalis (PL 78,804). 4 Arnulphe de Boeriis, Documenta Vitae Religiosae (PL 184, 1177): "Deinde, veniens ad ecclesiam, pone manum super ostium, et dic: Exspectate hic, cogitationes malae, intentiones et affectus cordis, et appetitus carnis. Tu autem, anima mea, intra in gaudium Domini Dei tui, ut videas voluntatem Domini, et visites templum ejus. Sicque veniens ante crucem dic: 'Adoramus te, Christe, et benedicimus tibi.'" (Coming to a church, put your hand on the door and say: Wait here, evil thoughts, intentions, and inclinations of my heart and desires of my flesh. You, though, my soul, enter into the joy of the Lord your God, so that you may see the Lord's will and enter his temple. And so, coming before the cross, say: "We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you.") s See Franqois de Beer, La Conversion de Saint Francois (Paris: ]~ditions Franciscaines, 1963). 6 "Assisi Compilation" 60, in The Founder, Vol. 2 of Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J.A. Wayne Hellmann, and William J. Short (Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2000), pp. 162-163. 7 For the texts of both Canon 20 of the Fourth Lateran Council and Sane cure olim or Expectavimus bactenus of Innocent III, see The Saint, Vol. 1 of Francis of Assisi: Early Documents (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1999), pp. 53c. 55a. Hereafter The Saint. 8 See The Saint, pp. 54-55. 9 See The Saint, pp. 52-53. ~0 See Regis J. Armstrong, "The Prophetic Implications of the Admonitions," in Francescanesimo e Profezia (Roma: Laurentianum, 1986): pp. 386-464. ~ Thomas F. Torrance, "The Epistemological Relevance of the Holy Spirit," in God and Rationality (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 165-192. t2 For a full exposition of the theme, see Optatus van Asseldonk, "The Spirit of the Lord and Its Holy Activity," Greyfriars Review 5 (1991): 103-158. ,3 Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. Joseph Donceel (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970); "Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise 'De 151 65.2 2006 Armstrong ¯ Frands's Charism, Tree-Huggers, and the Eucharist Trinitate,'" Theological Investigations, Vol. 4 (New York: Seabury Press, 1974), pp. 77-102. 14 Karl Rahner, "The Doctrine of the 'Spiritual Senses' in the Middle Ages," Experience of the Spirit: Source of Theology, Vol. 16 of Theological Investigations (New York: Crossroad, 1983), pp. 104-134. ~s Edouard Cothenet et al., Imitating Christ, vol. 5 of Religious Experience series (St. Meinrad, Indiana: Abbey Press, 1974); Andr4 Rayez, "The Golden Age of Medieval Devotion: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries," in Jesus in Christian Devotion and Contemplation, vol. 1 of Religious Experience series (St. Meinrad: Abbey Press, 1974), pp. 44-85. ~6 This sentiment finds an echo in John Paul II's Dominicae Coenae: "Eucharistic worship., is precisely the expression of that love which is the authentic and deepest characteristic of the Christian vocation . A living fruit of this worship is the perfecting of the image of God that we bear within us, an image that corresponds to the one that Christ has revealed to us." Quoted in L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 26 January 2005, p. 12. Palm Sunday Dear Lord, ride into my heart today on the stubborn mule of my own self-rule. These garments strewn along your way are the little things to which my will clings. 0 Christt. let your triumph be complete: let nothing remain proud, stubborn, or vain. I lie surrendered at your feet. Now, let my voice raise Hosannas of praiser. Agnes Cunningham SSCM Review for Religious ¯ JULIUS D. LELOCZKY Imitation of Mary and the Religious Vocation The great Carmelite martyr St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, better known as Edith Stein, wrote somewhere: "The imitation of Mary includes the imitation of Christ because Mary is the first Christian to follow Christ. Indeed, that is why the imitation of Mary is relevant not only to women but to all Christians." Let us meditate briefly on how religious life can be an "imita-tion of Mary." From all eternity Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of the Redeemer, and she was called at the annunciation. We, too, have been chosen and called: "God chose us in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him" (Ep 1:4). By this call and her response, Mary became a daughter of God in a special way; she became the new, obedient Eve. Just as Mary must have Julius D. Leloczky OCist joined the Cistercians in Hungary in 1953, later studied in Rome, and in 1964 was sent to the abbey where he continues to live: Cistercian Abbey; 3550 Cistercian Road; Irving, Texas 75039. 6Y.2 2006 Leloczky ¯ Imitation of Mary and the Religious Vocation wondered why was she chosen, we, too, can ask our-selves: "Why me? Out of the millions of people, why me?" The answer is that it is a mystery, the mystery of love. What happens to us is what happened to the rich young man: "Jesus looked at him, and he loved him" (Mk 10:21). The call of each of us is a call for a unique, spe-cial task, one that no one else can accomplish. Our response should mirror the love of the One who called us, but we are called not just to do a job; we are called to give a loving response. The call has, like a coin, two sides: we are called away from something and we are called to do something, called for something. From the moment the angel appeared to Mary, her whole life was changed. She was no longer her own person, she belonged to Someone else. We have been called away from the average or "normal" way of life, from starting a family, from having a civilian job, from having our own home, car, property. We have been called to a loving unconditional surrender, offering ourselves as Mary did: "I am the maidservant of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." We have been called for a life-long adventure of love, and we do not know where this love will take us. As religious, we have been called to conceive the Word of God in our heart and soul. This conception is "virginal" because it takes place entirely between God and ourselves, without the intervention of anybody else. We have been called to give the Word of God, the Son of God, to others. We can do it only if first we ourselves have conceived Him, carried him in the womb of our soul, nurtured him, let him grow inside us, from our-selves-- if not from our flesh and blood, certainly from our personality. Just as Jesus must have had much like-ness to his Mother, the Word growing within us will take on our likeness. This Word, however, is not just an intel- Review for Religious lectual idea. It does not reside only in our intellect; it must penetrate our entire being, our whole existence. Disciples are not tape recorders to replay the words exactly as we heard them. Sifted through our personali-ties, God's words have to take on the special shade or tint of what we are as persons, just as the gospel of Jesus Christ is different from the pen of Mark and John. Mary's virginity was fruitful; the unmarried state of a religious also must be fruitful. Members of religious orders, when answering God's call to an unmar-ried way of life, do not choose to live in lifeless sterility. They do not give up either love, pas-sion, or motherhood or fatherhood. They just practice them in a dif-ferent way, living, by God's grace, their ability to love on a higher level. Their fruitfulness realizes itself in two ways. Like Mary, they become mothers of the Word of God, and mothers or fathers of many spiritual children. The birth of a child is preceded by birth pangs. No one expressed more dramatically the pain of giving birth to God's word than Jeremiah: "O Lord, you have deceived me, and I let myself be :deceived. You are stronger than I, and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day. Everyone mocks me . If I say, 'I will not mention him or speak any more in his name,' there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot bear it" (Jr 20:7,9). To give birth to God's Word is a painful but irresistible duty. It is painful to commu- Members of religious orders, when answering God's call to an unmarried way of life, do not choose to live in lifeless sterility. 65.2 2006 Leloczky ¯ Imitation of Mary and the Religious Vocation 1,56 nicate the Word to others; it is difficult to put Christ's message into human words, to pass on to others Jesus himself and not just our own ego. It can be painful to give Jesus to others, because some people will not accept him, will show a hostile attitude toward him and us, will resist and reject him and us. Yet we have to go on, to continue undeterred, remembering God's word to Jeremiah: "And I, behold, I make you this day a forti-fied city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land" (Jr 1 : 18). If we proclaim God's word, we become parents, and those who listen to us will become our children. This is so even in the case of contemplative religious. It is not by accident that St. Th~r~se of Lisieux has been chosen the patron saint of the missions. If we think back to our young years, we can recall some special persons in our lives whom we can consider our spiritual mothers or fathers. As we advance in age, the roles become reversed, and we should be spiritual parents for others. But it is a frightening realization that we proclaim the Word more by our deeds than by our words; our words and deeds should communicate the gospel message in perfect har-mony. St. Paul dared to set himself as a model for the early Christians. "Imitate me," he wrote. We may shy away from saying the same, but we know that our words will be credible only if they are lived and made a reality in our daily lives. Just as Mary was with Jesus at the wedding at Cana, so she is with us in our apostolic prayer and activity. When we are in any special need, she will tell her Son: "They have no wine." Just as in Cana, with the refined sense of a woman, a housewife, a mother, she perceives if something is missing, if there is a problem, and she will intervene. And, even if Jesus showed some reluc-tance first, Mary knows that her Son will help, and she Review for Religious will tell us to "do whatever he tells you." The interven-tion of the saints is powerful, but the efficiency of Mary's intercessory prayer is unparalleled. Just recall the words of the famous Memorare prayer of the great Cistercian saint Bernard of Clairvaux: "Never was it known that anyone who fled to your protection was left unaided." A mother's life is an unstoppable process of gradual separation from her child. Only during pregnancy can she have the feeling that the child is completely hers. After the baby has been born, as the child is growing, it will spend more and more time away from home, away from its mother. During adolescence the child will claim an ever greater independence. After he or she finishes school and starts a family, the separation will be com-plete. Mary, too, had this painful experience. The twelve-year- old Jesus remained in the temple: "I must be in my Father's house." During his public ministry Jesus called his disciples mother and brothers and sisters, thus in a way pushing away from himself his biological family. On the cross, Jesus gave a mere disciple to his mother in place of himself. Look at Michelangelo's Pietb, this Magnificat prayer carved into marble, and see Mary's generous surrender. Even after all her trials and suffer-ings, she was still the humble handmaid of the Lord. There are two ways of experiencing this separation: (a) to live without the experience of Jesus' presence or close-ness and (b) to allow our spiritual children to grow up and go off and live their lives. Mary, by her suffering and agony, added something to the redeeming sufferings of her Son. Similarly, by car-rying our daily crosses (their heaviness may change from time to time), we complement "what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the church" (Col 1:24). Our sufferings can be physical or spiritual or emotional. They may take the form of sickness, exhaus- 6Y.2 2006 Leloczky ¯ Imitation of Mary and the Religious Vocation tion, frustration, or burnout, They may be caused by the very people for whose sake we are spending our days and burning our energies, as when the crowd shouted at Jesus, "Crucify him!" We may be attacked or accused without reason, we may be slandered, or we may feel abandoned as Jesus did when he cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But we should not forget that the sadness lasted only three days. Imagine Mary's joy at Jesus' resurrection, at her encounter with her risen Son. The same joy is waiting for us. We just have to persevere, to continue imitating Christ by imi-tating Mary faithfully, day after day. 158 Prayer Slowly and meditatively pray the Memorare prayer. Remember, 0 most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help, or sought your intercesson was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto you, 0 Virgin of virgins, my Mother; to you do I come, before you I stand, sinful and sorrowful. 0 Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in your mercy hear and answer me. Amen Review for Religious MARY JOSEPH SCHULTZ Just Because I Said So Sohifting numbers, median ages, and the geography f religious life over the past several decades and today as well do not cause me to pause and reflect on whether we have a future, as many religious have recently been wondering. I believe that religious life most defi-nitely does have a future. For each individual commu-nity, where that future goes must be carefully discerned in the Spirit. But there are other questions with less clear answers. What impels us to go on? What can we offer new members to quench their thirsty hearts once they join us? I would like to reflect on one word as the answer to both these questions--commitment. It is not a popular word today in a mobile and disposable society such as ours. The word commitment is at one and the same time a sign of contradiction to some and a challenge and cause for hope to many others. In some circles a lifelong com-mitment to religious life has fallen under examination in recent years. For my part, I cannot buy into the notion Mary Joseph Schultz SCC, president of Assumption College for Sisters, wrote for us in 2003. Her address is 350 Bernardsville Road; Mendham, New Jersey 07945. 65.2 2006 Schultz ¯ ~tst Because I Said So of a limited commitment to religious life just as I can-not buy into the idea of a temporary marriage commit-ment. As religious we vow ourselves to a God unseen but not unknown. We embrace centuries-old charisms of peo-ple whose lives and lifestyles were shaped by grace amid definite historical settings and cultural needs. We set aside wealth, sexual activity, and the disposition of our own will in freely choosing poverty, chastity, and obedi-ence for life. It is imperative that we study our own com-mitments in gratitude--and that we find ways to convey its challenge, meaning, and joy to Generations X and Y-- if we truly have hope in our communities' future. Our brothers and sisters in community who celebrate fifty, sixty, and even seventy-five years of religious life overflow with peace and joy in their long, faithful, and fruitful commitments, just as their married counterparts do who celebrate their golden anniversaries. What is their secret? Why and how have they survived and thrived in a world of instant gratification, noise, infi-delity, moral weakness, and faltering leadership and through forty years of post-Vatican II experimentation, discussion, renewal, and change in their communities? They would probably answer the question very simply: "I am still here because I said I would be." Sefin Sammon, in his wise and prophetic book Religious Life in America, speaks of the impact of public commitment to the evangelical counsels: "In carrying out our ministry in a spirit of selfless service, we witness further to countercultural values. How? By avoiding the all too familiar and tragic betrayal of consecrated life that occurs when we give our heart away generously at the time of first commitment, and then take it back, bit by bit, with each passing year" (p. 92). Commitment is not widely modeled for today's youth, either in families or in society at large. Hedonism and Review for Religious materialism erode the very notion of a committed life. The rapidity and challenge of change surround every aspect of our culture today. Opting out of anything dis-agreeable or tiresome is only a mouse-click away. Young people are constantly in and out of hobbies, activities, and relationships without so much as a glance back-ward. Often parents try to be supportive by signing them up for lessons, buy-ing instruments and sports either in families or equipment and providing taxi service to and from in society at large. appointments and games. For the young, broad arrays of opportunity and experience soon become bor-ing- or become irritatingly impossible when parental money or patience runs short. Entering my community as an aspirant in my teens in the late 1960s, I truly aspired to living religious life. It was hard for me and for those my age to understand all the post-Vatican II talk about "returning to your foundress's charism." Certainly we should already be who we say we are! Why wouldn't we be, and how could we not be? Naive teenage questions. But, from the moment I left home to enter as a sophomore, my heart was com-mitted to my dream, and I was just a little puzzled by what I saw and heard going on around me. Wasn't every sister as committed as I thought she was or should be? Through the difficult weeks of homesickness, a cer-tain degree of stubbornness and a huge amount of grace sustained me. I knew my choice was right. From my early years my family realized that I was serious about being a sister. It was all I talked about and I only had to wait (impatiently) until I was old enough to be accepted. My Commitment is not widely modeled for today's youth, 65.2 2006 Scbultz ¯ s~ust Because I Said So ,° 1 21 older siblings at times "tested" me and offered their opin-ions about my leaving home at fourteen. But my parents were supportive in their quiet and undemonstrative way. They were proud of me, I knew, loved the sisters, and backed me up at each step. One day shortly before I was set to leave, my mother said, "You know, you really can change your mind. You don't have to go just because you said so." I believe she wanted to give me a last chance to back out with minimal embarrassment. My reply was simple: "I know, Morn, but I want to be a sister." From that day on no more was said. My father died a year later, and my mother was proud of my life choice. She later became a lay associate in my community. Mom's words often ring in my ears: "Just because you said so." Certainly I am not the same person I was at fourteen, but there are traces of that determined girl still inside. I am not the same person I was at final profession twenty-five years ago. But there is one thing I pray never changes, that I am a woman of my word. To me this is a very positive quality. While "just because I said so" can deteriorate into an authoritarian dictate held over the head of a student (and I confess to having resorted to it more than once in a classroom of questioning teens), these same words are to me a sign of fidelity and com-mitment. I gave my word and I intend to keep it, not grudgingly but joyfully. Whether from genetics or my serious temperament or both, when I tell someone I am going to do some-thing, I make it my business to follow through. This can lead to scrupulosity or unhealthy guilt if I am not care-ful. I can place unrealistic expectations on myself (or on others through transference) as I strive to pray for all the prayer requests, write all those notes, make those phone calls, or do those favors that I promised I would. As I have noticed, other temperaments seem to have no Review for Relig4ous problem breaking those promises, skipping those phone calls, or never getting back to me, but they also have fewer sleepless nights. I believe that giving my word to others is about the best I can give them. In this I share God's own view-- giving God's Word was the best of gifts. Giving my word to God on my profession day symbolized all of me with nothing held back. This perpetual commitment, lived out one day, one moment, at a time, is a beautiful gift that I hope to never take back or take for granted. Not knowing the trials, temptations, or dryness that lay ahead could not lessen the fullness of the gift. In fact it only served to increase the value. God took me at my word, and the journey of religious life has been remarkable. Unlike in a marriage vow, I am guaranteed the fidelity of my Partner, and if there is any cooling in the relationship it can only be on one side! "Just because I said so" is in itself hardly a solid enough motivation for perseverance. These words can easily reflect mere stubbornness or the desire to prove something to myself or others. I have seen some sisters leave the community, even after final profession, because this motivation to please self or a parent was the sole force behind their entering religious life. If love, humility, and grace do not underlie my words, then I am foolish and my life is a sham and an exercise in self-righteousness. Giving my word verbally and on the vow formula signed on the altar came after long years of trial and preparation. My commitment was not made as a naive religious wearing rose-colored glasses. I had seen many "heroes" leave the community, had watched the divi-siveness of Vatican II experimentation, and had been asked to step forward and take my place as a responsible member of the community. Publicly pronouncing the words "I vow to almighty God perpetual chastity, 6~ .2 2006 Schultz ¯ ~st Because I Said So poverty, and obedience" was the best I could do, then and now. I would do it all over again today, even know-ing what would lie ahead. I would once again give my word. At the time of my entrance, I believe I had it much easier because, while there were hundreds of communi-ties, my familiarity with them was very limited. Many girls entered a community whose members had taught them or with whom there was already a relative or a close association. This is not the case today, especially with so few religious left in the classrooms. A young person discerning religious life today has a greater challenge than I did forty years ago, partly because of the wide array, of choices open to her. Even after deciding to become a religious, someone could literally spend years of her life visiting monasteries and convents for "Come and see" weekends. With the easy availability of appeal-ing vocation literature and online access, a serious and thorough examination of multiple communities might even turn her into a delayed vocation! What is it that makes a young woman decide on a particular community? What makes a heart resonate and feel at home with one group rather than another? I feel that, when all is said and done, communities must sim-ply be who they say they are. Authenticity is the key that will unlock commitment. After forty years of communal soul-searching, it is time for communities simply to move on. It is time to claim who we are, corporately commit to the charism, and put all our energies into authentic liv-ing of our foundress's spirit here and now in the 21st century. There can be no going back. Now is the time for simply joining hands, holding tight, and boldly moving ahead according to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. This is the gift we have to offer new members, a gift that will enliven our future. Review for Religious Young people, seeking authentic community, will go where they find the real deal. And how can such a com-munity survive today except through common prayer, deep spirituality, shared vision and lifestyle, corporate witness, and joyful life in the Spirit of Jesus. This is what they seek, hoping against hope that such groups exist and will provide them with the challenge they desire so ardently. We have a responsibility to live up to our word. We are here because we said we would be. I am here because I said so. And is this not a Godlike quality--giving one's word? God's Word and our own are why we are all here in the first place. Personal Reflection / Group Conversation 1. What has been my experience of "growing into a com-mitment"? 2. What led me to joining this religious congregation of which I am a member? 65.2 2006 religious VIMAL TIRIMANNA Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correct"? implications In January 2002, I was in a bus on my way from Colombo to Kandy, Sri Lanka. Next to me in the same seat was a Buddhist monk. He was very friendly and kept me engaged in a lively con-versation on various matters about our two reli-gions till we reached Kandy, a journey of some three hours. At one stage he wanted to know why the cardinal archbishop of Boston had to resign (an issue widely reported in our local newspapers). I said that it was due to allegations (especially by the media) of his not having made responsible decisions regarding several errant priests of his archdiocese who were involved in sexual abuse. The Buddhist monk was visibly surprised, for till then he was of the opinion that the archbishop had to resign because he him-self was involved in sexual abuse. This Buddhist monk may be excused for his inaccurate impres-sion, but one wonders how many of our own Vimal Tirimanna wrote for us in May-June 2001. His address until October 2006 is Redemptorists; Frangipani; No. 80 Ampitiya Road; Kandy, Sri Lanka. Review for Religious Catholics, including religious and priests, are unaware of why Cardinal Law had to resign. If the factors and reasons that led him to resign from the prestigious Archdiocese of Boston had been applied to various other bishops and religious superiors around the world today, one wonders how many would have had to follow Cardinal Law and resign their posts. It is no exaggeration to say that, in cases of sexual abuse and also in other crucial areas of priestly and religious life, a good number of church leaders are badly wanting in their pas-toral responsibility and accountability towards their sub-jects and institutes. This arises from not making responsible timely decisions, decisions that ought to have been made for the common good of the diocese or reli-gious congregation and for the good of the church. Note that in this article we are not dealing with an occasional failure to make a responsible decision, which is some-thing normal since bishops and superiors are human; we are dealing with habitual negligence to make decisions on the part of bishops and religious superiors. Consistent, habitual evasion of making decisions has contributed immensely to the contemporary difficulties in priestly and religious life and in church life in general. This is the main point of this article. I write this article from my fifteen years of experi-ence as a retreat preacher to the clergy (both diocesan and religious) in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, and also from the experience I gained from my close association with major superiors as president of the Conference of the Major Religious Superiors of Sri Lanka (for two terms, four years) and from being the major superior of the Redemptorists in Sri Lanka (for three terms, nine years). I limit myself here to consecrated life and then to show-ing how the irresponsibility and unaccountability of a good number of religious superiors have contributed to 6Y.2 2006 Tirimanna ¯ Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correct"? 168, the present disturbed state of consecrated life. I will ana-lyze briefly what authority means in the Christian tradi-tion, and then I will try to show how secular democratic political trends have affected the role of superiors, how their craving for popularity among their subjects has often inhibited them from making many a vital consci-entious decision. I will show that in these situations it is impossible for prophetic and diplomatic roles to func-tion simultaneously. I will conclude by highlighting the need today for religious superiors to make conscientious, pastoral, and courageous decisions for the sake of the common good of their institutes, and thus give prophetic leadership to today's world. Authority in the Christian Tradition Jesus clearly condemns oppressive and despotic power wielded by the rulers of nations (Mk 10:42). He tells his disciples who were arguing about which of them was the greatest that he who wants to be great must make him-self the least of all and serve others (Mk 9:33-35). For him, true authority is for service in truth, as he so tellingly demonstrated throughout his earthly life, which reached a climax at the last supper when he washed the feet of his own apostles (Jn 13:115). Emulating Jesus' teaching, the Christian tradition has always held that authority is for service. Accordingly, all leaders, civil as well as ecclesiastical, are expected to be servants of the common good of the group that is entrusted to them. A New Testament image dear to the early Christian community was Jesus the good shepherd. This is shown especially in the frescoes in the early catacombs. A shep-herd carrying a sheep on his.shoulders is a common fig-ure in those early places of worship. In fact, the concept of shepherd or "p, astor" and the adjective "pastoral" are woven into our inherited tradition regarding authority. ¯ Review for Religious To be a pastor or shepherd is to take flocks to where there is food and water, looking out for their safety and well-being. In our Christian tradition, leadership, whether in consecrated life or in a diocese, requires the care, compassion, and concern of a shepherd towards his sheep. The well-being of the flock and of each individ-ual sheep ought to be the - - - shepherd or pastor's top priority. If shepherds or pastors are more concerned about themselves, they cease to be shepherds and become hirelings concerned first of all with fattening themselves (see Ezk 34, Jn - - 10:7-18). Superiors, then, are supposed to be shepherds, serving the flock entrusted to them, not seeking their own good, not even their own survival. It is, of course, true that consecrated life has changed drastically in our day and so has the style of community leadership. It is sufficient to compare and contrast the era before Vatican Council II and afterwards. No one would argue today for the type of leadership that was prevalent in consecrated life before the council. It is also true that the way "authority" and "leadership" are under-stood varies from culture to culture. Regardless of the differences in worldviews and the ways of exercising authority, one essential and undeniable element of authority is that superiors' decision making must be for the common good. In the church in general and in con-secrated life in particular, such decision making is vital. After the initial stages of involving as many members as possible in the decision-making process, religious supe-riors must not abdicate their own decision making under any pretext. If they do so, they cease to serve the good of The Christian tradition has' always held that authority is for service. 6L2 2006 Tirimanna ¯ Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correa'? 170 the community. This was expressed well in the instru-mentum laboris of the ordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops held in 1994, on "The Consecrated Life and Its Role in the Church and in the World": The role of authority is that of a sure and authorita-tive guide, of inspiration and encouragement, so that an environment of fraternal communion can be cre-ated, one which can facilitate personal spiritual growth and the fulfillment of the apostolic mission, without, however, declining the responsibility to decide when-ever necessary. (§59) The postsynodal apostolic exhortation Vita consecrata (1996) of Pope John Paul II said: While authority must be above all fraternal and spir-itual, and while those entrusted with it must know how to involve their brothers and sisters in the deci-sion- making process, it should still be remembered that the final word belongs to authority and, consequendy, that authority has the right to see that decisions made are respected. (§43, emphasis in the original text) Superiors Seeking Popularity in Their Communities The latter decades of the 20th century are noted for the spread of democracy in different parts of the globe. Democracy has become a universally accepted human value. Even countries that are not yet democratic are striving, indeed yearning, for it. This is surely a wel-come change for the whole of humanity. Normally democracy not only guarantees human rights on the basis of individuals' inherent dignity, but also for the com-mon good assures the participation of every citizen in the political decision making. Since democracy assures citizens' right to change those in authority after an agreed term of office, those officials normally spend a lot of their energy and resources to be popular, for it is their popularity that ensures their success at elections. Rarely do they offend citizens in public or make unpop- Review for Religious ular decisions even when such decisions are necessary for the common good. If they do, their very survival is at stake. With the mass media often playing the role of watchdog, political leaders today are pressured to say and do the "politically correct" thing. The phrase is fast becoming common parlance. The more "politically cor-rect" you are, the more popular you become. Political leaders who dare to make unpopular decisions, even though such decisions are dictated by their consciences and demanded by the common good, are being thrown out of office. Parallel to happenings in the secular world are some of the ways that religious congregations do things. Thanks to Vatican II, gone are the rigid (and sometimes absurd) practices that marked consecrated life in the years before the council. Although religious congrega-tions cannot be considered democracies in a literal sense, wider participation in congregational and community decision making has brought a lot of relevance and good sense to consecrated life. Today sensible persons heave a sigh of relief and thank God that most of the irrational and dictatorial ways of being a religious superior are over. Today religious superiors are really meant to serve the common good of the flock entrusted to them. The secular concept of democracy surely has had a positive influence on these changes in religious life. Our own experience during the past couple of decades, however, shows that the same concept of democ-racy also seems to have had a negative effect on many religious superiors. Just as secular political leaders earnestly seek popularity, and survive and eventually move up the political ladder because of their popularity, today's religious superiors often seem to seek such pop-ularity within their own congregations for their mere survival and sometimes for their upward mobility either !171 65.2 2006 Tirimanna ¯ Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correa'? 172 in the congregation or in the hierarchy. Many of our contemporary religious superiors are doubly careful not to make "politically incorrect" decisions that would make them unpopular among the members of their congrega-tions and thus bring about their own downfall. The wider consultations (and, in many congregations, elections) that since Vatican II are rightly carried out in electing or appointing religious superiors seem to put the supe-riors in a dilemma. On the one hand, to be elected or reelected, they have to be popular or well accepted. On the other hand, to be popular or well accepted, they have to play to the gallery by not making decisions that would upset the majority of the members. Note that by "pop-ularity" I do not mean the mere acceptability of superi-ors to the other members of the community, which is a must in consecrated life. I mean the kind of "popular-ity" that is gained by not offending numbers of influen-tial people. People accrue such "popularity" by not making decisions that are badly needed for the common good--even when their conscience prompts them to do so. They avoid certain good decisions simply because they would offend the majority of the members. It is a "popularity" that is gained and sustained by pandering to a lumpenproletariat. The more superiors do not make deci-sions that would make them unpopular with the major-ity, the more acceptable they become all around. The more they evade their bounden duty to make decisions that could make them unpopular, the greater their chances of getting reelected or reappointed. This is why today, in quite a number of congregations, we hear mem-bers saying: "We made sure to have so-and-so elected because we are sure he (or she) will not rock the boat." To illustrate the point here, let us look at the now popular sabbaticals. Is it always those who really deserve a real break after a tedious involvement in the congre- Review for Religious gational apostolate who get a sabbatical today? Are all those who go for sabbaticals the "burnt-out" persons? What about the way some superiors treat members who complain that they lack self-fulfillment? Are they not fre-quently permitted to find their "self-fulfillment" by get-ting into any and every personal apostolate or pet project, even when these cut them off from their communities? Today it is not uncommon to send abroad for higher stud-ies persons who are erratic or wanting in their basic reli-gious commitment. The persons concerned may not even have the capacity for studies, but to some superiors this seems a diplomatic way of handling the problem, at least temporarily. They do not realize or do not wish to real-ize that such evasions leave the problem for their suc-cessors in office. Such ways of acting are neither just nor charitable even from the point of view of the persons thus treated. Instead of addressing the real problem of the person with genuine charity and justice, they tem-porarily circumvent the issue, not out of sympathy, but instead out of concern for their own survival. Regrettably, avoiding good hard decisions has become an accepted way of being "politically correct" in consecrated life today. So has making decisions that are only temporarily satis-factory, and may be disastrous in the long run. In both these cases, the problematic root is "political correct" words and deeds or superiors' spui'ious "popularity." Prophecy and Diplomacy Do Not Sit Well Together But is conscious evading or circumventing of deci-sions morally correct? Is it the way to be prophetic? Time and again one hears it said: "Well, this is the way things have turned out in consecrated life today, and so what can we do?" "This is the way even most of the bish-ops act, and so what is wrong if our own religious supe-riors do the same?" Unfortunately, this way of looking at 65.2 2006 Tirimanna ¯ Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correct"? 174 1 things seems to ignore the very nature and purpose of consecrated life. From its very origins, one of the char-acteristics of consecrated life has been its prophetic nature. Pope John Paul II in his ~ta consecrata enunciated this point well: There is a prophetic dimension which belongs to the consecrated life as such, resulting from the radical nature of the following of Christ and of the subse-quent dedication to the mission characteristic of the consecrated life. The sign value, which the Second Vatican Council acknowledges in the consecrated life, is expressed in prophetic witness to the primacy which God and the truths of the gospel have in Christian life. (§84) A careful scrutiny of history would show us how, at different moments of decadence in church life, it was consecrated life that raised the church out of decadence through its witnessing, thus giving the church prophetic leadership: In effect, the consecrated life is at the very heart of the church as a decisive element for her mission, since it "manifests the inner nature of the Christian calling" and the striving of the whole church as Bride toward the union with her one Spouse. At the Synod it was stated on several occasions that the consecrated life has not only proved a help and support for the church in the past, but is also a necessary gift for the present and future of the people of God, since it is an inti-mate part of her life, her holiness, and her mission. (~ta consecrata, §3; emphasis in the original) So, to argue that the superiors are only emulating the way things are done by the hierarchical church lead-ership is not correct, for consecrated life has to give the lead to the rest of the church, even regarding pastoral leadership. As the late moral theologian Father Bernard Hiiring often told his students, prophecy and diplomacy (in today's parlance, "politically correctness") do not and Review for Religious cannot sit together comfortably. One has to give way to the other. A good number of contemporary religious superiors fail to make proper decisions because they wish to be "politically correct." Thus they not only betray their own vocation to be prophetic, but they gravely damage the common good of the communities entrusted to them. Besides, if a religious superior is supposed to be a pastor, then he has the bounden duty towards the well being of the members. This duty includes fraternal cor-rection. If members go astray and deviate from the group's charism, it is the duty of the shepherd (the reli-gious superior) to begin fraternal correction in charity, even if it hurts. The supe-rior owes such correction to the individuals and the group. Their integral well-being as consecrated peo-ple is one of the superior's top priorities. If superiors shirk this difficult role of fraternal correction in order to be "politically cor-rect," they have no right to Consecrated life has to give the lead to the rest of the church, even regarding pastoral leadership. remain in office, because they have failed in their pri-mary duty of working towards the well-being of the con-gregation and the church. Superiors who do not have as their goal the common good of the congregation and the church contribute to their decadence. Instead of swimming against the popular secular currents, they clearly betray the consecrated prophetic life so well explained by Pope John Paul II: In our world, where it often seems that the signs of God's presence have been lost from sight, a convinc-ing prophetic witness on the part of consecrated per- 65.2 2006 Tirimanna ¯ Are Religious Superiors Called to Be "Politically Correct"? sons is increasingly necessary. Consecrated per-sons are being asked to bear wimess everywhere with the boldness of a prophet who is unafraid of risking even his life. (VC §85) Prophetic Leadership Will the majority of superiors in consecrated life con-tinue to allow the secular democratic political trends to be their model in the coming years? Or will they give prophetic leadership to their own communities by acting according to the moral norms of what is right and wrong? Will they act for their own "good" or for the common good of their institutes? The writer is con-vinced that it is high time that religious superiors become more responsible and accountable in their decision mak-ing as animators, and thus allow their consciences, their specific religious charisms, and the common good to be the norms in their decision making. The norm of being "politically correct" should be the last in their list of pri-orities, for they are certainly not to be "politicians" who eagerly seek popularity, as in the secular world. In this way, they not only will arrest the decline in the quality of contemporary consecrated life, but will also be giving prophetic leadership to the church and the world. 176 Review for Religious BRENDAN KNEALE Identifying Identity among Nonclerical Religious Before Vatican Council II most Catholic priests, eligious, and laypeople had no "identity crisis." We knew who we were, our place seemed well defined, and we had no impending threat of change. Our per-sonal identity and our .social identity were clear and unthreatened, It may, however, be a good thing that after the council we had to take a close look at our identity. Perhaps we ought to question the quality of our earlier identity. Did it show signs of the identity claims that Pharisees made in Christ's time? They and the scribes were quite self-assured groups. Some of us were, too, maybe to the point of blind confidence in our identity. Among religious there was a saying:?'Keep the Rule and the Rule will keep you." It was, we can see now, a dan-gerous motto, even though it assured our identity. St. Paul, who had been a strict Pharisee, came to realize the danger. Brendan Kneale FSC taught for many years at Saint Mary's College of California. Now retired, he lives at De La Salle Institute; 4405 Redwood Road; Napa, California 94558. 65.2 2006 Kneale ¯ Identifying Identity among, Nonclerical Religious What should have happened after Vatican II was a strengthening and sharpening of our identity. Unfortunately, that was not the popular perception of the changes that had been made. Even though changes initiated by the council were intended as clarifications and improvements, we tended to feel, instead, that things were no longer well defined. Shortly after the council, we heard of religious teachers here or there whose dress, teaching, and behavior led students to express surprise that they were religious or even Catholics. After Vatican II, people asked, "Is this the same church?" Some religious and priests asked, "Is mine the same apostolate?" "Is my school or hospital still Catholic?" "Is there any longer a place for the conse-crated life?" After Vatican II many teachers wondered, "Does the syllabus for my catechetical instruction in the classroom truly represent what I believe?" Or "Are all the liturgical innovations good?" And religious asked, "Have laypeople taken over our role?" "Who am I now?" A Definition of Identity It would be refreshing if all who talk about "iden-tity" were really sure what they are talking about. Few people have a clear definition of the term. In various contexts we confuse identity with "self-image" or "per-sonhood" or "character," or perhaps with "individual-ity," "uniqueness," or an adopted "persona." Fortunately, there are careful thinkers available to address the prob-lem of identifying identity. We are told that Erik Erikson, the psychologist who coined the term "identity crisis" (right after Vatican II, significantly), believed that an identity crisis is "the most important conflict human beings encounter." His defi-nition of psychological identity ran as follows: "a sub-jective sense as well as an observable quality of personal Review for Religious sameness and continuity, paired with some belief in the sameness and continuity of some shared world image." Such a definition has the virtue of pointing squarely at both personal and social identity, that is, both private and public. Lexicographers agree that there are two chief emphases in the notion of identity. Etymologically "iden-tity" (from the Latin idem, the same) is, first of all, an enduring and distinctive individuality and, second, a social or relational "belonging." That is, peo-ple are identifiable by their unique and continu-ing sameness (generally indicated by a permanent - name and fixed array of recognizable psychological traits), and they are identifiable by what membership they have within a recognized group. Thus, in answer to "Who are you?" we will give our name to help the questioner to recall our uniqueness, or we will describe (if our uniform does not indicate it) what recognizable place we occupy in a clear social category. Thus we have a private identity and a public identity. Note that the two identities support each other. In fact, an African proverb has it that "I am because we are." A way to gain insight into identity is to contrast it with related ideas. We should try to keep the terminol-ogy clear about what identity is not. It is not "charac-ter," which is "a constellation of enduring motivational and other traits that are manifested in the typical ways that we react to various challenges." Character, then, may be taken as the moral side of one's identity. Nor is identity simply "self." "Self is a unified being which is the source of an idiosyncratic consciousness, the agent We have a.private identity and a public identity. 65.2 2006 Kneale ¯ Identifying Identity among Nonclerical Religious responsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed." Hence self is an abstract or generic term for "personal identity"; it is not the same as the important and complementary "social identity." None of the following words is a synonym for iden, tity. "Individual" is mostly a quantitative term; it is related to the words undivided and indivisible. "Person"~ is, according to Thomas Aquinas, "the individual substance of a rational soul" and does not disappear if one's identity is vague or shifting. "Personality" is something different; it includes the social as well as the more strictly personal. Dictionaries say that personality is the complex of char-acteristics that distinguishes an individual or a group or nation--but especially the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics. Identity is at the core of this "complex of characteristics" (which makes the loss of identity a serious matter). "Persona" and "role" derive from drama, from play-acting, and are of co,urse the weakest versions of what we mean by identity. In an extended article in Consecrated Life 24, no. 2 (February 2003), Father Amadeo Cencini has developed the notion of social identity by emphasizing the id.entity which comes from "belonging." He uses that word because, in identifying ourselyes, we often specify the career, occupation, group, race, persuasion, and so forth to which we "belong." Those of us belonging to conse-crated life may identify ourselves as members of a named religious institute and belonging here or there within it. This answer makes our personal identity derivable, to some extent, from that of the larger group. Sometimes our identity is seen as tied to "our roots" within a social group. Suppose, however, that the group to which one iden-tifies oneself.as belonging (say, a religious institute) has itself no clear identity. If that group has an identity that Review for Religious is fuzzy or vague, then one of the two main sources of identity (namely, "belonging") is comproinised. A reli-gious institute could have evolved (perhaps calling the change "refounding the order") into something different from .what it was. Moreover, even the larger church, to which the institute belongs, could itself also change enough to confuse people about its own identity. For example, the church could seem to speak without a clear voice about itself, and an institute of consecrated life could becom~ canonically unsure about whether laypeo-pie are "members." Or it might interpret certain changes (like emphasis on adult education or on political involve-ment) as challenges to its identity as teachers of youth or caretakers of the sick. It could wonder if other forms of social service rather than classroom or hospital work should be what the church asks for. Official Ecclesial Positions Readers will know that since Vatican II the church has taken up the problem of identity officially and for-mally. The Vatican (following special synods of bishops) has published three clarifying documents, one each for the benefit of priests, laypeople, and religious. The doc-ument about religious is called ~ta consecrata (1996) and addresses the nature and identity of consecrated life. In particular, and depending heavily on the work of a pre-vious world synod of bishops, Vita konsecrata devoted its section 57 to the role of sisters and section 60 to broth-ers. These paragraphs include the following excerpts: By virtue of their dedication lived in fullness and in joy, consecrated women are called in a very special way to be signs of God's tender love toward the human race and to be special witnesses to the mystery of the church, virgin, bride, and mother . Certainly the validity of many assertions relating to the position of 181 65.2 2006 Kneale * Identifying Identity among Nonclerical Relig4ous .women in different sectors of society and of the church cannot be denied . Women's new self-awareness helps men to reconsider their way of looking at things, the way they understand themselves, where thE)) place themselves in history and how they interpret it, and the way they organize social, political, economic, reli-gious, and ecclesial life . The consecrated woman . . . can help eliminate certain one-sided perspectives which do not fully rec-ognize her dignity and her specific contribution to the church's life and pastoral and missionary activity. Consecrated women therefore rightly aspire to have their identity, ability, mission, and responsibility more clearly recognized, both in the awareness of the church and in everyday life. The consecrated life by its nature "is neither lay nor clerical" . The "lay consecration" of both men and women constitutes a state which in its profession of the evangelical counsels is complete in itself. for the individual and for the church . . . apart from the sacred ministry. The synod expressed great esteem for the kind. of consecrated life in which r.eligious brothers provide valuable services of various kinds, inside or outside the community, participating in this way in the mission of proclaiming the gospel and bearing witness to it with charity in everyday life. Although [lay institutes] perform many works in common with the lay faithful, [members] do so inso-far as. they are consecrated and thereby express the spirit of total self-giving to Christ and the church, in accordance with ~heir specific charism. The term "brother" suggests a rich spirituality. ¯ Brothers are an effective reminder to religious priests themselves of the fundamental dimension of brother-hood in Christ, to be lived among themselves and with every man and woman, and they proclaim to all the Lord's words: "And you are all brothers" (M(23:8). We might add that, when Father Amadeo Cencini wrote about the problem of identity, he called attention Review for Religious to the important role of an institute's charism--a point also emphasized in Vita consecrata. An obvious way to increase a sense of our belonging (and our identity) is by attachment to the institute's charism (provided that the corporate identity is itself clear). Cencini notes that some individual reli-gious are weakly con-nected to the charism of their institute, or hold divided loyalties, or, on the other hand, immerse themselves within it in a psycho-logically unhealthy way. We can recall in Some individual religious are weak!y connect, ed to the charism of their institute or hold divided loyalties. this connection the recommendations of the classic work The Future of Religious Orders in the U.S.: Transformation and Commitment by Father David Nygren and Sister Miriam Ukeritis. The proper connection to the charism and the best sense of belonging are to be found, says Cencini, by a deepening of one's attachment to the charism in three ways: by way of prayer and spiritual-connection, by ascetically conforming to the lifestyle of the institute's norms, and by real engagement in the common aposto-late. (Perhaps he could have added: study and grasp of the relevant literature.) This last point about "real engagement" raises an acute problem for some conse-crated religious: What identifies us as distinct from our secular associates and coworkers? If one uses a simply functional definition of our state, then the problem is indeed acute. Many of our secular associates, such as Gospel Catholics, practice in accordance with their voca-tions a chastity, obedience, and poverty that are often more difficult than ours. They sometimes show more 65.2 2006 Kneale ¯ Identifying Identity among Nonclerical Religious 184 talent, dedication, and leadership than their religious colleagues. If, however, we consider who we are and do not just look at our function, then we see a.radical dif-ference between us and them. If we are aware what we are in relation to the evangelical counsels and in rela-tion to auxiliary vows, what we are in terms of commu-nity life, what we are in relation to mobility, to the radicality, quality, and scope of our availability and ser-vice, then we should not have a problem. In addition tb ~vhat Cencini writes about an insti-tute's common and received charism, wecould emphasize the desirability of our contributing to the charism in some innovative way. If we could do that, it seems to me, we would increase our sense of belonging, and even of "ownership." Each of us should bring to the charism, by conscious effort, an enrichment that stems from our personal talents, from our studies, and from our auxiliary memberships in professional and religious associations (in relation to which we can see our own identity more clearly). Charism is not static. Individuals enrich the charisms of their communities. The differing charisms of various consecrated reli-gious groups illustrate a principle that helps clarify cor-porate identity, namely, the principle of an institutional subsidarity and "division of labor" within the church. Each institute has its own apostolic charism and thus its own responsibility. It is true that numerous apostolic needs are great and pressing, and occasionally they are overriding, but normally we keep our corporate identity by doing our own apostolic labor, not th

Richard Richards ; The Weber and Davis County Communities Oral History Collection include interviews of citizens from several different walks of life. These interviews were conducted by Stewart Library personnel, WeberState University faculty and students, and other members of the community. The histories cover various topics and chronicle the personal everyday life experiences and other recollections regarding the history of the Weber and Davis County areas. ; 81p.; 29cm.; 2 bound transcripts; 4 file folders. 1 video disc: digital; 4 3/4 in. ; Oral History Program Richard Richards Interviewed By Rebecca Ory Hernandez 7 August 2012 13 August 2012 24 September 2012 i ii Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Richard Richards Interviewed by Rebecca Ory Hernandez 7 August 2012 13 August 2012 24 September 2012 Copyright © 2013 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. Archival copies are placed in the University Archives, which also houses the original recording so researchers can gain a sense of the interviewee's voice and intonations. Project Description The Weber and Davis County Communities Oral History Collection include interviews of citizens from several different walks of life. These interviews were conducted by Stewart Library personnel, Weber State University faculty and students, and other members of the community. The histories cover various topics and chronicle the personal everyday life experiences and other recollections regarding the history of the Weber and Davis County areas. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Stewart Library of Weber State University. No part of the manuscript may be published without the written permission of the University Librarian. Requests for permission to publish should be addressed to the Administration Office, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, 84408. The request should include identification of the specific item and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Richards, Richard, an oral history by Rebecca Ory Hernandez, 7 and 13 August 2012 and 24 September 2012, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. Richard Richards October 2012 1 Abstract: Richard "Dick" Richards, WSU alum, attorney, author and Republican Party National Committee Chairman (1981), grew up in Ogden, Utah and became involved with politics as a young man in high school. Richard is now retired and resides in South Ogden, Utah after spending most of his political career in Washington D.C. He sat down with Rebecca Ory Hernandez from Weber State University to discuss his life growing up in Ogden, his family, education, career and devotion to Weber State University. Richard endowed the "Richard Richards Institute of Politics and Ethics" at Weber State University which awards scholarships to high school students, and currently serves on the board. He and his wife, Annette Bott Richards, have five children. ROH: Today we are beginning an oral history with Richard Richards in his home in South Ogden, Utah. My name is Rebecca Ory Hernandez. Why don't we go ahead with you just stating your name and where this interview is being held? RR: My name is Richard Richards, most people call me Dick. I'm in my home at 5273 Daybreak in South Ogden. I'm prepared to discuss my early history with Rebecca and I look forward to it. ROH: When and where were you born? RR: I was born in Ogden at the old Dee Hospital on May 14, 1932. Nearly all my brothers and sisters were born at the same hospital and had the same doctor, but that was a long time ago. The hospital is now gone. ROH: Where did you grow up? 2 RR: I grew up in South Ogden. I lived in Ogden until I was about 12 years old, and then moved to South Ogden and lived here until I was drafted into the army in 1952. ROH: What part of South Ogden? RR: My first home in South Ogden was 3999 Norton Avenue. That's just next to 40th Street and 40th Street was the dividing line between Ogden and South Ogden. My father bought that home during the war. It was a 1,000 square foot home and I had seven sisters and a brother. So, 11 of us lived in this 1,000 square foot home. There were a couple of bedrooms in the basement that accommodated us, but 11 people in that small home. I can't even remember how we ate dinner. There's no way we could have eaten at the same time because the kitchen wasn't that big. I have no recollection of how exactly we operated in the home, but we lived there for several years. ROH: Where did you fall in the family line-up of children? RR: My brother was the oldest child and I was next to him about a year and a half later. All seven girls came after me. Four of them were born in the month of May one year apart, so the family grew rapidly and it was all girls after my brother and me. ROH: I can't imagine having that many children under one roof. RR: I don't know how we did it. I really don't. I had one sister that was really fastidious and she needed the bathroom for a long time. We agreed that she could have 3 the bathroom for an hour starting at six o'clock in the morning. After that the family had it. ROH: Are all of your siblings still around? RR: One of them passed away. That's the one I was talking about. All of the others are scattered around from California, Idaho, Oregon and I have two sisters living in the Ogden area. ROH: Do you stay in touch with them? RR: We have family reunions. We just had one at Park City in July. We had 123 family members there. We've been doing this for about 20 years and we have not had one death in the family or one child born with severe disabilities out of all 153 of us. We have been a blessed group. We have MBA's, Ph.D's, and a couple of doctors. We've got some pretty good children and grandchildren. My father came from the coal mining camps of Utah when he was in the tenth grade. He didn't graduate from high school. He was tired of living in the coal mines and said, "I'm not going to be a miner, I'm getting out of here." He went up to Salt Lake and got a job helping a sign painting company called Bird and Jex Company. Later on, he decided he didn't want to work for them and he set up his own company here in Ogden. His first shop was no bigger than this living room, but he's the guy that brought us out of the coal mines. ROH: What was the name of the sign shop? 4 RR: Richards Sign Company. That was a long time ago, but that business still carries the name. It's gone through three generations. My father had a stroke many years ago and as a result he couldn't work so he sold his business to a guy by the name of Derek Warner. He ran it for some period of time, then he retired and gave it to his son. His son retired and now it's the next generation working the Richards Sign Company. The company was so well respected that no matter who owned it, they wanted to keep the name. It's still there on Grand Avenue and a bustling business, but it's different. They don't even have a paint brush down there anymore because everything is done by computer. When my dad sold it, we did it all by hand. ROH: Did you learn how to paint signs as well? RR: I did and I earned my living painting signs while I was in law school. Even after I graduated and I was practicing law, the income was so meager that at night I painted signs to make some money to take care of my family. I always hoped that potential clients didn't see me painting signs or they'd wonder about my ability as a lawyer. ROH: That's interesting. What about your mother? RR: My mother lived in Ogden. She met my father in a church activity and her father was a railroader and they lived down on Grant Avenue. My mother did graduate from high school and I don't know if she worked before they were married. ROH: Do you recall which high school she graduated from? 5 RR: It would have been Ogden High School because that's the only one there was. ROH: Okay. They met at a church activity, but can you be more specific? RR: Apparently, it was a Golden Green Ball, a dance of some kind where my father met my mother or shortly after because they participated in the dance and won a prize. A great uncle of mine introduced them. AR: What I understand is that she had caught his eye and she was walking along the street and he pulled over and said, "Could I have a date?" She said, "Yes, if you'll go to church with me." They did enter a contest with the Golden Green Ball and they won. ROH: Did you inherit their love of dancing? RR: No. I don't' dance. ROH: I'm surprised. I thought all politicians liked to dance. AR: He's got a son that dances. ROH: What were some of the things you did as a young person? RR: Before we moved out to South Ogden, I lived on Monroe and we played Kick-the- Can and all kinds of games in the streets. We didn't have television of course. We didn't pay too much attention to radio so we played outside. We played with each other. ROH: Where did you go to school? 6 RR: I went to school first at Quincy for the first grade and so on. Later on, I went to Madison. I was at Madison for a while, then my family went to South Ogden and I went to Riverdale Junior High School. After Riverdale I went to Weber High School. ROH: So you lived on Monroe for a little while? RR: Yes on 26th and Monroe. The family lived there, but as the family grew and more kids were born in the family we had to find a bigger place and my dad bought a house in South Ogden during the war for about $5,000. The house we lived in on Monroe is now a little parking lot for a neighbor. There's nothing there, but it was a very small yard and very small house. ROH: Are there any memories that you have from being at Quincy or Madison that you'd like to share? RR: Not at Qunicy, but when I moved to Madison, I was the newcomer and they had to see whether I was tough enough to be in that environment. They picked fights with me and forced me to fight. I wasn't going to fight. Kids carried me over to the park across the street and I was to fight with a guy and I beat him up, so I was successful there. Then, I had to try one more and I got in a fist fight during art class. The teacher came down, banged our heads together and stopped us. I punched the guy in the nose and his nose was bleeding. I was crying and I didn't want to fight. The teacher came down and knocked our heads together. The guy I was fighting hauled off and punched her and knocked her down. He was expelled from school. They didn't do anything to me because they knew I didn't 7 want to fight with this guy and that was apparent. He was kind of a bully and it was good. I passed the test fighting those two guys and from then on I was accepted. ROH: I just can't imagine that. Annette said she had something she wanted to share. AR: An interesting thing, I was at Quincy School and I was standing over by the water fountain. His brother, Jim, was a year older than me and Dick was a year younger than me. I remember thinking, "Oh, that's Jimmy Richard's little brother." He was running around. That was our first meeting and then he went to Madison and I continued on at Quincy. ROH: Okay. Were there any favorite subjects that stood out to you at that time as a young boy? RR: I liked the art classes, but we didn't have many of them until I went to high school. I was not a good student. I was a troublemaker and I just got by as far as the academics were concerned. There was always trouble, and a lot of it was my fault. I remember when I went to Riverdale Junior High School we rode the bus from South Ogden out to Riverdale and there was a kid in the neighborhood by the name of Tommy James. Tommy crowded in front of us in line for the bus. As I walked past him he took a seat up front and I hauled off and smacked him in the back of the head. When we got to Riverdale I chased him down and picked a fight with him and he just beat the hell out of me. That was the only time I was ever really beat up. He just kept pounding me, the big tall guy with long arms and I would be swinging at him and I'd be missing him by about four of five inches. 8 Incidentally, the principal came down and grabbed us and took us up to the principal's office. He said he was going to give us the board of education. He had a board that he used to paddle kids with and the board had holes in it so he could get a good swift whack. He asked what happened and I owned up. I said, "I picked the fight, it's my fault." I guess that impressed him and he said, "Well, get going and get back to class and I don't want any more of this." ROH: In junior high, Did you have any particular subject that you were fond of? RR: No, I was just getting by doing what I could do. ROH: Being a kid. RR: We rode the bus and I always rose a rumpus on the bus, so the driver kicked me out and said, "You're going to walk home." I said, "Okay." Instead of walking home I went around to the back of the bus and climbed in the window on the side he couldn't see. I rode in the bus with him until we got to Ogden and we got to the bus stop. I jumped out the window and ran up front and said, "Haha Clink, I beat you." He felt bad that he was going to make me walk and before he left he said, "Hey where's the Richards kid, I was only joking I wasn't going to make him walk." I played a joke on Clink. Incidentally, I've had an occasion to work with the Fernilius' again in my business. When we get to that I'll tell you. ROH: You went to Weber High. Tell me about that experience. RR: Well, I shaped up. ROH: Did your parents have a car growing up? 9 RR: Yes. In fact, I remember when I was six years old my brother and I had our tonsils taken out. We went to the doctor's office in the old First Security Bank building and had our tonsils removed. My father picked us up in his brand new Pontiac car. He paid $600 and got a beautiful blue Pontiac car. That's the first car I can remember my folks had. ROH: When you were young, do you remember where you went shopping for new supplies and clothes and things like that? RR: As a kid, I didn't do that. I don't remember that. As I grew up a little bit I remember being in town because I would go to the paramount theater that had the Popeye club. On Saturdays, they'd have Popeye and a series of the Lone Ranger or something and I remember going to town for that. Other than that, I don't remember going to town. ROH: In town are you talking about Ogden? RR: Yes, I'm still talking about Ogden. These were younger years. ROH: Is this the 25th Street area? RR: Yes. Actually there were several theaters in town at that time. There was an Orpheum, a Colonial, Lyseum, The Egyptian, and the Paramount. That's five theaters. Most of the kids went to the Paramount because that had the Popeye Club and the series. Movies cost about a dime and I would work around the yard and I'd get a dime or 25 cents and I was able to go to the movies. ROH: Okay, so we're going to go back to high school now. 10 RR: Before high school, let me talk about Riverdale Junior High School because that was really a turning point for me. That was a rough school. When I went there I was in the 7th and 8th grades and we were rough on teachers there. We drove a couple of teachers out of the room crying. There were several of us that were involved in this kind of stuff. ROH: How did you do that? RR: Just by not paying attention or throwing spit balls or whatever. We drove a couple of substitute teachers out of there. We were upstairs in a room that was called Idaho because it was kind of shaped like Idaho. My friend and I were in the back of the room raising the devil and there were two kids in the middle of the room that were raising Cain and the teacher came in and he just stood there with his arms folded for a few minutes waiting for everybody to shut up. They didn't shut up so he walked down the aisle and gave each of these kids a karate chop on the side of the head and whacked them in the kidney and knocked both of them out. Both of the kids fell with their faces on the desk and my friends and I shut up. That cured us. He really knocked the two kids out. One of the kids' families sued him because when he hit him in the kidneys he bruised him. This teacher didn't say anything and I don't know what happened to him, but I didn't see him again. That was sort of a turning point for a lot of us. After I left junior high school and went to Weber I shaped up. It was a 180 degree change for me. ROH: How many kids were in your class in junior high? RR: I would say there were 20 or something like that. 11 ROH: That was a good-sized class. Is there anything else from junior high that you can recall? What was your favorite part about being in school? RR: Recess. I remember I was supposed to be in arithmetic class, but before the class started I went down to the shop. There was nobody in there except a few kids. The teacher wasn't there and I had never had any experience with some of these tools like the buzz saw. I picked up a chunk of wood and I was going to cut it, but I put it in the wrong way in the saw. It threw the wood and knocked the window out of the class. It would have killed a kid if it hit him. I didn't know what I was doing. I got out of there and sneaked into my arithmetic class by crawling on my hands and knees to the desk so the teacher wouldn't see me coming in. It was a funny school, I had a friend called Toshi Shiba and he went around the junior high school with a water gun and he would shoot the light bulbs and it would pop them. In those days they didn't have a chandelier glass over them, they just had a globe. My friend went around shooting those things and the shop teacher caught him and grabbed him and shook him up and said, "I never did like you Japs anyway." Nothing ever happened as a result of that, but today that would be a disaster. ROH: It sounds like you were a bit precocious. RR: I was not a good little boy. I never did anything really bad, but I did a lot of things that were border line. ROH: Did your parents ever get called to school? 12 RR: No, and I never told them when I had a couple of teachers assault me in junior high school. One guy was a music teacher and he was in the auditorium with the music class and a kid in that class had stolen my baseball mitt. I spotted it because it had my name on it. He had used a leather puncher to punch holes in it so that my name would not be visible, but I saw it anyway. I went into the class and confronted the kid about the mitt. The teacher said, "You get out of here." I said, "I'm not going until I get my mitt." He came down and grabbed me by the shirt and took me out in the hall and he was slapping me on the side of the face front-hand and back-hand. He hit me several times, but I never told my parents about that. You know, that just happened. It was not uncommon in the schools for a teacher to whack a kid. ROH: That is true. Moving on to high school at Weber High, where was Weber High? RR: Weber High School was on 12th and Washington Blvd. We had to take a bus from home to school. When I got into high school I really settled down. It was a major change in my life. I was elected sophomore class president when I went out there. Right out of this junior high school environment to the high school and we had kids from other junior high schools come in from Eden and Huntsville. I don't know the circumstances, but I was elected sophomore class president. ROH: You don't recall running for president? RR: No, I don't recall any of that except that I was elected and I was in a sign painting class and I painted some signs for sophomore assemblies. I misspelled the word "sophomore." They said, "It's got an "o" in it." 13 ROH: You said you got more serious in high school. What were your academics like? RR: I was a good student. It was the beginning of a new life for me. AR: One of the teachers said that Dick was the worst and best student that she ever had. ROH: Did you go to high school together? AR: No, I went to Ogden High School. ROH: Did you have a favorite subject in high school? RR: Yes, I liked the debate class and I participated in the debates and extemporaneous competitions and I did well. So, I did a lot of it. It's interesting because the debate teacher at Weber High School was the same principal that dragged me up to the principal's office when I was at Riverdale. ROH: Is that right? He moved from the other school to that school. He must have had some kind of impact on you. Who were your friends in high school? RR: I had several that lived out here in South Ogden like, George Palmer, Carl Hassel and Bud Reed. I had a lot of friends. We did things in a group out here. Nobody played alone. ROH: What were some of the things you were involved in other than debate? Were you involved in any clubs or activities? RR: No, because I worked after school. Instead of taking the school bus, I would take the city bus and go from 12th Street down to my dad's shop and work after 14 school. I didn't have any time for any of the athletics. I did win the intramural boxing championship for my weight when I was in high school. I didn't play football, basketball, or baseball or anything. Those intramurals took place within the classroom for the most part. ROH: So you continued to fight in high school. You got into boxing? RR: Not a lot, but we had an intramurals program in boxing and I won that in my class. I boxed with the kids that were in the other class. I also wrestled. I met another kid in the other class wrestling, I got down on the mat like you're supposed to and he was over me and the referee said, "Go!" He pinned me so fast I didn't even know what I was doing. I was out of that competition in 15 seconds, just as long as it took for the referee to count me out. This kid was a skinny kid with a glass eye and he went on to win the state championship in his weight a couple of years. He was a very good wrestler. I think his name was Garcia. ROH: So, if you ran for sophomore class president, you were interested in politics at that time. RR: Yes, and that is one of the things that I gravitated toward was the speech class and the debate and that sort of thing. About that time I had developed my philosophy as a Republican. One of my debate partners was a democrat, one that I called the yellow dog democrat. He would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican and that's still his philosophy. My father talked politics to us at the dinner table. He talked about a conservative writer at that time called Westbrook 15 Pegler. Pegler was a conservative and he hated the Roosevelts. Most of his column was anti-Franklin and Eleanor and my dad talked about that. There were also some things happening in our life that got me to be a conservative. During that time when we were growing up, we had a coal furnace. The coal man would come to your house, open the coal chute and empty the coal out in the basement. John L. Lewis was the head of the coal miners' union and he called a strike. When he called a strike, we couldn't get coal and everybody complained about that. Even my grandmother and my father complained about it. My father said, "I'm not going to be at the mercy of John L Lewis," and he changed the coal furnace to a gas furnace. John L. Lewis was really big at that time. ROH: When was this? RR: I would say in the early 1940's. Coal mining was a big deal. My grandfather was a coal miner and he still lived down in Carbon County. Coal miners liked John L. Lewis because he got the wages up. He forced people to pay more and if they weren't willing to do that he would call a strike and limit the coal production. My dad talked about that a lot at the dinner table and that had an influence on me. ROH: Who was your friend that was the person who would vote for anyone but a Republican? RR: Jerry Hatch. He was my debate partner. His dad was in the state legislator as a democrat. Jerry always was a democrat. He never changed. He is still a democrat. 16 ROH: When you were in high school did you realize that you wanted to go to college at that point? RR: Yes. In fact, I wanted to be a lawyer at that time and when I wrote my name on the book just to identify it as my book I would write, "Richard Richards Esquire." AR: I've got a page out of something when he was the student of the year and he tells what he wants to do in the future. RR: When I was a senior in high school, I was chosen to give the Valedictory speech. I was not the Valedictorian, but I was chosen to give that speech at the graduation. ROH: So you ran for president and got interested in debate, how did that come about? Were you listening to the radio at that point or did you hear other people speak that influenced you? RR: We listened to the radio and read the newspaper. We always had newspapers and I even take four newspapers here now. I spend a couple hours every day reading the Wall Street Journal and the Investor's Business Daily, The Standard, and Deseret News. ROH: That's incredible. Did your dad take a lot of newspapers too at your house? RR: I don't know how many he took, but I know we took some. ROH: I was just trying to find out where the influence of the debate would have come from because you were interested in both battling physically and verbally so I find that fascinating. 17 RR: Well, I think the word "debate" means to "beat down." ROH: Did you have teachers that inspired you in high school? RR: My debate teacher was the principal out at Riverdale that banged my head. He was my coach all the way through. ROH: You were in school and you were working so give me an idea of your schedule. RR: I would go to school and after school at 3:30 p.m. I would go to my dad's shop and work for a couple of hours and go home. I always worked on Saturdays. My dad probably was the greatest influence on me of anybody because he always said, "I'm not going to give you money, but I'll give you a job. You can work for it and you can have the money." That's the way he was. ROH: So you were student of the year in your high school. RR: Well I don't know if that's what they called it, but maybe they did. ROH: Yes, we will get a copy of this. I'm looking at a photograph that says, "The typical boy graduate is Dick Richards, he's only 5'8" but he has short brown hair and warm brown eyes. He likes school this year but in the past years he skipped school every chance he got. Now he's sorry he's leaving." Is this college or high school? RR: That's high school. ROH: Do you remember what you talked about in your speech? 18 RR: I don't think I have a copy of that speech, but I have a copy of my college speech when I spoke at graduation there. ROH: You were public speaking at a young age. We're going to finish up talking about high school years and move on to college. When you graduated from high school, you wrote the commencement speech. What did you do after high school? RR: Obviously, during the summer I worked for my dad. In the Fall I enrolled at Weber Junior College. Weber Junior College at that time was on 25th Street at about Monroe and Madison. There were about four buildings there and one of them is still there— it's the Deseret Gym building. The other buildings are gone. It was a very small school. Interestingly enough, the president of that school was Dr. Henry Aldus Dickson. He knew an awful lot of the kids by name. We were all very friendly with him. He took a liking to me and I'm not sure why, but he said to me one time, "Dick, are you having a little trouble raising money to go to school?" I said, "Yeah, I'm working but I don't have the money yet." He said, "Well, you drop in my office and see the secretary and she'll give you a scholarship." So I walked in the office and they gave me a twenty-five dollar scholarship. That was a full quarter's tuition. I actually have a copy of that scholarship. ROH: That's fantastic. RR: He liked me and he wanted to help me out. I guess he knew I came from a family of a lot of kids. All of my siblings were still at home. ROH: Did your brother ahead of you go to college? 19 RR: I don't remember. I guess he went to college before me, but I didn't have a lot of relationship with my brother at that time. He was a year and a half older than me and he had different friends. We did some things together, but mostly we each had our own friends. ROH: What did you study at Weber College? RR: I studied debate, philosophy, political science, and economics. I did a lot of those subjects, I didn't do any basket weaving and that stuff. No political correctness at that time. I got enough credits in what I studied in history, philosophy and economics that I was able to transfer them to law school without having a bachelor's degree. When I applied to law school they said, "Well you haven't got a bachelor's degree, you can't come here with what you've got." I said, "Look at the catalog." The catalog said, "153 acceptable hours," or something and I had them. I said, "There they are." He said, "Well, I guess you're right." They enrolled me in law school without having a degree from Weber. ROH: Where was that? RR: University of Utah law school. ROH: How old were you when you started law school? RR: I started law school after I'd been in the army and returned, so there's a gap there. ROH: Did you go into the army after Weber? 20 RR: In August of 1952, I was drafted. The Korean War was on and we were all drafted. It was kind of interesting at that time because there was a lady by the name of Agnus Christe who was the head of the selective service office who really resented Mormon kids going on missions and not going in the army. So, the day you turned 18 you got a draft notice. You couldn't go on a mission. ROH: Did you have any other friends that you were in the army with at that time? RR: I was drafted ahead of my friends for some reason by a matter of a few months. I was drafted with one kid from Ogden by the name of Jim Pollus and we went to basic training together. I went on to leadership and OCS and he did not. He's passed away since. My friends I had here in South Ogden came to Fort Ord after several months that I had already been there so I was ahead of them in the army. ROH: Well, we just kind of skimmed over Weber College, so the next time we meet we'll talk about Weber College, the Army, and Law School. Thank you very much for sharing your young years with me and we will continue next time. This is the end of the interview on August 7, 2012. Thank you. RR: You're Welcome. ROH: Today is Monday, August 13, 2012. We are in the home of Richard Richards, who goes by Dick. I am Rebecca Ory Hernandez from Weber State University and we are going to continue his oral history. We will pick up with your university years from where we left off last week. Why don't you tell me a little bit about your time in law school? 21 RR: After I came home from the Army, I decided to go to law school. I had done some other things in the meantime, but when I found out I was going to go to law school I needed some more credit hours. I went back to Weber and picked up some more hours in political science, history, and philosophy. I was married and had two children. I had to work because I had to make a living, so I worked for my father part-time and painted signs. I worked in Ogden for my dad about 20 hours a week and went to law school. That was an hour a day going down and an hour a day going back. That didn't leave me a lot of time for studying. I really didn't study very hard in law school, but I studied all day Sunday and started at 5:00 a.m. It was a tough grind. I decided it ought to be easier if I lived in Salt Lake because I wouldn't have to commute. So, I got a job with the state liquor commission. It was a political job. Governor Clyde was the governor and I think Laurence Burton was his assistant at that time. Anyway, I got a job with the liquor commission selling liquor out on 23rd South and 13th East. They paid $1.65 an hour and that wasn't enough for me to make a living so I decided even though I'm going to live in Salt Lake I better commute to Ogden to work because I could make $2.50 an hour painting signs. I moved to Salt Lake to the student housing. It was called "Stadium Village." That's where the stadium is now. Rent was $30.00 a month so it was livable for a student. While I was in law school, I was active with the Young Republicans and I was asked to become the Young Republicans state chairman. I didn't know about that because it takes time and doesn't pay so I thought I'd 22 better check with the Dean. He said, "I think you could be of help to us so you go ahead and take that job." I took it and the interesting thing is, later on when the law school was trying to get an appropriation from the state legislature to build a new law school. Jerry Hanson and I invited his grandfather who was a leader in the state legislature to come to the law school and see what kind of shabby condition it was in. He visited the law school and said, "Boy, this is bad." Our main classroom in the law school was a row of tables about 24 inches deep and about six or eight feet long and they were covered with Masonite. They were really old-fashioned. The chairs were all separate and it was a noisy place. When they saw that they said, "Let's make an appropriation for a new law school." They usually invited the governor to come speak on "Law Day" which was the first of May. The assistant dean said, "The governor doesn't like lawyers, he won't come here." I was up to the governor's office talking to Laurence and I asked, "Would the governor like to go up to the University of Utah law school and speak on May Day?" He said, "Sure, we'd love to do that, but we haven't had an invitation." I asked, "Will you come if you get an invitation?" They said, "Yes." I drove back to the law school and went in the dean's office and said, "The governor would like to come if you'll give him and invitation. You type one up and I'll hand carry it to him." He was really pleased that we could get the governor there. The assistant dean that said the governor wouldn't come was embarrassed. ROH: Who was the governor at the time? 23 RR: George Dewey Clyde. The dean of the law school was Dean Diksra. He was a good dean. The assistant was a fellow by the name of Emory. Emory was a democrat and he didn't want the governor up there anyway. ROH: It must have been really good for the law school. RR: These were big helps in getting a new law school. Anyway, I hadn't graduated because I was seven hours short for graduation. I did it in two years. I didn't have time to go for three years. I was married with kids and didn't have time for that. I took extra credit and went through the summers. A couple of the fellows were in the same plight so we asked if we could take the Bar early with the preceding class. They agreed to let us take it. We took the Bar and I passed the Bar before I graduated. I had to go back to pick up seven more hours. Needless to say, I wasn't a very diligent student after having passed the Bar already. They changed the system after that. From then on you had to have a degree. They won't let you take the Bar until you've completed law school. We ruined that for the next-comers. ROH: Did you specialize in anything in law school? RR: No, I just graduated. I was not at the top of my class. I was in the top third of the class, but I did not strive to be number one. I didn't have time to study and do all that because I was working. In fact, working 20 hours was against the rules. They said if you go to law school you can't work 20 hours because you wouldn't be able to keep up. They tested me when they found out I was traveling to Ogden, but I did okay and that all worked out. After I got out of law school, I got a 24 job with the Clayton and Gould law firm in Ogden. Since they were both prosecutors I couldn't do any criminal work. If you can't do criminal work as a young lawyer, you're never going to do any trial work. I said, "I want to get courtroom practice so I'm going to quit." I quit and went on my own. I remember my first month I did not make one dime practicing law. The second month I made $50. It was a struggle. By the end of the year I was making pretty good money, but our total was $6,000 a year my first year. ROH: Do you remember your first case? RR: Yes. I remember my first major cases anyway. I went to the judges and said, "I want to try lawsuits. Give me your guys in jail who don't have any money and can't bail out and I'll represent them for free." Between the judges they gave me ten felons and they were spread out over about a year's time. I got eight acquittals out of the ten. Immediately, I had a lot of criminal clients. They would ask, "Who's your attorney?" They would give them my name and that generated a lot of business for me. I got tired of the criminal stuff, but it was a great experience to try the cases. The first murder case I had was a fellow that came into town on a Greyhound bus, got out of the bus station, walked across the street to the Friendly Tavern, pulled out a pistol and said, "So you're the "blankety-blank"?" He shot a guy about seven times. That was Joe Edgington. He killed him right on the spot. He didn't even know him and the guy was completely nuts. He thought he was somebody else. He casually walked across the street toward the police 25 station. Several witnesses saw him throw the gun in the bushes and keep on walking and they arrested him. L.G. Bingham and I were assigned to defend him pro bono and that was my first major criminal case. L.G. Bingham, in my opinion, was the smartest lawyer in town. He was a good thinker, but he was not a real studious guy and he didn't spend a lot of time preparing the case. Sometimes he would go into court without any defense in mind. He'd find a defense as the prosecutors put on their case. He won a lot of cases. He was very talented in doing that. He and I defended this guy and ended up pleading "not guilty" by reason of insanity. That stuck and he went to a mental institution. I haven't heard anything from him since. That was my first case. L.G. Bingham and I defended another case of a couple of fellows that murdered a man on North Ogden Divide. Maybe you read about it. They picked up a sailor from Salt Lake and took him up to Ogden. They'd been drinking and they thought he had money so they took him up to rob him. The guy resisted and they hit him. They took off all his clothes, threw him in the car and left the guy naked. He was walking down the highway naked and finally fell over the side and froze to death. They were looking through his clothes because they thought he had some money in it. They looked through his shirt and no money in his shirt and threw it out the window as they traveled down the canyon. There was no money in the pants, so they threw the pants out along with the shoes and socks. His clothes were strewn down the canyon for a half a mile and nobody really understood what it was all about. One of the boys called the police and gave himself up. They arrested the other guy a few days later. Ray defended one of 26 them and I defended the other one. They got off with a voluntary manslaughter and two years in prison. They were young guys, drinking and doing stupid stuff and ended up killing a man. I tried cases from 1961 until 1980 when I went to Washington to work full-time with Ronald Reagan. I did spend some time in the early 1960's in Washington with Laurence Burton. That was for two years. I was there at the time that John Kennedy was killed and the Senator of Texas and John F. Kennedy's Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, became the president. ROH: How did it come about that you ended up moving to Washington? RR: Laurence Burton asked me to help him on his campaign. I was one of two major campaign managers on his campaign for congress and he won. He invited me to come back to Washington. I went back there as his legislative assistant and after a year I was made his administrative assistant. Dr. Aldus Dickson, who was a good friend of mine as I indicated earlier said, "Dick, do not stay there more than two years. Laurence is going to ask you to stay, but don't do it." ROH: Why not? RR: He said, "If you do you'll get caught up as a professional staffer in Washington and you'll never develop a career of you own." The pay is good and it's an exciting thing if you're a staffer to a senator and they have big issues. I followed his advice and I came home. ROH: When did you come home? 27 RR: I came home in 1964. I was here when the election was held and Barry Goldwater was soundly defeated. I decided I wanted to run for party chairman. I'd been Young Republican chairman, so I ran for party chairman and won overwhelmingly. The reason I did is because while I was working for Laurence I traveled to all of the counties in the state when they held their county convention. Those were the guys that were going to be delegates to the state convention. When I met them on the county level and they came to the state, they at least knew who I was. I ran against a guy from Salt Lake that should have won. He had a lot of money, was a prominent business guy, and kind of a moderate fellow, but I beat him about six or seven to one. Afterward he said, "I knew you were going to beat me, but I didn't think you were going to stomp me into the ground." He was a good sport. I was the party chairman for two years. In 1966, the state of Utah turned from a Democratic state to a Republican state. People say this has always been a Republican state. However, they were heavily Democratic all over. All of the counties were controlled by Democratic county commissioners. In Weber County, prior to that time, only one Republican had been elected to county office for 50 years. That was Sherriff Mac Wade. This county was so strongly Democrat that a Republican may as well not even get on the ballot. We turned that around in 1966 and won control of the legislature, both the House and the Senate, by a vast majority. I think there were only five Democrats in the Senate when we got to it. There were only ten in the House. In fact, we elected too many. It was a bad deal to have that many Republicans and 28 so little opposition. That gradually faded out. That was one of the most exciting elections of my life because it was such a wonderful victory. I was re-elected party chairman in 1968. I had a good record and got a call from the Republican National Committee in Washington. The chairman of the Republican National Committee asked me if I'd come back and interview for a job working for the National Committee. I went back and I remember the feeling. I got out of my hotel and got that stinky, humid Washington air and I said to myself, "Dick, what in the hell are you doing here? Turn around and go home." I went to the interview with the deputy chairman and the chairman of the committee at that time, Rogers Morton. They offered me a job and I took it. I became the head of party development. After I did that for a while, I was promoted to the political director of the National Committee. I brought my family back and we lived in Maryland. We also lived in Virginia down by the Pentagon and had some nice experiences. We went to the grave site ceremony of John Kennedy when he was taken to Arlington National Cemetery. Later, at the top of the cemetery, they put a forever memorial for John Kennedy. Laurence and the other congressman from Utah, Sherm Lloyd, were there. Somehow or another we got on the parade route out to the cemetery. The soldiers and the Marines were lined up all the way and we had no way to get off. Laurence was joking and said, "Don't throw out any beer cans." We went up past the soldiers and when we got to the cemetery, the guy that was in charge told us we had to leave. We didn't want to after all that effort, so we sneaked into the press section and got kicked out of the press section too. We 29 went up the road and nobody paid attention to us there, but everybody including the Kennedys came up that road. The Carsons and the Kennedys were there. The Emperor of Ethiopia and Charles Degall came in. We were almost within touching distance of each of them. It was really kind of interesting to see that. In part of the ceremony they had the Irish Guard do a drill procedure and when they were through they marched out. As they marched out me and this kid marched in where they had been and we ended up right in front of the congressman. Laurence Burton said, "Hey Dick, look who's standing behind you." I looked behind me and there was Adlai Stevenson, who was the ambassador, and all these big-shots. We stood directly across from the grave site where the Kennedy casket was standing. The Kennedys were all on the other side. I was not even 20 feet away from Jacqueline Kennedy and her kids when all of this happened. In fact, we had a chance to walk by the casket. That was a good experience. Then, of course, Lyndon Johnson became the president and in 1964 he forced the passage of the Civil Rights Act that Kennedy could not get done. Kennedy didn't have the horsepower in the Senate to get it done. The House passed it, that wasn't a big problem, but it was the Senate that didn't want to pass it. They filibustered and did everything they could to avoid passing it. Lyndon Johnson just beat them up and on the 4th of July, they passed the Civil Rights Act. ROH: What was that like living in Washington when that happened? 30 RR: That was an exciting time. They had Martin Luther King Jr. speak at the Lincoln Memorial. There were hundreds of thousands of people there. I was at the Capitol and we talked about going down, but we figured it wasn't a good thing to do to go clear down there and get involved in that crowd. We were also there at the time the Blacks rioted on 14th street and burned a lot of the buildings. That was pretty close to the same time Martin Luther King Jr. gave his historic speech at the Lincoln Memorial. That was a big event at that time. It was an exciting time and an exciting point in history. ROH: Do you remember having conversations with your family about those events in the evenings when you were home with them? RR: My kids went with me when we saw the Kennedy ceremony. I explained that to them and when we got home and they were excited about it. They liked John Kennedy, they though he was a wonderful fellow. They got to do things that other kids don't get to do. They got to go to the White House, the Capitol building, Williamsburg and Jamestown. We went down to Jamestown and that was one of the great experiences where we saw replicas of those three little boats that brought the pilgrims here in 1607 and built the first permanent settlement in America. They gave us the history about how most of them starved to death or were killed by the Indians or by something else. There were very few survivors. That was a real eye-opener to us about early history. We got up to the Baltimore Harbor where Frances Scott Key saw the Star Spangled Banner and we saw the battlefield of the fight between the British and 31 the Americans on the Potomac River. Of course, the British captured Washington and they burned down a lot of things. They tried to burn down the White House and burned down a lot of it. They torched the various places in the Capitol and you can still see where the smoke was where they had gone with their torches. That was a great experience for my kids. They all became far more interested in American government. ROH: You've written a lot about your time in Washington in your book, so I won't repeat a lot of that, but tell me a little bit about how you felt about your career at that time. You had some significant leaps and bounds from Ogden to Washington at that point. RR: Reagan was anticipated to be a candidate for president in 1968. The convention was held in Miami Beach and Nixon, George Romney, and Rockefeller were candidates. Nixon was the clear leader. I was the state party chairman at that time. I knew the Nixon people and they knew me. They talked to me many times about helping on the Nixon campaign and I said, "Well, I'm the chairman of the party so I can't do that." We invited Ronald Reagan to come to our convention and the Nixon people were just livid after Reagan spoke. We only had about 14 national delegates at that time. This was the year we picked our delegates to go to the national convention. Nixon was clearly the favorite, although George Romney had some friends here because of his Mormon ties and ties to Utah. A guy from Cutbank, Montana who was a close associate of Reagan and a guy I knew as a party chairman said, "Dick, how would you like to have Ronald 32 Reagan be the keynote speaker at your convention, he'll do it for free." I said, "Hey, great. We want him." He came and Annette and I met him in the old Hotel Utah the night before he spoke. That was the first time we met Ronald Reagan. Annette was enamored because he was a movie star, and I was enamored because he was a politician. Anyway, he spoke the next day and he just mesmerized our delegation. Every one of them would have turned around and voted for him against Nixon if he ended up being our candidate. As we got down to Miami Beach, Nixon was nominated and Reagan withdrew his name, but George Romney stayed in and I was given the opportunity to second the nomination of George Romney for president back in Miami Beach. That was a high point for me. Nixon won of course. After he won the convention delegates, they hired me to do some ground work as a field man for Nixon in about 8 Western Rocky Mountain states. I had Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Arizona. I organized the ground campaign and it is interesting because the thing that attracted me to the National Party Leaders to begin with was my organizational technique for recruiting people to go door-to-door. We called it the neighbors program. I was called back to New York after Nixon was nominated to meet with John Mitchell who was in charge of the campaign. They asked me about this program that I had in mind and Mitchell liked it, but some of his aides didn't like it and they started to argue with me. Mitchell sat there and just smoked his pipe and never said a word during my presentation. When it was all done, they started asking, "How do you know this is going to work?" I said, "We've done 33 it, we know how this thing works, you don't have to worry about that." Mitchell said, "We're going to do it. I like it. Richards, we'd like you to come to work full-time for us." I said, "I can't do it because I'm the party chairman out in Utah, but I know somebody who can do that program for you." They wanted to do it in Oregon first and he was running a primary against Rockefeller. Oregon was a liberal state and Nixon's people said, "We're not even going to go there, it's just a waste of time." So they didn't go there, but they sent my friend Alan Peterson, who was the guy that I recommended to do this. Peterson was an intern to me when I was party chairman in Utah. He knew my program, so they hired him to run the program and Nixon won. Nixon had never been there and Rockefeller had been there three times. Rockefeller's slogan was, "He cared enough to come." Everybody expected Rockefeller to win, but Nixon did win. Nixon said, "That's my secret weapon. I want to do that." Peterson was hired to run this program all over the country and did a great job with it. After the Nixon campaign, the next effort I got involved with was when Ronald Reagan was running against Gerald Ford. Nixon left, Ford became the president and Ford wanted to run. These same people that brought me back to Washington all thought I would be for Ford and wanted me to be involved in his Ford campaign. They asked me to get involved and I said, "I can't do that. I'm for the other guy." They said, "You're for Ronald Reagan? You can't be against the seated president. You're a party chairman and you're against our incumbent president?" In fact, the owner of Zion's Bank in the state of Utah, Roy Simmons, 34 met me at the airport and said, "Dick, that's crazy. You're going to go for that "class B" act against the president." ROH: Why was that? Why were you so pro-Reagan? RR: I just really liked the guy. I saw something in him and I thought, "This is the guy that ought to be the president." Reagan and Ford contended against each other at the convention in 1976 and it was a very close battle. We lost it right at the last minute and we felt bad about that. Prior to the time that I went to work with him Ronald Reagan had a group called Citizens for the Republic. This was a political action committee that was not for his benefit but where he could raise money and give to conservative candidates. Paul Laxalt was Reagan's closest friend in Washington, the former governor of Nevada and the Senator at that time. He invited me to join the Citizens for the Republic. I got a letter from Ronald Reagan saying, "I understand you're willing to do this, I'd love to have you join us." I became a member of the executive committee for the Citizens for the Republic. After we lost to Ford, we held a couple of monthly meetings and the meetings were usually held in Florida or someplace a distance from me and I had to fly over there and I had to pay a hotel bill. It cost me money to do it, about a thousand bucks every time I went to one of the meetings. After I went to a couple of them I thought, "This is a big waste of time." I got up in a meeting Paul Laxalt was conducting and said, "You know the next battle we're going to have is a convention fight just like the one we just lost and I don't see us getting any better prepared than we were then. I think we're wasting time." Ronald Reagan was 35 sitting at the far end of the table and he was doodling. After I said that he stopped and said, "That's right," and he pointed the pen at me. Paul said, "Well, does anybody else have anything to say?" We said, "No." No one else was going to interfere after the president said that. He said, "Okay, Dick, I'm appointing you to form a committee to come back to the next meeting and tell us what we ought to be doing. Richard, you're the chairman of the committee." We held some meetings after that and came back to the next meeting and gave him a report on what I thought we ought to be doing. We put together a program and I presented it. Everybody at the meeting thought it was a great idea except for two people. One of them was John Sears, who later became the chairman of the Reagan campaign. The chairman was fired at the night of the New Hampshire primary. The other guy was a fellow that had been with Reagan for many years named Nofziger. They all said, "Hey, this is great we want to do it. So after the meeting was over, I headed home and Paul Laxalt remained there for a while with this guy from Cutbank, Montana and Paul said, "I like Dick's idea, but who's going to get to run it? The program entails some work." Frank said, "Well, why don't you ask Dick?" Paul said, "He's a lawyer, he doesn't have time to do this and we don't have money to pay him to get it done. That's a lot of time involved." Frank said, "Well, before you write him off, ask him." So Paul called me on the phone and asked, "Would you run this program that you proposed to us? We will pay all of your expenses and enough money to pay your overhead of your office while you're gone working for us, but we don't have the money to pay you for your time." I said, "Okay." 36 I spent several months doing that and after Reagan got nominated and he was going to do the campaign, he said, "Dick, we want you to run the Western half of the country." Dick Wirthlin was put in charge of it and Bill Casing was the chairman. Dick Wirthlin was the strategist and would say, "We want you to take everything West of the Mississippi River except Texas and build the ground organization." After we won, Reagan wanted me to be the chairman of the transition team for the Department of Interior. I headed the team where we transitioned the Department of Interior from the Democrats to the Republicans and that was an interesting experience because they were paranoid about us and we were paranoid about them. It was common courtesy for the outgoing administration to cooperate with the incoming and let them have whatever information they wanted. So, we went down to the Department of interior, I recruited a group of guys to work with me on the campaign. Paul Laxalt had a couple people he wanted to do that and we took over down at the Department of Interior. We decided what we wanted to do, what people we wanted to remove and what changes we wanted to make. During that time, there were a lot of rumors in the paper about what was going to happen to Dick Richards. You saw them in Ogden. Is he going to be Secretary of the Interior? Is he going to be chairman of the party? When we got through with the Department of Interior, I got a call from the White house and they asked, "Dick, will you be available at 5:00 p.m. to take a call from the White House?" I said, "I'll be here." At 5:00 p.m., I get a telephone call from Ronald Reagan and he said, "Hi Dick, this is Ron, you've been reading about rumors that I was going to 37 appoint you chairman of the National Committee, so I want to make those rumors a reality. Would you take that chairmanship for me?" I said, "Mr. President, I'd be glad to." That's how it happened. ROH: It was that simple. RR: That simple. That's the way Reagan was, he was straight forward and simple. Let me tell you a thing I learned. This is a little out of order, but it shows Reagan. After I was elected, I was invited to go to the meetings that took place once a month between the president and the leaders of the House and the Senate. Bob Michael was a minority leader of the House. He was from Peoria, Illinois. One time, as we walked into the meeting, President Reagan says, "Hi Bob, how are things in Peoria?" Bob says, "Shucks, Mr. President, we've got it tough. We've got 5,600 caterpillar workers unemployed. We're trying to get a contract to sell our ditch-digger to the Russians and we just can't get it done." The president said, "Well, what's the matter? Is that a piece of high-tech equipment or something?" He says, "Hell no, it's a ditch digger, anybody can make a ditch digger." The president said, "Then I don't understand." He said, "Well, we have to get permission from the Department of Commerce in order to make the sale and they haven't made a decision." The president walks over and put his hand on his shoulder and said, "Bob, they just did." That day, Bob announced to his people in Peoria that the President approved their sale and they all went back to work. That's the way Reagan did it. I would have thought that he would have said to his Chief of Staff, Jim Baker to call Secretary Mossbacker and see what's holding 38 this up. Well, he didn't need to do that, he was president he could make the decision. ROH: Today is Wednesday, September 5, 2012. We are in the home of Richard Richards continuing his oral history. This is Rebecca Ory Hernandez from Weber State University. Present are Rebecca and Richard Richards as well as Annette Richards. Why don't we pick up from when you were still in Washington D.C. and you've finished your political piece of working with the White House? Tell me what you did after that presidential term was completed. RR: After I completed my two year assignment at the Republican National Committee, I chose not to run longer because there were too many problems fighting with people that wanted to control the National Committee and all that stuff. As I left, Ronald Reagan called me down to the White House and said, "Dick, you've been a loyal lieutenant to me for a long time, but you've never really been in my administration. I would like you to come and be part of the Reagan administration. What I'd like you to do is go over to the Department of Interior and be the Under Secretary to Jim Watt. Jim is having trouble and I think you could help him out. I said, "Well, Mr. President, I've been a volunteer for you for about six years and I'm broke. I need to get out and make some money. So, I really don't think I can do that." Not only that, I was beginning to have some health problems and I knew that it would be a torture chamber to go through some kind of hearing with the Senate controlled by the Democrats. I could not imagine that the Democrats would approve someone who had just been chairman of the Republican Party to go be the Under Secretary of the Department of Interior. I 39 passed that up and I opened up a lobbying lawyer business in Washington and began representing various interests. ROH: What was the name of the company? RR: Initially, I was with a couple of other lawyers, but when I started my own company it was called, "Commerce Consultants International" (CCI). When I left the National Committee, I had a going away party sponsored by the National Committee. It was to introduce my replacement, but also it was sort of a going away party for me and Ronald Reagan came. I heard from some inside people that some of the folks at the White House said, "Don't go for Richards, you didn't go when Dick Allen left or when others left. Why go for him?" Reagan said, "Well, I like him and we'll go." So, Reagan came and he spoke and said, "Dick Richards was my friend when it took courage to be my friend." That refers to the fact that I was the only state party chairman that supported Reagan against Gerald Ford while Ford was the president. That set me apart from the others and that's why Reagan appreciated me. It took courage to do that. I opened my office and immediately got some clients. One of the first clients was Sikorsky Helicopter Company. They had been trying to sell their helicopter to Taiwan for about six years. At one time they had a deal, but when Jimmy Carter was president he killed it. I met with a representative who was a lobbyist for Sikorsky and also a General from Taiwan. He came to my office and said, 'We want to buy the Black Hawk, and if we can't get it in the next six months we're going to write it off and we're going to buy the French helicopter 40 called the Augusta. We'll give you six months to get this done." I contacted Ed Meece who was counselor to the president and told him what we wanted to do. He went to the president and the president said, "Let them have what they want." That was six years of red tape cut by the president. I became a hero to Sikorsky because they'd been trying for six years. I developed a pretty good base of aerospace clients. I represented Sikorsky and I did some work for Boeing, General Dynamics and Pratt Whitney jet engines. I did a lot of work for them over many years. It turned out to be a very good client. ROH: Were there any other major clients when you were working? RR: I had some interesting ones. I was asked to represent the Kingdom of Thailand. I was the foreign agent for Thailand here in the United States. The United States was pressing some trade violations against Thailand. They were copying some of our medications. I remember they had a fake Sudafed that they sold and they copied our movies and all kinds of stuff. They stole a lot of intellectual property. The United States was going to punish them for it. When I was representing them, I talked to the Prime Minister and saw the other people that were movers and shakers over there and I asked, "What's your deal?" They said, "We'll stop stealing in two years, but we've got to do that now because the American products like medications are too expensive for Thai people to buy so we have to copy them and sell them at a lower price. We'll stop in two years." I asked, "Why?" They said, "Because we're working on our own copyright and patent laws and when they're in place to protect us then we'll protect you, but we're not going to protect you until we're ready." I went to the White House and I talked to the 41 domestic advisor of the president who was a friend of mine, Roger Porter. I said, "They said they'll quit in two years." He started to laugh and he says, "How am I going to tell the president they're only going to steal for two years?" I said, "Well, you know, the Japanese lied to you, the Chinese lied to you, everyone else lies to you, but these guys are at least telling you the truth." They withheld the sanctions against them. I represented this fellow by the name of Chachi. He was the first elected Prime Minister and after a couple years he got on an airplane with one of his generals by the name of Suchinda. The general pulled out his pistol and said, "Okay, Mr. Prime Minister, you're out and I'm in." He took over and executed Chachi right there with the airplane. Later on, Suchinda was trying to establish himself there and a lot of students rioted and picketed and so forth. About 1,500 of them just disappeared. I guess he had them killed and removed. When the king found out what happened he told him, "You're out. You can't be the prime minister here." Suchinda walked away. The king had a great deal of moral influence, although he had no legislative or statutory right to make those decisions. That was an interesting experiment. ROH: Did you ever have to travel to Thailand? RR: I traveled to Thailand once in a while, but my area was mostly in the Far East. I did a lot of traveling. In fact, someone asked me about traveling to Hong Kong and I looked it up and found I had 22 round-trips to Hong Kong in the 10 years of my passport. I did a lot there. 42 ROH: What about in Bangkok? RR: I did a lot in Bangkok. Later on, I represented a company in California called Sunrider International. I went to Bangkok, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries to get permission for Sunrider to sell their product there and to convince them that our method of selling was legitimate. It was multi-level marketing and that was not common in the Far East, so we had to talk them into letting us do that. ROH: What happened next in your career? RR: That went on for several years. I represented people during the George Bush administration and did some part-time volunteer work for George Herbert Walker Bush in his campaign. I did some organizing in neighborhoods and in Washington, Oregon and here in the West. In fact, I was telling Annette that while I was involved with George Bush, he invited me to fly out with him to Boeing in Seattle. They were honoring the astronauts. They had the living astronauts there and I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to who was there, I never took any pictures or anything because I was there on a political trip. I think about a half a dozen of those guys and Neil Armstrong was there. They were given an award by Boeing Company for their exploits. They had an airplane like the one George Bush flew when he crashed into the ocean and he was rescued. He was really excited about that. He was looking at that and reminiscing. I was talking to Barbara Bush while he was doing that and she was excited for him because he hadn't seen one of those airplanes for a really long time. 43 ROH: Did you do any lobbying after that? RR: I did lobbying almost up to the time that I came home to Utah. Having been the Republican National Chairman, I had excellent contacts with Republicans and the Republican presidents. After Bill Clinton got elected, most of my contacts were gone. They were now Democratic contacts, so I figured that was a good time for me to go home. ROH: What year was it that you came home? RR: I think I came home about 1993. We were looking for a place to live here. I had a nice home in Washington and the value of it increased significantly. I had a profit on that property, but the tax laws were such at that time that if I sold my house, even though I bought another house I didn't get any kind of tax break on it and the government would have taken about $70,000 from me in taxes. I said, "Well, I'm not going to do that. I'll put the money into a new house." I bought a house here in South Ogden. I bought it without Annette seeing it. I came out and I saw this house and I walked in and it was a beautiful house on 46th and Jefferson, a big gray rock house. I walked in there and the neighbor was a real estate agent for Weber County. I walked in and looked in the foyer and I didn't even go through the house, it was just so beautiful and I was impressed so I said, "I'll take it." I gave him a check that night for earnest money. I said, "One condition, my wife has a week to decide whether she wants to come here." I called Annette and she didn't want to be bothered coming out. My daughter who lived here went to see it and she said, "Oh mom, you'll love the house." We agreed and we moved 44 into the house. We lived there until I started having a pretty serious heart problem and we couldn't keep up the land. The property was too big and complicated. We had to move, so we moved here into the condominiums. ROH: Tell me a little bit about your health problems you are referring to. RR: When I was living in Virginia I went out for a bike ride with my youngest son. As I pumped up a hill I had severe chest pains and I stopped at the top and I said, "Brian, I have to stop and rest." He wanted to go on so I told him he can go on but I had to rest. When I went home Annette saw me and she said, "Dick you look terrible, you need to go to a doctor." I said, "Well, I'll do it tomorrow." I was kind of gray and having a lot of pain. I waited until the next day and went to a doctor. They examined me and said, "You've had a major blockage of your arteries, but don't worry about it because the worst that could happen to you already happened." We thought that was pretty crazy to say that, so I went to a very famous cardiologist I had contact with as a result of some of my business. He ran a heart hospital in Phoenix. They tested me and said, "You've got some blockage." They gave me an angiogram and put in a stent. The stent lasted just one day and it was clogged up again. This was just a couple of days before Christmas. I said to the surgeon, "What do you recommend?" He said, "I think you ought to get a mechanical fix." He meant a bypass. I said, "Well, I ought to do it. This is a good time for me to do that. Business is slow in Washington. So when can you do it?" He said, "I can do it 45 tomorrow." I called Annette and said, "I'm not coming home for Christmas, I'm getting open-heart surgery tomorrow." Annette had Christmas in Virginia with the family before she came to see me. I remember after the operation when I looked in the mirror; I looked like my father looked on his death bed. My voice was just like him. Annette saw me and she started crying. That was my first open-heart surgery. I got over that for a while and later on I developed another problem. In fact, I'd been in Korea and worked out in the exercise room in the hotel in Korea and I thought, "I'm doing great." By the time I got to the airport I was having trouble, so that was the sign that I needed it again. Then, I ended up having open-heart surgery again here in Ogden with Dr. Cain at the McKay-Dee Hospital. That one was kind of interesting because I went to Salt Lake to the Beehive House and I was participating in a political meeting there. The pains became more severe and more severe. I didn't think I was going to make it home it was so bad. Immediately, I saw a sign that said "Hospital Next Right" so I took the road up to the hospital on Antelope Drive and went to the emergency ward and went in and told the lady, "I need some help." She said, "You look terrible. Sit down." They got me in a wheelchair and got me some oxygen and said, "You need to see your heart doctor tomorrow." I went to see him and that's when he said, "We'll do another operation on you." So I got another open-heart surgery here. The one I got in Phoenix I got about five or six bypasses. When I was here in Ogden I got a couple more. It seemed like every two years I would have problems. 46 Later on, I had a problem again and I saw the same doctors and they said, "We won't open you up, we've opened you up twice and we're not interested in performing another open-heart, we never know what we're going to get into." I was in serious trouble and nobody would touch me. I went to the LDS hospital in Salt Lake and they didn't want to do anything and McKay-Dee didn't want to do anything. My son got on the internet and found a vascular surgeon out in Daly City, California who was doing some experimental laser surgery. We decided to try that. I went out to see them and they acknowledged that I needed some surgery, but it was experimental and the FDA would not let them perform that surgery unless I had an independent doctor look at me beforehand to say, "If he doesn't get it he'll probably die." It was one of these compassionate things. They said, "There's no insurance, so if you come out here, you'll have to bring cash with you." The vascular surgeon's secretary or nurse negotiated with the hospital and everybody involved and I had to take $15,000 out to Daly City Hospital and they performed that surgery on me. It's called TMR Transmyocardial Revascularization. They open you up and pull the ribs apart and punch holes in your heart with a laser. They move the laser right up to the heart muscle and punch a hole and blood will start coming out and they rub their finger on it and it seals it over and they move over and punch another until they punch 25 holes, sew you up and that's it. I'll tell you, it was the best operation I've ever had. The impact was dramatic. I walked out of there in a couple of days and the only thing that was wrong with me was I hurt a 47 lot on the soft tissue. Otherwise, it was like I'd never had a heart problem. That lasted me for several years and we decided I could go on a mission. Annette and I volunteered to go on a mission and we were called to the Rochester, New York mission and that included Buffalo, Rochester and Palmyra. While I was there I had the problem again and I was hospitalized. When I got home everything looked pretty good. I ended up over here at Ogden Regional and had a few more stents put in. I got to a point where I was really in trouble and my doctor said, "I tried to go in there and put in another stent, but I couldn't even get my wire in the artery. I tried four times and then I gave it up. I have to tell you, you're in pretty serious shape. I don't think you'll live on too much. I'd give you about two months unless somebody can fix this and we don't have a doctor with the ability to fix this particular problem." It was the main descending right artery. ROH: What year was this? RR: It was about 2007. The doctor said, "Let me call Mayo, Johns Hopkins and Cleveland. If anybody could do it one of them can, but I don't even know if they'll touch you." Cleveland said, "Come on back and we'll look at it and decide what to do." So we went back there and we checked in on a Monday and they did all kinds of tests on me until Friday and I met with the surgeon and he said, "Mr. Richards, you're in pretty bad shape. You've got about two months and that's about all you can live with this. The only way we could avoid that is if we could fix it. We don't even want to try. We don't open up people three times, now you want 48 us to open you up the fourth time. We don't normally do that." I said, "Well, doctor, you're the best hospital in the country to do this, you're the best doctor and I'm a tough patient. I want you to do it." He started laughing and he said, "I guess if anybody can survive it, you probably could. I won't agree to do it, but stick around for a day or so and I'll talk to some other surgeons and we'll see if we can work something out. But you have no promise from me." On Sunday, we got the telephone call from them and they said, "If you're still willing to take the risk and give appropriate releases, we'll do it on Tuesday." They called back and said, "We've got a cancellation Monday, come on in Monday morning." So I went in Monday morning and that's when they did the operation on me. It was kind of interesting though, the doctor did not want to do it. I knew he didn't want to do it, so he was looking pretty glum when they were about to do it. They did twelve open-heart surgeries a day at that hospital. He looked kind of glum and I said, "Well, doctor, let me tell you something that will make you feel better. I'm a Mormon, and we have a scripture that says all men are given a gift and you have a gift to heal people and I have the gift to be healed." He gave me the thumbs up and shoved me in the operating room and that was it. He called my doctor here and said, "You know, if it hadn't been for his attitude, we would have never touched him. He had such a good attitude. We thought he had a reasonable chance to survive." After about a year my doctor said, "Write to this guy and tell him you're still alive, I think he'll be interested in hearing it." ROH: It's been five years later. Are you doing well now? 49 RR: I'm doing pretty well. I've got some problems, but I'm doing pretty well. ROH: So does this heart issue run in your family? RR: Both of my parents had strokes, so I presume it runs in the family. I've got seven sisters and none of them have the problem. I have one brother and he's had one little problem, but hasn't had a stent put in. I've ended up with nine bypasses, four open-heart surgeries, fourteen stents, and a pacemaker and I'm just ticking along until it's time to go. ROH: Were there any prominent surgeons here in Ogden that worked with you on this? RR: Doctor Cain at McKay-Dee Hospital and my cardiologist here is Doctor Diehl at Ogden Regional. He's put in about seven of my stents. He's not a surgeon, he's a cardiologist. So, that's my medical history. ROH: Let's back up here a little bit. You moved back here from Washington. Were you involved in law practice when you moved back to Ogden? RR: I still represented Sunrider Corporation out of California. I was their general council. I really wasn't though. I had the title, but I was more of a consultant to them and did routine corporate work for them. I did a little bit of other lobbying. I did not do legal work, but I did some lobbying for people. ROH: Were you lobbying for Utah constituents or people back in Washington? RR: Mostly back in Washington. 50 ROH: Can you tell me some of the people you were working with then? RR: I was working with people in the aerospace business and I had to lobby the congress for them to put a little pressure on Taiwan to buy a bunch of Boeing aircraft. Taiwan Airlines wanted it, but they had some guys in the Taiwan government that didn't want to spend the money although they had billions on hand. Our job was to build a little bit of fire under the head of the government in Taiwan so they'd buy the airplanes from us. We had a bad balance of trade. They sold us a lot more than we sold them. To sell them eight or ten 747's was a big deal and we promoted that pretty aggressively. I didn't do a whole lot more, I really was quite retired. ROH: Did you get involved with any groups in the community? RR: I got involved with some friends and we played golf once a week. I did a little work in politics. I helped Orrin Hatch and other Republican candidates. I didn't do a lot. I didn't have the energy to do a lot and I didn't feel safe to travel. I did do some traveling to visit my son in Alabama and my daughter in New York and stuff like that, but I've been retired. However, I'm writing some papers on how I think we can improve the presidential election system in America. ROH: I know you have written a lot. RR: I've had people ask me to represent them and I've turned them down because I couldn't be reliable. If I had to go someplace tomorrow at 10:00, I'm not sure I could do it because of my health. I wake up some mornings and I just can't operate. 51 ROH: I know about you're involvement with Weber State and you've indicated that you guest lecture at the University of Utah. Why don't you tell me a little bit about that? RR: My interest was primarily with Weber State. When I left Washington after having seen the legal profession and the lobbyist I thought, "We have a real problem with ethics in this country." I wanted to do something about ethics and I talked to Ann Milner who was president of the university. I embarrassed my wife in what I said, but I said, "Ann, you ought to teach ethics on the campus. If you do that, you'll be a hero and if you don't do it you'll be a bum." She said, "You mean I'll be a bum?" I said, "Yes." We laughed about that. We talked about ethics and the development people got in touch with me. He said, "If you want to do something about it, why don't you put up some money to start a foundation?" So I did. I put up quite a bit of money for it. We started our ethics program and what we've been doing is giving scholarships out. For the last couple of years we've given scholarships and I think last year we gave about $20,000. That is, $1,000 scholarships to 20 people. ROH: Tell me a little bit about who is receiving the scholarships. RR: We put on a program in conjunction with Garff Motors, who has a program for high school students. We decided to have each of the high schools in the area participate in a contest to write the best essay on how we can improve ethics in our community. The people who wrote the best essay in 20 high schools were given a $1,000 scholarship to Weber State. We've done that for two years and I 52 presume we will continue to do it. In the meantime, I decided to write a book. I started writing my book about what I had done and so on and I've got some good help from Gene Sessions up on the campus. It took me a long time. Writing a book is not an easy project. My wife had a lot of good notes. My secretary kept a lot of good notes. I had a lot of press releases. A lot of what I put in there I got from newspapers because most everything I did was written up in the press somewhere. The book is called, "Climbing the Political Ladder One Rung at a Time" That was designed primarily to encourage young people who like politics to get involved. Also, to tell them how I was able to go from nowhere to the National Chairmanship and that they can do the same thing. As I give talks around, one of the first questions everybody asks is, "How did you ever get to become the Republican National Chairman?" The press says, "He came from Podunk Utah. Where's Ogden?" They had no idea where Ogden was. I had no family that was previously involved in politics. My family didn't have money, so how did I get to be National Chairman? ROH: Do you think that in today's environment that something like that could happen to someone? RR: It would be pretty rare because I've never heard of it happening before either. ROH: I'm sure that's what a lot of the students say is that it's really remarkable. RR: Well, what I tell them is that if they are willing to do the grubby, unglamorous work like licking the envelopes, putting on the stamps and running the errands, 53 you can work yourself up that ladder. Candidates love volunteers and if you're a good volunteer, you will just keep progressing up the line. The guy that I hired to be the executive director of the party here when I was the national chairman was Dave Turner, a young kid out of Utah State that volunteered to drive a car for me when I was a candidate. He was just a young kid interested in politics and he was a driver. From there he just moved up the ladder until he ended up in a pretty good position. ROH: What is he doing now? RR: He worked for Hudd for a while and he's just trying to get some years in for government service and he's working for the national security people at the airport. ROH: Back to this ethics business. It's curious to me because I don't know of a lot of ethics programs at other schools, so what inspired you to create something related to ethics at Weber State? RR: Well, because we needed it. We really need it. When I talked to them, Ann said, "Talk to the head of the business department." I talked to him and he said, "Well, we devote an hour or two in the course of study on ethics." I said, "That's nothing. We ought to have a whole program of ethics." I really pushed it hard and Nathan Clark pushed me to put up the money to start it and that's what we've done. Every day you can read in the newspaper about some major breech of ethics on the part of a governor, a senator, or someone that works for the city— everybody. There's ethical breech all around us and a lot of times these kids 54 don't know any better. I've seen surveys where they ask kids if they have ever cheated in school. Seventy-five percent of them say they've cheated and when you ask why they say, "Well, everybody else is cheating and I'm competing with them. If I have to compete with them then I guess I have to cheat." I thought, "We need to start teaching them a little bit earlier." If we can get a hold of these kids in high school and get them involved in ethics, it's going to a make a difference. Someone asked me, "How are you going to measure success?" I said, "I don't know that you can, but somewhere along the line you're going to touch somebody and that's going to improve their attitude on ethics." That's what it's all about. It's a difficult thing. It's prodding all the time and trying to get people to buy scholarships for the kids, but we have had some experience from these young kids that won the scholarship that say, "I could not have gone to college without that scholarship. That made all the difference in the world to me." We give it to them not because they are rich or good students, but because they have the best ideas about ethics. I still spend a lot of time and effort on this ethics stuff. ROH: I think that's great. RR: However, I do have a complaint against the university on this and I've talked to a lot of these guys that raise big chunks of money. I say, "Why don't you tell the people that are giving to earmark some of that money for ethics?" The university doesn't want to do it because they want the money to go into the building or whatever they do. There's no reason why we can't tell a guy that's going to give a million dollars that $50,000 of that can go into ethics, but the university has their 55 own program and it isn't channeling the ethics program. We're getting the new president soon and I'm going to be approaching him. Ann has been supportive, but nothing has happened other than holding those meetings. We had the former governor speak to our group a year ago and we gave out all these scholarships and there wasn't one word in the press about it. Standard Examiner never wrote one word about it. We had the pictures taken of all these kids that got scholarships and we were hoping they'd get their picture in the paper and they did not. I called Doug at the Standard and I asked if he would run a story on the ethics program. He said, "Yes. When is it?" I said, "It was last night." They did not even know what night it was and I said, "You guys at the university and the public relations department failed, you should have seen that the press was there." Again, this is the second year they didn't do it. We've decided that we've got to have a public relations guy on our board. It's their job to get the press. ROH: Is there anything nationally that you're aware of happening with ethics? RR: No. It was kind of interesting when Jon Huntsman was the governor, he came up when they named the Richard Richards Institute. Governor Huntsman and Jake Garn were there and they named it. Huntsman said, "You're the only university around here that's promoting ethics. I'm going to support you. I'm going to help you." Well, he hasn't. I sent him an email when he was over in China and said, "You said you wanted to help us I thought it meant you were going to give us some money or get other people to give some money." We hate to have to go out 56 and grub money a dollar at a time to give these scholarships. Zion's Bank has been a big supporter. They have given us $12,000 each year for two years. That was very helpful to us. The university has paid for the meals when we have the banquet and that's about all the university has done. It really hasn't caught on yet. ROH: It takes some time. How many years has it been now? RR: I've been working on it for about three or four years, but we've been giving out scholarships for the last two. Alan Hall is a big money raiser for the school. I went to Alan and said, "Alan, why don't you tell these guys that are giving money that they can earmark some for ethics." He said he would do it, but I don't think he has. However, in the next week or so that committee meets again and I'm going to go back to Alan Hall and say, "Look, give us some money." In fact, because he writes this business article and I told him, "Alan, why don't you write an article about ethics?" He wrote a paragraph about it out of probably 30 or 40 columns. We got two inches referring to ethics. We're going to have to press it. ROH: I think it would be good for you to write a column too because you've got more experience. RR: I've written some columns only they've been political columns. ROH: What do you think about ethics in politics these days? RR: Well, politics today is meaner than it has been in a long time. When Jake Garn decided he didn't want to run again and Howard Baker from Tennessee, the 57 senator from Colorado said, "It isn't fun anymore. It used to be fun, but it is just mean now. Your colleagues are mean, your constituents are mean, the press is mean and it just isn't fun." Senator Baker told me, "If I knew how good it was on the outside, I would have quit the senate a long time ago." It's just a bad environment and it is getting worse. You can go back in history and you can see even in George Washington's time they slandered one another, but we slander them day after day in the press that gets to millions of readers every day. That's why it appears so bad. ROH: How do you inspire the youth? Let's say these high school kids that you're helping to go to university. How do you inspire them to change when what they're seeing is so slanderous? RR: We've made a couple of attempts to do that. We were assigned by the governor to sit on the committee to tell how to improve elections in the state. I got the students up at Weber to write a program on it and we submitted it to the governor. We also got one on ethics and what the ethics reform ought to be. Our kids on the campus wrote a program on how to establish an ethics program in the state of Utah and the legislation didn't pay any attention to it. We gave it directly to the governor and we gave it to legislatures and we gave it to the press. Everybody saw it but the legislature pre-empted everybody and wrote their puny little ethics reform which is nothing. 58 ROH: I was wondering if that had anything to do with it. I remember hearing about ethics reform a little over a year ago, so I was wondering if that is just one of those things that will take more time. RR: Yes, it will take time beyond my time to get, but whatever we do to get it going is worth it. Like I said, if you ask, "How do you measure your success?" There are no definitive measures, but if you touch the heart and mind of a half a dozen kids, that's good. Out of our first year we had one of our students that got an ethics scholarship and they worked on our committee. They went to Washington to be an intern at the White House for Obama. Another one went to work for congressman Bishop. The kids did get involved and they're doing some stuff. I can pick out two or three kids that I know we've had an impact on and will do something in politics. As I look back, when I was party chairman in Utah, Karl Rove was one of my interns. I didn't even know him. I didn't pay attention to him at that time. Another one was this guy Dave Hanson, who runs Orrin Hatch's campaign and I had lunch with him yesterday. Another one named Alan Peterson who did a nationwide organizational program for Richard Nixon and we had some guys from Ogden participating. Alex Hurtado, he was one of my best political friends and he got involved in this national organization for Nixon. I've seen a handful of people that have become involved and have been very successful, but it's got to be more. ROH: Is there anything else you'd like to add about ethics? 59 RR: There is one thing that's happening. Isaac Goeckeritz is putting together a film on ethics to promote the ethics up here. He has interviewed Jake Garn, Richard Wirthlin, Mr. Mack, the governor, and a whole lot of people talking about ethics in their business. Bob Garff talks about the ethics of his father in the automobile business. They're talking about ethics and he's preparing it and his wife said he is coming close and maybe by Christmas he will have it done and it will go on the air at KUED. I think it will be good enough that it will open up a lot of other things. Another guy that's in that is Dan Jones and he talks about ethics in the polling business. ROH: That will be good to see. Isaac Goeckeritz, for future reference, is a local historian, film documenter, a Weber State graduate, and one of Richard's relatives. RR: We were involved with the one on the Union Station, he did the one on the hill out in Uintah, "The U," he did one on homeless vets and now he's doing one on ethics. He's also doing other stuff. KUED loves him, they say he's got a great deal of talent and they're going to keep using him. ROH: Today is September 26, 2012 and we are in the home of Dick Richards. Present are Rebecca Ory Hernandez and Dick Richards. We are going to continue your oral history. The last time we spoke we talked a lot about the Ethics Institute at Weber State, so today I would like to talk a little more about present day and what is happening in your life. What are your involvements here in Ogden and in 60 the state related to politics? I know that you have been a guest on a few T.V. shows, so why don't you tell me a little bit about that? RR: I was on two Ted Capner shows, that's the Sunday afternoon broadcast. The first one after he read my book he invited me to come and talk to him and we talked about the things that are in the book. You've seen many of them. The other discussion we had just a week or so ago was on how we can cut down the cost of presidential campaign. This year's presidential campaign will probably cost 4 billion dollars. Each one of the candidates will raise about a billion dollars for their campaign and the political parties will make another half a billion. Then, 527 committees, or so-called super-packs, will each raise about a half a billion or more and that will put us at least $4 billion for the presidential campaign. The point that people don't understand is that the Supreme Court has rules that anyone can get involved in a campaign and spend all the money they want provided they do not coordinate with the candidate. All these committees raise money and you know what their message is going to be, they don't have to say vote for Obama or vote for Romney, you can tell what they're promoting. They get involved in it and that will bring the cost to over $4 billion. My proposal was that in order to prevent this limit the time, since you can't limit the money. Reduce the time of the campaign and allow the candidates to do their exploratory effort up until about the 15th of April in the election year. By the 15th of April they have to announce whether they will or will not be a candidate. If they say they will be a candidate, from that day on they can start raising money. They'll have to go through the primaries of the various states from that time before November. 61 If you're in a state with a caucus convention like we have, you might have your first caucus about three months after the candidate announces. We'd have the county conventions and the state conventions and if you had to have a primary you'd push the campaign between the Republican and the Democrat clear back to about August of September. They can't raise or spend a billion dollars between September and November, so it will really force the whole process to slow down to eliminate cost. Romney had been running for about 6 or 8 years and Obama has been running for 3 and it's just boring, wasteful and non-productive. The conventions and the debates they have are really about nothing and they reduce themselves to just petty criticism of the other guy. If you had only a three month campaign period they'd talk about what they want to do. They'd talk about the positive aspects of their campaign. ROH: Who profits from all of this money? RR: I made that point on television. The only ones that profit are the television stations, the radio, the newspaper, the campaign managers, and the advertising firms. The public doesn't profit by it. It's the guys that make money out of the campaign. Professional fundraisers get a percentage of the money they raise, the television people get money for everything they run, the campaign managers and the public relations people get 15 percent of what they spend on television. Just imagine a $200 million campaign on television and the guy is going to make about $30 million for putting the ads on the air. That's a big deal. ROH: So the candidates don't actually make any of the money they are raising? 62 RR: No, the candidates don't get it. It's those that are in the campaign business that get the money. Nobody likes to give it, but when you've got a campaign and they keep hitting you up for money, you feel the pressure and you make contributions. Everybody but the guys that make money on the campaign would like to see it shorter. ROH: Do you think that will happen in our lifetime? RR: It could, but I don't know whether it will or not. There has been a drive in the past for regional primaries or a national primary. If we had regional primaries, that would help a lot because then the candidate would have to talk to all of the American people instead of just eight states. Where they are now they go to Illinois and they talk about automobile manufacturing because that's the big issue there. They go to Ohio and they talk about the agricultural subsidies. It really isn't a national campaign, it is a series of little local interest campaigns. That's not good for the country. ROH: Are there any other shows that you've been featured on other than the one that you just mentioned? RR: No, I've been on his show a couple of times and I speak once in a while at the Hinckley Institute. I get invited more to the University of Utah to speak than I do Weber State, but I do participate on the campuses and I've been asked to talk to civic groups in town. My health is such that I have been turning them down. I don't know whether or not I'm going to feel well enough to do it. I just say, "No, I don't do that anymore." 63 ROH: Are you doing any local speeches during this campaign? RR: I write down suggestions for the candidates to send to them and they never follow those. What happens is that when a guy gets to be the campaign manager doesn't want other people telling him what to do. They look at guys like me and say, "Oh those guys are over the hill, they don't know the campaigns are different today." They don't pay any attention to us. They're wrong. I found my way to the national chairmanship by doing a good campaign on the state and local level and then on the national level. The principles of running the program we run is the same today as it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago. The average American has nothing to do with the campaign. They don't know the candidate. They don't meet the candidates and they don't even know who they are. If you put on a program where you give them the opportunity to participate in the campaign they're flattered by it. They want to do it. What we had done over the years was recruit people. For Richard Nixon, we set up a telephone operation and called people in the various neighborhoods and said, "I'm a volunteer for Richard Nixon, we think he's uniquely qualified to be president of the United States. We're doing what we can, will you help us?" A lot of people say yes and ask what they can do. We send them brochures and ask them to go door-to-door and tell the people about Richard Nixon and give him their personal endorsement. We know it flatters people and they think their job is very important. 64 Many years ago, one guy up in Portland called up after we went through the primary and said, "I did my work in the primary, but I'm 82 years old and legally blind. I don't think I can do it in a general election. So, you better get someone to take my place." He thought that the little role he had in the neighborhood was so important that if he didn't do it, there would be a problem so we'd have to get somebody to take his place. T The campaign chairman doesn't make any money if you do this volunteer work and neither does the television or anyone else, this is a very quiet campaign. The only person that makes any money on this is the guy that rents you the building and maybe the telephone company that has telephones from it. ROH: That's interesting. Are you doing any other kinds of present day consulting? RR: No, I'm actually retired. I'm helping a couple of little businesses, but I'm basically retired. I'm one of the 47 percent that's living off of the government program called Social Security. ROH: Can you share a little bit about the businesses you're helping? RR: I've been helping a company that makes a gasoline additive that reduces the pollution of your automobile and increases your gas mileage. Interestingly enough, my role is to get government people to look at it and try it out. I have found that people that work for the government in the motor pools don't care if you save money on gasoline. It's not out of their pocket. You can give it to them and ask them to try it out, but they don't do it. We talk about the need to increase 65 mileage and reduce pollution, but the guy that's running the motor pool at the state of Utah, Salt Lake and Ogden don't care. ROH: Is it corn-based? RR: No, it's not a food-based. It's made of algae. It does not affect the corn prices or the wheat prices. I use it in my car and I get five more miles per gallon in the city and on the highway. ROH: That's fascinating. RR: It's just a little tablet you put in the gas tank. It looks like a jelly bean and when you fill your gas tank you drop it into the tank. ROH: Is it available on the market? RR: Yes, but it's only on the internet. You can't sell it at the gas stations because it cuts down their gas sales they don't want that. I've got to give my wife credit that she put up with all of the things I've done and all of the moving. I have dragged her and my kids around the country time and time again and they've never complained. I think they've had a great benefit from doing it, but at the same time a lot of people complain if they've had to pick up and move every year or two. We never lived in a house for more than 10 years until we were 13 years in that house in McLean, Virginia and that's the longest we've ever been in a house. AR: Actually, we've been here now about as long as we've been there. It wasn't easy, I'll tell you. 66 ROH: Annette, you do history, right? AR: Yes. I've been doing that. I went to a meeting in Salt Lake on this new family search and they asked how long people have been researching and I'd been researching the longest. Over 50 years. I started when I was pretty young. Our oldest daughter was three months old when I got involved. ROH: Okay. Thanks Annette. Let's talk a little about present day politics, just a couple of quick questions. Are you involved at all in present day politics as far as on the national level? RR: Once in a while a candidate will call me and ask if he can sit down with me for a while and talk about the campaign and I give him some ideas. Otherwise, I'm really not involved. I was called by the campaign chairman for Governor Rick Perry and asked if I would be the Utah chairman for Perry and I said, "We've got to get passed John Huntsman first." I couldn't work for Perry as long as John Huntsman was in the race, but if Huntsman was out I'd be glad to help Perry out. I think he was a good candidate except he can't talk and answer questions. ROH: Other than Perry, are there any other names? RR: Well, I gave a little bit of advice to Hatch's opponent, but I said, "Orrin is a good friend of mine. I can't tell you how to run against him, but I can tell you what I think the issues ought to be." I spent an hour with Dan Lillianquist and I thought he was a good candidate, but he ran a bad campaign. ROH: What makes a bad campaign? 67 RR: If the campaign doesn't connect with the public and the voters it's a bad campaign. What you've got to do is talk about a message that they want to hear about and you have to have a good point of view on it. That's what these polls are about. They're polling all the time, "How do you feel about immigration? How do you feel about this or that?" The candidate tailors their message to appeal to those people. Unfortunately, it gets to be just a pandering deal to them. I respect Jon Huntsman because he said, "I'm not going to go to Iowa because I'm against ethanol subsidies. If I got to Iowa they're just going to "boo" me and I won't make any headway there, so I'm not going to go pander to them." I respect him for taking that position. Most of the candidates will go to one place and pander to them and it's just not healthy for the country and I think it's too bad. I'm 80 years old and my health isn't good, so I deliberately took myself out of a lot of this. I did join the tea party and I'll tell you why I like it. Number one, this is middle class America, the silent majority starting to make a little bit of noise. They're not looking for something special for themselves; they just don't want things special given to everybody else. They say, "We've got to cut down our spending." It isn't a question of raising more money, it's spending less money. When they go out and they have a rally of 15,000 people, there's no paraphernalia on the ground or a mess. They don't create a problem. It's clean, it's nice and these are good American citizens voicing their opinion. I read where people say, "The tea party is fading and they are not going to be all that critical in the campaign." They're kidding themselves. The tea party is alive and well and they will be very active in the campaigns when it comes closer to election time. 68 They don't campaign all year long, but they will be out working and they will have an impact. ROH: I think it's interesting that today that we have a new party. I think most people would find that interesting historically to look back and see the beginnings of this new party. Thank you for sharing. RR: One of the things that I propose in election reform is that they allow all parties to campaign in primary elections. Let them all get into the campaign and you'll wash out those that aren't really going to be a contender and you're going to end up with two or three. Maybe there would be three candidates in November, but there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe the guy that wins the presidency only had 47 percent of the population, but that's okay. Other people ought to have the right to voice their point of view and have the American people hear it. ROH: I had a young political science student ask me a question that they wanted me to ask you. He said that a lot of his friends are just not interested in politics at all. I would say between the ages of 19 and 26 are the age of his friends right now. He wanted me to ask you why they should be interested or get involved in politics because their perception of everything they see is negative. RR: That's unfortunate. A lot of people are turned off by the negative campaigns. I am. I'd get tired of listening to them. In fact, I asked Ted Capner if he watched all of the debates and he said, "No." I said, "Neither did I." I couldn't watch them all because they were not productive. I'd tell these young kids, "If you are really interested in politics, find a candidate that you like who's telling the story the way 69 you like it and join that campaign. If you get involved in it you will see your way through all of these things. You'll see how productive it can be." When you're only 19 years old, you're not thinking about retirement, medical expenses, or high taxes. You just haven't been out in the real world yet. As soon as you get a job and get your paycheck and you find out how much money was taken out for social security and worker's compensation and all these other things you think, "Hey, I thought I was getting $200 and I got $150." That shocks them and that's the eye-opener to these people. It kind of goes along with what Winston Churchill said, "When you're 19 years old, if you're not a liberal you've got no heart, but when you're 55 years old, if you're not a conservative you've got no brains." ROH: Right. That was what he asked, "How does it impact my life? All I'm trying to do is survive." He's actually got a wife and a child. He's working, going to school and he's involved on campus in leadership. He said, "I don't see how I can even be a blip on the radar of what's going on nationally." RR: Well, that's a story I tell in my book. I started out as the junior Republican chairman at Weber Junior College in 1952. In 1980, I was the Republican National Chairman. I climbed up. President Reagan said, "He's had every job on the way up. This is the first chairman I know that's worked his way through the state and national chairmanship positions." There's opportunity out there for these guys and in order to really understand it, I think you have to get involved in a campaign. The guy who's going to school and has a wife and kids says, "I'm 70 worried about my health insurance and if we have another baby we can't afford the cost of it." Then insurance becomes interesting to him. After a while, he gets hurt on the job or he gets sick, then social security, Medicare, and disability becomes interesting to him. These things become interesting as he grows older and he's facing that proposition. Young people don't look that far ahead. They think they're invincible and indestructible. They just don't see the problems down the road. ROH: Right. So let's talk a little bit about your family. I know you've got lots of children. RR: I've got five. ROH: That's a good-sized family. Are any of them involved in politics? RR: No, that is the interesting thing. My oldest son is a professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama. His name is Richard Albert Richards. He was named after Annette's father. He started out to be a dancer professionally and he danced around the world as a ballet dancer. He was quite good, but not good enough to be a star, and if you're not a star you can't make a living doing it. He finally decided that it wasn't for him and he went back to school to study philosophy. When he went back to school, he took the college ACT test and he got in the 98th percentile and he was offered a full fellowship at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. He got his degree there. He was a very good student and he had very good recommendations by the number one philosopher there and he went around to some of the colleges to seek employment and he ran into people that 71 said, "White men need not apply, we're going to hire a minority or a woman. So don't bother to apply." My oldest daughter, Julie Dockter, is married to a real estate salesman and they have four sons who are all doing very well. One of them is a businessman doing a lot of business with China and has made a lot of money. Another one is a medical doctor and his name is Dr. Dockter. Another one is in college studying something in physical sciences and the other one is a computer expert at Novell in Provo. My next daughter is married to a lawyer who's practicing law in New York. She's interested in politics, but she doesn't do much of it. She reads a lot and she gets involved a little bit but she has three kids and teaches early morning seminary and some other things. Her name is Jan Stevenson. My next daughter is Amy Hartvigsen and her husband is a landscape architect down in Alpine and they have four boys. The oldest is now on a mission. They have really talented kids. There is a lot of talent around my grandkids. My youngest son, Brian, works for the state of Utah in Utah Workplace. That's my family. I have ten grandchildren and eleven great grandchildren and four of those great grandchildren are part Chinese. My grandson, Chris Dockter married a Chinese girl from Taiwan. 72 ROH: I couldn't help but notice that you have a lot of art hanging in your home. RR: It's all family art. My father was the artist. ROH: Other people in your family are also artistically inclined. RR: Yes. My brother is an artist and he taught art at Dennison University in Dallas. My son, Rich, painted that big picture on the wall there. On the wall up there I've got paintings of my father, my brother, my daughter, and my son. We've all got a painting up there. My father is the best artist of the bunch. I have sisters that are very good. I think you saw the picture of the dogs in my bedroom. One of my sisters did that. There are a number of good artists in the family. The etching above the piano was by my brother. That big picture there is done by my son, Rich. The Abraham Lincoln was given to me by the Republican Party of Utah when I completed my term as state chairman. The star is a little thing that Richard Nixon gave out when he was elected president. The eagle is from the inauguration of Reagan and Bush. Geronimo is one that I just purchased. A friend of mine, Jay Taggert, former superintendent of the schools for Utah gave me the Teddy Roosevelt. ROH: Is there anything else that I might not have asked you that you would like to address? RR: I tell people jokingly that I used to be a genius, but now I'm just very bright. As a result of my heart operations, I have lost some mental acuity and I'm not as sharp as I used to be. My memory isn't as good. I have bad days so I'm limited. As a former National Chairman, I always have access to a seat at the national 73 conventions. They have one for former chairmen and I couldn't go so I asked them if my nephew could use my credentials so he went to the last convention. I went to every convention from 1968 until George W. Bush ran. I did not go then, but I went through Nixon, Reagan, and H. W. Bush. I've been to a lot of conventions. ROH: Is your nephew involved in politics now? RR: He's a lobbyist so he's a little bit involved in politics, but he likes to get involved. He has worked for candidates in the past. I don't have any children that wanted to be lawyers or wanted to be in politics. I wouldn't encourage them to be lawyers because I'm unhappy with the profession now. ROH: I was going to ask you if you encouraged them at all when they were younger to go into law or politics since they were living in Washington. RR: My girls were more enamored by living in Washington than my sons. They loved going to the White House and going to Kennedy Bunk Port and going to the parades and inaugurals and so on. They really enjoyed that. Everybody really loved being in that historical place, including me. ROH: Are there any stories about Ogden that many people might not know about or historical stories that would be just interesting to share? RR: Did you see the film that Isaac did on 25th Street? There is some historical stuff that I'm involved in on that 25th Street thing. When I went to law school, I drove from Ogden to Salt Lake and I had a couple of people that paid me to ride with 74 me. One of them was Annabelle Weakly and the other was Jane Larson. She was about 70 years old and she wanted to go back to school. She graduated from Weber College when she was 70 or 72. I got to know both of them fairly well. After I got out of law school I wanted to try lawsuits and I wanted to go to trial. If you want trial experience as a young lawyer you're not going to get it in a civil case. I went to the judges and said, "I want some trial experience so give me your criminals that don't have any money that are in jail and can't make bond." We didn't have a public defender system then. Over a period of one year they gave me 10 criminals and I tried the 10 felonies to a jury. I got 8 acquittals out of my 10 and that put me in business. I had lots of criminal business. In fact, it was too much. I ended up trying to get rid of it because I got tired of the criminals, but that's where I got my experience in the court room. I'll give you a quote from a guy if it won't sound politically incorrect, "One day I was walking along the street and this black guy came up to me and said, are you Mr. Richardson Richardson?" I said, "Well, I guess I am." He said, "Are you the man that represented Copeland Griffin?" I said, "I guess that's right." He said, "Well, let me shake your hand. You must be good. He was the biggest crook in town." Two of my defenses were for one guy and I won both of the cases and this impressed those in the black community. All my life I've been interested in politics, not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of helping the country. I've been concerned about the country. I see things that I don't think are right and I don't know whether I told you this story but when I was pretty new in the practice, we saw some misconduct and what I call 75 criminal activity on the part of elected officials in Weber County. I was instrumental in getting a grand jury called and ended up putting a sheriff in jail and some other things. These guys were doing a lot of things wrong. ROH: No, you didn't mention that? Who was the Sheriff? RR: It was LeRoy Hadley. I was representing a guy by the name of Ralph Anderson. He was a federal prisoner being housed in Ogden and waiting for his appeal in the tenth circuit. He appeared to have the run of the jail. Every time I'd go up to jail to see another client I'd see him hanging around. He wasn't in a cell, he was hanging around. One of these guys that had tattoos on his arm and had a pack of cigarettes rolled up in his shirt sleeve tried to hire me to represent him and he wanted an appeal to the tenth circuit. He was in jail for burglarizing a couple of post offices. He and his brother-in-law would drive a particularly adapted automobile up to these small post offices, break in, wheel the safe out and put it in the trunk of the car and drive up into the mountains and blow it up with dynamite and take out the money orders and postage stamps. He said, "Dick, I'll hire you. I'll give you $10,000 to represent me. I've got $60,000 stolen in postal money orders up in Pocatello. I can sell those for $20,000 and I'll give you half of it." I said, "No thanks. Not interested." Anyway, as time went on I talked to the guy and one day his wife came to me and said, "Mr. Richards, they're going to let Andy out of jail again this weekend. I'm afraid if he gets caught out of jail when he's supposed to be in jail the sheriff will say he escaped and he'll get an extra 5 or 10 years punishment." 76 When I found out they were letting him out of jail I said, "I've got to tell the judge. I am an officer of the court so I have to tell Judge Anderson, the federal judge in Salt Lake, what's happening here." I called the judge and he said, "You ought to call Judge Ritter." I said, "Judge, I don't like Judge Ritter and he doesn't like me so I'm telling you. I've now done my duty." As a result of what happened here a grand jury was called and the grand jury heard the evidence that the sheriff would let him out on weekends and he'd go burglarize someplace and share what he stole with the sheriff. The grand jury said to contact him and ask him to give some specifics about one of the burglaries that only the burglar would know. We'll find out if he's telling the truth. He said, "I knocked off the Red Pantry Café on the corner of Ogden Avenue and 25th Street. I got in by kicking in the back door with my foot and I left a shoe print on the door so I had to get rid of the shoes afterward. When I went in I got into the cigarette machines, I got into jukeboxes and I stole the stuff out of there. One thing that was very peculiar is when I got the jukebox money, there were a lot of quarters with red fingernail polish on them. I don't know what that meant, but that's what I took." They called in the man that owned the Red Pantry Café and said, "What about the money in the jukebox? Is there anything unusual about it?" he said, "Oh yeah, part of those quarters are what I call show quarters. I put red fingernail polish on the ones I put in so I get them back. When somebody saw other people put in for music they'd play music. They were show coins. I got to keep them and 77 the guy that owned the music company would take all the others." That was proof that my guy stole the money out of the jukebox. Finally, they put the sheriff on trial. When it was known that the sheriff let the guy out, his attorney said, "Sheriff, isn't it true that the reason you let him out was to take him to your home and show him what good law abiding citizens lived like and to get a little spirituality in your life?" The guy said, "No, that isn't true." The lawyer asked the question, "Well, why did you let him out?" He said, "Greed, Mr. Alsup. Greed." They convicted the sheriff and the sheriff was put in jail down in Davis County. ROH: What year was this? RR: I don't know what year it was. I went back to Washington shortly after that. The sheriff came up to me one time when I was alone and said, "Richard, you son of bitch. I'll get you for this." He threatened me, but I didn't say anything about it. He went to jail and some of the other public officials lost their jobs and it kind of cleaned up the community. The interesting part of that is that one of the guys that we had as our plaintiff in our action against the county officials was the lieutenant governor's father. He ran a janitorial supply place in Ogden on 25th Street. His name was George Bell. His son is now the Lieutenant governor. It took courage on the part of his father to act as a plaintiff in the case. It was a taxpayer's lawsuit filed against him because they were crooked. The