Herbert W Armstrong

In which direction are the large Western democracies headed in the next few years? William Safire of the NEW YORK TIMES detects what he calls "a fundamental ideological shift" in the short run and a relatively new phenomenon of uncertain "ideological lurching back and forth." He wrote in his May 23 column:

Pundits search for patterns.... I thought I had detected the three parallel trends that signaled the beginning of a fundamental ideological shift.

1. In Britain, after six years of vigorous and much-needed Thatcherism, the Conservatives are now on the run. Prosperity has not conquered high unemployment, and now, with inflation returning, voters are telling pollsters that it's time for a change. 2. In West Germany, after a couple of years of the conservative leadership of Helmut Kohl, voters in state elections are saying Genuch ist genuch, similar to the "Had enough?" theme in America. 3. In the United States, midway in the Reagan years, evidence of displeasure with the conservative tide is mounting....

Three Western powers, three specific shifts: the antennae of trend-spotters quiver at this evidence that the swing to the right is about to be arrested.... Then you come to Paris and the hypothesis gets a frappe sur la tete, which is what the locals call a kick in the head. Socialism is a flop in France and nobody knows that better than the Socialists. Four years ago they took power and began to redistribute wealth and carry out all the anti-capitalist promises. When that nearly bankrupted the country, the practical Mr. Mitterrand reversed course and is now pushing austerity. As a result, the right scorns him for being of the left, and the left is ready to desert him for acting like the right....

France's grand disillusion with socialism seems to say that no pattern exists, that a few countries are going center-left (the U.S., Britain, West Germany) while a few are going the other way (France, Italy, maybe Greece, certainly China).... So what accounts for all this ideological lurching back and forth? The answer is: The support span is shortening. Just as the explosion of mass communication — has cut down our attention span, the concentrated exposure of political leaders, especially those with identifiable ideologies, has cut down the time that voters lend them their support.

Do you have the answer, Political Leader, to sustained prosperity equitably shared, with no loss of freedom? O.K., we'll give you a chance. You say you've achieved most of your goals, and need more time? Sorry, you promised more and sooner, so out you go, and it's the next ideology's turn.

If the shortened support-span hypothesis is correct we shall soon see a growth of the center and a period of depolarized politics. Boring. In Britain the center's David Owen will promise Thatcherism without Thatcher. In West Germany Johannes Rau presents himself as a cool Kohl: in the U.S., the Cuomo-Kennedy-Hart alternative is an un-Reagan-like Reaganism. Because the support span is so short, we are offered adaptation, not change.

There is little doubt that Senator Edward M. (Ted or Teddy) Kennedy is actively pursuing the Democratic Party candidacy in 1988. He says his family members would not be opposed to a run for the White House: his own man now chairs the Democratic Party's national committee: and he is sporting a trimmer figure these days, leading one pundit to say "Ted Kennedy is losing weight: the Republic's in danger." Most significantly, Mr. Kennedy has publicly urged Democrats to shift their highly divided party back toward the mid-stream center, to become less beholden (visibly at least) to special interests. He and other Democrats say that even past welfare programs pushed through by their party should not be looked upon as sacrosanct. The following are excerpts from an article entitled "Teddy's Back" written by John McLaughlin, which appeared in the May 17 NATIONAL REVIEW:

The evidence is now conclusive: Count Teddy not only in the race for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination but determined to go all out to get it, despite many in the liberal Democratic establishment who think he is out of his mind. Exhibit A, the avoirdupois factor: He's lost twenty pounds, to regain the lean and photogenic look. Exhibit B, the hawk factor: Teddy is moving onto the Armed Services Committee.

Exhibit C, the tour of Ethiopia and other famine zones of Africa by the Kennedy entourage. This had its humanitarian impulse, doubtless, but it also served his political ends. Also, Teddy figures prominently in the apartheid/disinvestment debate over South Africa; he leans toward punitive economic measures, a safe political posture for him and one that will stroke Democratic liberals....

Of all the potential Democratic contenders, Kennedy has the most powerful political-action committee (PAC), which gives him a distinct competitive edge. His Fund for a Democratic Majority...has a donor list of well over 100,000 names, "a tremendous advantage" over anyone who waits until 1986 to enter the race, says William Carrick, Kennedy's Senate staff political director. "No one else will be able to touch us," he boasts. What makes PACs important is that individual contributions to federal candidates are limited to $1,000 per election, which means that contenders must have a large grid of small donors for the early money needed to underwrite direct-mail programs and consequent campaign operations....

What has attracted Washington's notice recently has been Teddy's sudden rhetorical lurchings to the right, especially his Hofstra University address and remarks at a Democratic think-tank meeting in West Virginia. "We cannot and should not depend on higher tax revenues to roll in and redeem every costly program," observed the nation's high priest of liberalism. "The mere existence of a program is no excuse for its perpetuation, whether it is a welfare plan or a weapons system."...

Although Teddy utters these trendy remarks with high energy and full-throated oratory, nothing in his voting record in recent years suggests any movement away from liberalism.... No matter; the public probably won't check the rhetoric against the record....

Kennedy's biggest worry is [New York Governor] Mario Cuomo, the new darling of the liberal establishment.... But Kennedy currently outdistances Cuomo and all others in the Garth survey... (Garth also has Teddy leading [Vice President George] Bush by six points and [Republican Congressman Jack] Kemp by 12.) Certain Yuppie control groups are testing out in favor of EMK, too. Recall that that constituency makes up 43 per cent of the vote, a sector that might be more willing to let Kennedy submerge the 16-year-old Chappaquiddick issue, so to speak. Watch out for Teddy the Centrist.

Dutch Treat

Never in all his previous foreign travels, not even in Nicaragua, was Pope John Paul II so rudely received as on his recent trip to the Netherlands. There he was met by rock-throwing crowds (some sporting "Popebusters" emblems), a stubbornly liberal national church leadership and embarrassingly small crowds. Here are excerpts of his ordeal as published in the May 28, 1985 international edition of NEWSWEEK:

Wherever he travels, Pope John Paul II usually basks in attention and adulation. But for four days in the Netherlands last week, the pontiff was hounded and harassed as never before. In Utrecht as many as 3,000 radicals, militant homosexuals, punk rockers, skinheads and even a few liberal Roman Catholics gathered in a downtown square to protest John Paul's visit. Some of the demonstrators, dressed as priests and pregnant nuns, shouted "Kill the pope," while others released bunches of helium-filled condoms into the air to mock the Vatican's policy against birth control....

In part, the stormy welcome was yet another symptom of the "Dutch disease," a mixture of rebellious rudeness and self-righteous moralizing that is deeply rooted in the Dutch character. But the protests told only half the story. John Paul's toughest challenge came from the moderately liberal, mainstream core of the Dutch church. In meetings with the pope, Catholics sharply criticized current church policy on a gamut of modern social issues. The contentious reception shocked Vatican officials accustomed to friendlier greetings.

The pope avoided showing any trace of anger and never stepped back from his crusade for a "Catholic Restoration" intended to solidify the Vatican's control over the church and to reinforce conservative values among its flock of 800 million. Even so, the papal visit...raised anew the question whether Rome someday may be forced either to grant limited autonomy to dissident national churches or risk losing them from the fold altogether.

The pope knew he was in for a confrontation. Public-opinion polls showed that few Dutch Catholics welcomed his visit to their free-thinking country. Protests began the week before he arrived, and an ugly series of posters offering "rewards" for the pope's assassination appeared in Amsterdam and other cities. Though few people took the threats seriously, they cast a pall over the trip....

Holland's 5.5 million Catholics — nearly 40 percent of the population — have forged a resolute and liberal tradition. Since the early 1960s, many church leaders have advocated the ordination of women as priests, the loosening of rules against birth control, premarital sex, divorce and homosexuality and the right of lay persons to celebrate mass.... Just last February the pope named Johannes ter Schure, a noted conservative, as bishop of's Hertogenbosch, sparking rebellious protests by more liberal Dutch Catholics. "It doesn't matter any more what the pope tells us or what these old bishops are saying," said Tine Halkes, professor of theology at Nijmegen University and a prominent Catholic liberal. "Our own church marches on."...

At times John Paul appeared to concede somewhat to Dutch sensibilities by dropping controversial passages from prepared texts. But on one subject, the pope rejected compromise. The church's words on "marital love, abortion, sexual relations before or outside marriage or homosexual relations," he said, "remain the standard for the church for all time."...

Even...as his authority was being called into question, John Paul managed to be characteristically disarming. He charmed many Dutchmen by delivering all but one of his speeches in their difficult language, asking them to "Forgive my Dutch." [He had studied Dutch an hour a day for several months.] The pope may also have won over a few supporters by his unruffled handling of the unruly demonstrators, whose behavior surely embarrassed many Hollanders. In fact, an opinion poll taken just after John Paul departed found that his popularity had risen considerably. Nearly 70 percent of those asked said they liked the pope, a significant jump from the 41 percent who answered favorably before the visit.

Even so, it is unlikely that the fiercely independent Dutch will give in so easily to John Paul's plea for Catholic unity on many of today's most divisive issues. For now, not even the most out­spoken Dutch Catholics advocate a break with Rome. But if John Paul continues to demand uncompromising obedience; the Dutch may one day be forced to make the choice.

The Dutch are certainly "stiff-necked Israelites," as the following interview with Ruud Lubbers, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, seems to confirm. The interview also appeared in the same issue of NEWSWEEK:

NEWSWEEK: In speaking to the pope, you referred to Dutch distrust of the Vatican. What did you mean?

LUBBERS: The mere fact that Rome tells us Dutchmen something is enough for us respond negatively. If the pope said tomorrow that every Dutch priest should marry, even that would bring an outcry of disgust. We Dutch are just very independent minded. It has nothing to do with chauvinist feelings, but the Dutch hate anybody telling them what to do. When OPEC put pressure on Europe, it was assumed we would all give in. The Dutch were the exception. We didn't want to be pushed around....

Q. Vatican officials say that Holland is a prosperous nation in danger of losing its soul. Do you agree?

A. No. In Holland criticism sometimes reflects struggles within the church. Rome has to admit that.

At the Hague, Mr. Lubbers, who is Catholic, improvised on his prepared statement to tell the Pope, "In Holland, we are tolerant toward people who are different or who think differently." The clear message was that the Pope was not. "To be quite frank," Lubbers added, "simply the word Rome makes some people uneasy, if not downright suspicious."

A further insight into the controversy generated by the papal trip to the Netherlands appeared in the May 23 NEW YORK TIMES:

Two themes emerged clearly in conversations with Vatican officials during the Pope's journey. The first was that one of the biggest problems the Pope sees with liberal Dutch Catholics is their failure to use the same moral yardsticks as Rome. "Others are at least willing to acknowledge that they're sinners," said one high-ranking Vatican official. "The Dutch are not."

The second is that the Pope understands that one of the prices he will pay for his outspoken public reassertion of traditional values is outspoken public opposition. "He can accept that," said another Vatican official, adding that this did not imply that the Pope is willing to change his views. This has important implications for the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops the Pope called for this November to re-examine the results of the Second Vatican Council.... The Pope has always called himself a strong advocate of Vatican II. But in an address to Belgian Bishops on Saturday, the Pope made clear that he shares the misgivings of many conservatives who believe that liberals have pushed the "spirit of the Council" too far....

The Pope sees one of the tasks of this November's meeting as rooting out certain "secular" — some would say liberal — ideas that have grown up inside the Church since the time of the Council in the early 1960s. Such Catholics in the Netherlands and Belgium say that the Church can update its views on many matters without losing its Christian or specifically Catholic identity. The Pope, however, has said many times that this process can amount to nothing more than "calling good, evil; and evil, good."

On his arrival in Rome on Monday, in advance of his elevation to Cardinal Saturday, Archbishop John J. O'Connor of New York said the Pope may be leading the Church into "a new era" involving a more aggressive affirmation of its traditional principles.

This may well be the message of the trip to the Low Countries: that the Pope is quite prepared to listen to criticism, quite understanding that the road he proposes is neither easy nor popular. It is equally clear that no amount of criticism will make him change direction.

A recent article in the LOS ANGELES TIMES asked why the young people in Holland felt they had to display their feelings so openly and rudely. Were they afraid that the Pope might actually be correct in many of his moral pronouncements, such as against homosexuality and living-togetherness? Were they, in the back of their own minds, aware that their hedonistic society had only brought pain, suffering and emptiness? They couldn't admit they were wrong, so they felt compelled to violently defend their wayward freedoms, speculated the author.

The Catholic Church throughout Western Europe is in bad shape. Even in Belgium and Luxembourg (a formerly Catholic stronghold) the Pope's crowds were small, albeit polite, leading one observer to note that "the prosperous Luxembourgois and Belgians do not care enough about the Pope, or the church to which most of them nominally belong, to register a protest."

It is only in John Paul's native Poland, it seems, that real zeal for the church in Europe still exists. Might it be that Catholicism will never be able to revivify Europe until Europe is made one, in order that the flames still burning brightly behind the Iron Curtain can reignite deadened passions in the West? Similarly, in the secular field, German patriotism will likely never be restored until the U.S.-patterned Federal Republic can be linked with the "fossilized" German state in the east. (Young West Germans visiting the DDR often state that they feel "more German" there). It's as if the spirit necessary to reanimate the future united Europe remains locked up in the East for future use.

— Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau