Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose the name Francis to demonstrate his commitment to the common people and the environment.  In his papacy he demonstrated courage and openness.  He spoke out on behalf of poor and marginalized people of the world and he spoke out against authoritarians including Putin, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro, and Trump.  No doubt he will be named a saint joining the pantheon of 83 previous sainted popes, some whose holiness is questionable.

Of course Francis will have to go through the ancient and strange process of beatification and sanctification including finding a couple of miracles he must now get on the schedule. Francis himself elevated two popes to sainthood, John Paul II and John XXIII.  John the XXIII was another pope of the people, an enormously consequential pope who moved the Church somewhat belatedly into the 20th century.  Pope Francis also sainted Pope John Paul II, who not only reached out to all faiths and nations and Jews but apologized for 2,000 years of Christian anti-semitism.  John Paul II may well be a saint but his dealing with sexual scandal by priests is less than saintly. 

More importantly, in my mind, Pope Francis put a hold on the process of sanctifying Pope Pious XII, a craven betrayer of his duty. Francis opened the secret archives on Pious XII which confirmed the obvious, that Pius accommodated the Nazis in order to preserve the wealth and position of the Church. I recall the day in November 1958 when we Catholic school kids were marched next door to pray for dead pope in St. Ann’s church whose entrance was draped in black. For years little was said about the perfidy and awful silence of Pious XII.

The secret archive that was opened by Francis was studied and reported by David Kertzer in The Pope at War: the Secret History of Pius XII, Mussolini, and Hitler. In his book, Kertzer shows that the negotiations of Pious with Hitler’s emissary, were secretly recorded, Nixon style, by a staff who listened in an adjoining room as Pious, in fluent German, agreed to say nothing against Hitler in return for protection of priests and churches.  And Pious kept his vow of silence even as Jewish and Catholic leaders pleaded throughout the war for the pope to speak out against the monstrous crimes of the Nazis.  When President Roosevelt asked the pope if he had any evidence of the Nazi atrocities, the spies of the papacy told the pope they indeed had confirmed evidence of the ethnic cleansing but convinced the pope to tell Roosevelt that the Vatican knew nothing.  And as the war proceeded to its close, the Nazis rushed to kill all the Jews they could find.  Nearly under the windows of the Vatican, the Jews of Rome were rounded up. The secret archives revealed that Pope Pius asked his advisors for recommendations and received only grossly anti-semitic responses from his own staff. Once again there was only silence from the pontiff. So my our Catholic school prayers for Pius might not have done much good. If you sell your soul to the devil, whether for Helen or Hitler, you are not likely to get it back.  

In contrast, the successor to the weak Pious, the now sainted John XXIII was outspokenly liberal and made the first outreach to other religions with respect and humility.  Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was the Vatican nuncio (ambassador) to Turkey and Greece during World War II.  During the war, he saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust. He issued certificates of baptism, a kind of fake Christianizing, to Jews all over Eastern Europe to rescue them from the Nazis.  He facilitated the transport of endangered Jews to Palestine and supported the creation of the State of Israel and he has been recognized as a righteous Christian toward the Muslims and Jews.

Known as “the Good Pope” his efforts to reach out to non-Catholics began the ecumenical process among the formerly feuding Christian sectarians.  He began the liberalization of Catholicism by creating the Second Vatican Council which further the pontiff’s efforts to elevating the movement toward universal human rights. Some authors refer to John XXIII as the most consequential pope in history.  But “consequential” can have two meanings.  The extraordinary extravagance of the 16th century Pope Leo X was financed through the sale of indulgences.  This led to the Protestant Reformation surely the most consequential change in Christian history.  On the other hand, how can you not admire a prince of the Church who rides to his coronation on his enormous pet white elephant?  The elephant’s name was Hanno.  Hanno now rests in peace beneath the Vatican.  Leo X is not a saint.

John XXIII also rests in the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica. Vatican tour guides often point out his burial site saying “here is the tomb of Pope John XXIII, the most beloved pope in history.”  The tomb of Pope Francis will read simply: Franciscus. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was a man of humility and chose to name his papacy after the humble and nature loving St. Francis. I’ve never come across anyone deserving of sainthood, except my mother of course. Surely the gentle but courageous Pope Francis comes close. His most humble and perhaps brave statement was when he responded to a question about homosexuality and he responded “who am I to judge?” Well, you are the pope for Chrissake! But this was his humility and acceptance of all people especially those who suffer discrimination. When Pope Francis elevated John to sainthood, he did so without the proof of the attribution of two miracles.  Two miracles are a tough act to deliver, especially after you’re dead, but I have faith in Pope Francis, the pope of the people. 

The fifth century BCE tyrant Pisistratus was an outrageous liar and one of history’s first populists. He was an Athenian aristocratic who appealed to the poor and working classes by asking for their protection from his imaginary enemies who he claimed inflicted his self-inflicted wounds.  He ruled Athens for some years, but his actual enemies ousted him. Yet he shortly thereafter regained his rule by another enormous farce. He rode back into Athens in an opulent chariot beside a tall beauty who he claimed was the goddess Athena herself who supported him. The populations loved this. He had betrayed his aristocrat class, but his elaborate deceits won him the trust and faith of the masses. They chose one Athens’ last tyrants.

Authoritarian rulers come to power, and maintain rule, with charisma and phony appeals to patriotism, nationalism, and religion.  Their power is not always sustained with the use of force, although some type of violence is usually in the playbook. In modern democratic or somewhat democratic states, strongmen take control of the state mostly by appealing for popular support sometimes with the help of a military coup but more often by an election. Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil was elected president and Silvio Berlusconi was elected Prime Minister of Italy several times. Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines was elected as were Vladimir Putin, Victor Orban, and Donald Trump. Adolf Hitler and Silvio Berlusconi were appointed to leadership in democratic Germany and Italy. When strongmen leaders use the force of a military coup to gain control, they must maintain their power with the support of a large part of the public.  Francisco Franco came to power by a coup but stayed in office with the support of nationalists and church and civilian power brokers. Muammar Gaddafi used the military to take control of Libya and maintained his power with moderately leftist policies to insure the support of the people.

The historian and Guggenheim Fellow Ruth Ben-Ghiat shows how similar are the modern anti-democratic demagogic rulers in her book Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. The strongmen wreak chaos in their nations and increase their power using extra-legal means to control the discord.  Authoritarians’ power comes “at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches of government.” The tools of the trade are common among the strongmen: censorship, disinformation, discrediting opponents verbally or violently, blaming economic hardship on an enemy such as a minority or immigrant population, alliances with religious factions and wealthy plutocrats, posturing as messianic saviors, and most of all outlandish lies.

Here are just some of the examples from Ben-Ghiat’s book:

One of the methods of strongmen is to convince a disaffected population that he is their savior.  Pinochet claimed he was appointed by God to save Argentina.  Franco’s claim that a “higher power intended him to save Spain from Marxism became an element of his charismatic authority.”  Maga rallies are filled with prayers and an adulation that can easily be called worship.  At Trump’s 2024 election watch party, the crowd broke out in a racous rendition of the hymn “How Great Thou Art.” Moammar Gaddafi said that Allah had appointed him to rid Libya of evil forces. 

Strongmen gather strength by showing how his opponents oppress him. “Mussolini prepared the script used by today’s authoritarians that casts the leader as a victim of his domestic enemies.” Gaddafi blamed the Italians and the West in general for victimizing him and Libya. Berlusconi claimed that his legal troubles were nothing but his enemies trying to discredit him. The Italian parliament then passed a law granting Berlusconi immunity. He said he was a victim of a “witch hunt.”  Trump claimed that his impeachments were merely attempts by the left wing to hurt him personally.  He called all the various investigations “witch hunts.”

The people themselves are portrayed by authoritarians as victims too. The strongman wants to convince the population that times were better in the past and that some enemy has stolen their former greatness and prosperity.  A call for a return to an idyllic past is always part of the despot’s narrative.  For Hitler, the Jews were the enemies of the people but sometimes he claimed that the French and Marxists ruined Germany’s noble heritage.  Hitler and also blamed the elites of Germany. Putin blames America or any vocal opponent.  Early on, Putin blamed Chechens for discord and violence in Russia. For Trump, American are the victims of massive immigration fostered by the weakness of the elites. For Berlusconi, it was immigrants who were the enemies to blame. 

To return the nation to its former greatness, the strongman must be personally strong, virile, and dominant over the weak and a master of women.  Mussolini promoted photographs of himself in powerful and manly poses including bare-chested pictures.  Putin does the same. The Kremlin often releases photographs of Putin in manly poses.  Ben-Ghiat writes “Gaddafi, Berlusconi, and Trump vaunt control of desirable women, the former by surrounding himself with attractive female bodyguards and nurses, the latter two with former models and beauty pageant queens. Some broadcast their sexual stamina. “I can love four women at the same time,” says Duterte; “If I sleep for three hours, I have the energy to make love for three hours after that,” claims Berlusconi.” Trump has been accused of sexual abuse by 18 or more women. Mussolini was ahead of Trump on the body count–he had his staff bring him five different women each week. Gaddafi kept a virtual harem of sex slaves and rape was rampant in his administration. Dominance over women by the strongman is not kept secret but promoted to enhance his image as powerful, in control, and manly. Berlusconi’s sexual escapades were not only well known, but a subject of his boasting.

Lawlessness is part of the very definition of authoritarian rule.  Berlusconi lost his office but then returned to power with 10 legal cases pending against him. Trump’s criminal and civil legal cases against him dominated the news up to his re-election. When Mussolini was about to be tried for having a political opponent murdered, he escaped legal accountability by declaring himself the head of government. To insure immunity from prosecution he assumed total dictatorial powers, dared parliament to impeach him, fired the officials who investigated him, and pardoned anyone implicated in the crime. 

To stay in power, the despotic ruler installs cronies, sycophants, and family members as the core of his rule.  Pardons of powerful and corrupt individuals give demagogues a pool of intensely loyal staff and supporters. Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency was famous for cronyism and his alliances included organized crime figures. Officials appointed by the leader fear saying anything negative about the ruler or correcting any lies. This often results in upheaval and constant turnover of officials who can be fired and replaced over the radio, in the press, or by tweet.  Gaddafi, Erdogan, Mobutu, Mussolini, and Trump all installed corrupt but loyal followers and often dismissed them without notice.  Humiliating former and fallen loyalists is a favorite tactic of the all-powerful leader.

Most of all, the dictator gains and maintains power by the corruption of the truth. Putin uses censorship, shuts down offending press, or incarcerates or kills offending truth tellers.  Trump has Truth Social and has elevated Elon Musk the owner of X. The most widely viewed news network, Fox News, is a Trump promoter. Berlusconi actually owned and controlled the major news sources in Italy.  Hitler had Joseph Goebbels as chief propagandist. Much of the population under authoritarian rule either has no source of truth or is misled by lies.  The lies feed on fears and offer an imagined future of safety, prosperity, and vengeance. Ben-Ghait’s book quotes Hannah Arendt: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

From Pisistratus until today, enormous untruths and misinformation sustain the authoritarian. People freely choose to believe the lies.

It is going to be a long four years.

Last year the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that 7 of 10 Republicans think that recent demographic changes are driven by liberal policies aimed at “replacing” conservative whites.  Earlier surveys showed most Americans believe that white people suffer discrimination, and many think that discrimination against whites is more severe than against minorities. But where does the idea that there is such a thing as white, or a race of whites.  It is because Americans, uniquely among nations, decided long ago that there is such a thing as a race of blacks.

Isabel Wilkerson, in Caste, offers a compelling argument that in America, while we may have a fluid class system for whites, but for blacks, we do not include them in a class.  Black Americans are in a caste system and in the lowest caste.  American untouchables.  Even the prejudice against immigrants such as Asians or Latins can be overcome with time and effort. As in India, the lowest caste, the Untouchables (properly called Dalits) must not hope to rise or overcome their status.

When Martin Luther King visited India, he was introduced at a high school for Dalits as an “untouchable from the United States of America.  King thought that “every Negro in the United States of America is an untouchable.”

The American caste system is like the Hindu system (now outlawed yet still practiced), and like the Nazi system for relegating Jews to a dehumanized, lowest caste.  Formerly laws enforced the caste system but despite the new laws designed to guarantee equality, black people remain, in the eyes of many Americans, a separate and unequal group.  And the lowest class of whites needs the system to ensure their belief that they are, at least, white.  I think of Pap in Huckleberry Finn.  A violent drunk, the lowest form of white American, who was enraged when he learned that a freed slave could read and write even vote.  He needed a lower set of people than he was.

Wilkinson describes a caste system as having eight major characteristics that define it and distinguish it from a simple class system. The caste system is supported by religion. It is inherited. Marriage and mating are controlled by law or simply by racist attitude.  The untouchable class, the Jews of Nazi Germany, the Untouchables of India, and blacks of America are to be avoided physically as impure and polluted.  The lowest caste are relegated to occupations that are the most undesirable and yet these jobs are those that are the foundation of a society and absolute necessities.  The caste system is controlled by terror and fear.  And those at the lowest of the low are inherently inferior and importantly, those not in the untouchable class, those of white America must be inherently superior regardless of merit or achievement.

The idea of the American Dream is that anyone can rise from impoverished immigrant to a higher, richer, more privileged class.  But for the caste of African Americans, class is static and immutable.  LeB James said that no matter how great or wealthy or worshipped you become, if you are an African American, “you will always be that.”

The rise of Trump and the explosion of social discord, hatred and violence cannot be explained simply by racial prejudice but only by caste.  Barack Obama broke the caste system and a resentful mass of people rebelled.  The real resentment is that not only with Obama’s election but also with the rise of black Americans to positions of influence and honor.  Many white Americans saw that the superiority of “whiteness” was slipping away.  The “replacement” belief is fundamental to the idea that we must go back to when America was great.  America was free from enforced equality.

Isabel Wilkinson writes like a journalist not an academic. The book is convincing not only by diligent research but also by the author’s personal experience and her travels and interviews in preparation for this book.  Here are some things that surprised me:

Wilkinson was told by and African born woman that there are no blacks in Africa.  Africans “are Igbo and Yoruba, Ewe, Akan, Ndebele.  They are not black.  They are just themselves.”  Blackness is a uniquely American idea born of the slave trade.  The author discovered that the architects of the Nazi caste system modelled their caste system on the Jim Crow laws of the South.  But the Nazis found it too harsh:  they would not go so far as to say that one drop of Jewish blood puts a person in the hated caste of Jews.  Wilkinson notes that W.E.B. Dubois realized that after emancipation, the white power structure were afraid that former slaves may actually succeed.  In a caste system, a bottom caste is a necessity.  It is when black citizens succeeded in politics or business that violent and murderous backlash results. 

The concept of caste not only helps to explain the Republican victory in 2016 but also helps explain the Democrat loss of working-class support.  The working class was always supporting their own interests and now see the dominance of the white working class slipping away.  Caste is a powerful explainer of our history and present social division.

I was amazed at how contented and happy our little dog Clinton was right up to his last day. Even the vet remarked that he was always a cheerful and cooperative little guy even as she was giving him only a short time left.

Although the philosopher Epicurus died over 2200 years ago, he no doubt went as a happy man. He lent his name to the idea of living well, epicurean, and he taught that to live happily was to live without fear of pain or death. The only way to leave well is to live well.

The Stoics also taught that the acceptance life’s pain as well as pleasure was essential for the good life. Death comes to all but those who accept this without fear will have an easier time of it. I talked about the current fashion for Stoicism in a previous post. For a quiet read before bedtime I keep a copy of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the emperor and Stoic philosopher.  I’m not too sure about his passing though, because Marcus died of the plague in the midst of a war. The Stoics and the Buddhist share many teachings. The Buddha advises to meditate every morning on the inevitability of your own death.  I would rather drink coffee.  Socrates was offered a chance of exile or escape from Athens, but he chose to die as he had lived, a life of honor.  He takes the hemlock, telling Crito to see that his last debt to Asclepius is paid: A chicken.

So I think it was the Epicureans who got it right. Living at peace with yourself means getting rid of worry and the fear of pain and most of all the fear of death.  The epicurean poet Lucretius thought so too.  He said that we didn’t suffer a lack of life before we were born and we certainly won’t worry about it after we are gone.  Epicurus said the art of living well and the art of dying well are one. 

Many people put their hopes in a heavenly afterlife in order to meet the reaper.  My Mom was a hundred and one in her last days and a faithful Catholic.  She told me God had given her a good life but forgot the button.  The button?  You know, the one to turn it off.  She was content and ready to go.  But the doubters and strict heathens can also live and die at peace.  I don’t know where my mother got such faith in a heavenly afterlife, but it sure wasn’t from her own mother.  My grandmother was a cantankerous old-school Marxist who one day announced at dinner: “oh, the hell with this,” and promptly expired.  You die as you lived.

David Hume, the 18^th century skeptic and empiricist, died as he had lived, with equanimity and good cheer and not a bit of hope for immortality.  His ever loyal friend, the economist Adam Smith, wrote that in his last days Hume spent his time entertaining friends with conversation and card playing.  He was of such good nature and cheerfulness as always and, toward the end, his own physician could hardly believe he was dying.  Hume said to his doctor that he was “dying as fast as my enemies, if I have any, could wish, and as easily and cheerfully as my best friends could desire.” He did indeed have enemies, mostly the clerical establishment in Scotland and the religious academics who denied him a professorship. Dennis C. Rasmussen tells the story of the remarkable friendship of Adam Smith and David Hume in The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith and the Friendship that Shaped Modern Thought (Princeton University Press, 2017).  Hume initiated the development of philosophical empiricism and religious skepticism that is characteristic of contemporary thought.  Smith, the darling of modern day capitalists, started the belief in free markets and helped to found modern sociological and economic studies.  The book tells the story of David Boswell’s visit to the dying Hume.  Boswell apparently believed that any man confronted with the nearness of death would return to religion and a hope for eternal life.  He attempted to urge Hume to forsake his lifelong denial of a human and eternal soul.  Hume told him that after he was gone he could no more regret his non-existence than he had regretted his lack of life before he was ever born.  The opinionated Boswell went away disgruntled and unhappy, but Hume remained “placid and even cheerful” with a tranquility of mind.  Hume was a true epicurean who believed that a good life was being of good cheer, surrounded by friends, as he was to the last.

The Scottish Church tried to excommunicate Hume for his irreligious ideas.  For his part, Hume wrote that even some of religion’s virtues were instead actually vices: “celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues.”  His life, despite his setbacks and his enemies, was to the very end placid and optimistic. He had described himself as a “man of mild disposition” with an “open, social, and cheerful humour.”

The art of living well and the art of dying well are one.