Opportunists and Leadership Vacuums

We go from Tudor England to WWI Russia and back to modern times to see what happens when we have leadership vacuums.  

Transcript

Opportunism and Leadership Vacuums

May 2023

When Mary comes to court as an innocent girl of fourteen, she catches the eye of the handsome and charming King. Dazzled by the King, Mary falls in love with her golden prince and growing role as unofficial queen. However, she soon realizes just how much she is a pawn in her family’s ambitious plots as the King’s interest begins to wane, and soon she is forced to step aside for her best friend and rival: her sister, Anne.

No, this is not some bodice-ripping pulp romance for sale at those increasingly rare airport bookshops. These people were real with a golden prince (actually, Henry VIII was a ginger, not a blond). This was the description for the historical novel The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory. In this novelist’s hands, the Tudors become a 16th century version of the vapid TV show, The Bachelor with Henry gifting a Tudor rose to the girl of his choice, a rose itself happily being the symbol of the House of Tudor. 

The Tudors are always fun to the historian and especially the novelist. Some, such as Gregory and Hillary Mantel, have made fortunes with the fictional accounts of Henry VIII’s wives or his ministers. First, Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons celebrated Thomas More. Then Josephine Tey’s The Daughter in Time denigrated More and tried to elevate Richard III from the odium inflicted by Shakespeare. Mantel’s account of More is more nuanced but not that of Henry’s minister Thomas Cromwell. In Wolf Hall, Cromwell is brilliant, industrious, resourceful, a great father, and a solid friend; he walks on water and feeds thousands from two baskets. Okay, the last two were made up, but one wonders if a biographer comes to admire their subject a bit much; Mantel’s is that, on steroids. 

There was a Showtime show about the family with Jonathan Rhys Meyers at 5’10” playing the 6’2” Henry. For my money, the 6’1” red-haired actor Damian Lewis played the quintessential Henry. We even have a Broadway musical called Six wherein each of the six wives gets her own solo. Henry does not come across well in this account. And two of my favorite movies, (very) loosely based on history, involve Henry’s daughter Elizabeth. Not nearly as many books or movies about the Stuarts though Restoration about Charles II is a great movie, and The Favorite about Queen Anne is delicious fun (full disclosure, I would buy a movie ticket to watch Rachel Weisz read from a phone book) but I digress.  

For all of the tawdriness exhibited by the Tudor family, religious controversies swirling around the 16th century were of far greater import than whether Anne Boleyn had taken a bunch of lovers. Think of an old pinball machine and substitute religion for the ball. You will then have a sense of the ping-ponging of the Tudors between traditional Roman Catholic adherence to the Pope and the new Protestantism. Then throw in all the Protestant sects that grew up after Luther pounded his theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church. These would include his own Lutheranism and John Calvin’s brand.  

In 2023 organized religion, as we would recognize it, is not the deal it was even a few decades ago. For most of our histories, Catholics marrying Protestants or even Methodists marrying Episcopalians was a thing. John F Kennedy getting elected as the first Irish Catholic President was a big deal, but how do many know that Joe Biden, sort of, is the same thing or that Catholics dominate our Supreme Court? Religion exists, of course. Listen to a leftist talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion, and you realize there is a canon, a catechism, and high priests, just not with those titles. When people walk around with MAGA hats or create very odd drawings of Trump, with muscles and armed to the teeth, in adoration, these are substitutes for wearing crucifixes or having a photo of Jesus in the home, which used to be common.  

For the Tudors, organized religion was a big deal in a time in which Kings would attend Mass, not just on Sundays, but every single day. First, Henry VIII was a staunch ally of the Catholic Church, decrying the Lutheran movement. But when the Pope bucked his choice of wives, he began the English Reformation. But not too far. After the death of Henry’s son Edward VI (whose mother was wife number 3, Jane Seymour) in 1553, Henry’s daughter Mary (daughter of wife number 1, Katherine of Aragon) brought England lurching back to Rome. After her death, Henry’s other daughter, Elizabeth (wife number 2 Anne Boelyn – yes, a scorecard does help with the Tudors), cut a deal that kept Protestantism as the primary English religion. 

It’s Catholicism, then Protestant, then super Protestant, back to Catholic, then moderate Protestant. Do you see what I mean? Ping Pong.  

Though that was not the end, Stuart King James II flirted with Catholicism in the late 17th century and lost his throne, which was pretty much the end. 

During all of this back and forth, when Henry died in 1547, his nine-year-old son, Edward VI, inherited the throne but was too young to rule. Because Edward was given a Protestant humanist education, Protestants held high expectations that he would push forward further reforms. However, with Edward in his minority, he was of little political account initially. Real power was in the hands of the regency council, which elected Edward’s uncle, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, to be Lord Protector. With the assistance of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, Seymour eventually pushed for a more robust Protestantism and a more evident break with Rome. In July 1547, a Book of Homilies was published, from which all clergy were to preach on Sundays. The homilies were explicitly Protestant in their content, condemning relics, images, rosary beads, holy water, palms, and other "papistical superstitions ."It also directly contradicted the King's Book by teaching, "We be justified by faith only, freely, and without works." 

Despite objections from Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester and not a great fan of the reforms, questioning the legality of bypassing both Parliament and Convocation.

When a new Parliament met in November 1547, it began to dismantle the laws passed during Henry VIII's reign to protect traditional religion; the hyper Protestants were in the saddle: 

·         Decriminalized denial of the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

·         The old heresy laws were also repealed, allowing free debate on religious questions.

·         The Sacrament Act was passed, allowing the laity to receive communion under both kinds, the wine, and the bread. This was opposed by conservatives but welcomed by Protestants.

·         The Chantries Act 1547 abolished the remaining chantries and confiscated their assets.

However, the turning point for the Reformation would come in the second year of Edward's reign. On March 8, 1548, a royal proclamation (remember Edward was about ten) announced the first significant reform of the Mass and the Church of England's official Eucharistic theology. English prayers that reflected Protestant theology were inserted into the Latin Mass. At the same time, confession was made optional, which led to people ceasing to confess their sins to their priests. In 1549, Parliament legalized clerical marriage, which some Protestants (including Cranmer) already practiced but considered an abomination by conservatives. Note the insertion of English into the Mass. For the Catholic Church itself, it would not be until the early 1960s that it allowed vernacular into the Mass. And that note about Cranmer. Under Henry, he had to keep his marriage a secret.  

Again, all of these things seem trivial to the secular mind of a 21st-century person, but to the 16th-century human, this was big stuff. They genuinely believed they were discerning the mind of God and how God wished to be worshipped.  

And we come to the critical question of this podcast. If Edward had been of age and a vigorous, intelligent King, would he have gone this far, this fast? We will never know because on the cusp of taking power into his hands, Edward, after a bout of nearly six months, died of an unknown disease. Though he reined, he did not rule.  

This is not necessarily about rulers who are too young to rule. In the case of the French Kings Louis XIII, XIV, and XV, it was simply a case of leaving the day-to-day workings of the state to their ministers, and thus their ministers were dictating policy in the King’s name.  

And sometimes, these situations could take a horrific turn. For example, Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia, was powerful enough to remove Sergei Witte in 1903 because he believed his finance chief was getting too powerful, or the often weak-willed Nicholas merely gave in to another group of ministers. 

But he could not divorce himself or his family from Grigory Rasputin during World War I. In 1905 Rasputin was introduced to the royal family, and in 1908 he was summoned to the palace of Nicholas and Alexandra during one of their hemophiliac son’s bleeding episodes. Rasputin succeeded in easing the boy’s suffering (probably by his hypnotic powers) and, upon leaving the palace, warned the parents that the destiny of both the child and the dynasty was irrevocably linked to him, thereby setting in motion a decade of Rasputin’s powerful influence on the imperial family and affairs of state. 

Rasputin reached the pinnacle of his power at the Russian court after 1915. During World War I, Nicholas took personal command of his armies. He went to the troops on the front, leaving Tsarina Alexandra in charge of Russia’s internal affairs, while Rasputin served as her personal advisor. Rasputin’s influence ranged from appointing church officials to selecting cabinet ministers (often incompetent opportunists). After Rasputin’s murder, Alexandra resolved to uphold the principle of autocracy. Still, a few weeks later, the whole imperial regime was swept away by revolution, and she and Nicholas, and their entire family, were murdered by the Bolsheviks. 

And sometimes, there is a power vacuum not because a ruler is too young or weak but merely too old. King Edward III of England’s early reign had been energetic and successful; his later years were marked by inertia, military failure, and political strife. The day-to-day affairs of the state had less appeal to Edward than military campaigning, so during the 1360s, Edward increasingly relied on the help of his subordinates, particularly William Wykeham. A relative upstart, Wykeham was made Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1363 and Chancellor in 1367; due to political difficulties connected with his inexperience, the Parliament forced him to resign the chancellorship in 1371. Given that Edward’s decline began in 1360 and he died in 1377, his defects were well known. But what if they were not?  

Woodrow Wilson is arguably the worst American President blighting that office. From his denigration of the Constitution to his imposition of the regulatory state to his racism, there is something for everyone to loathe in the 28th president. And it gets worse. Following attending the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Woodrow Wilson returned to the United States to campaign for Senate approval of the peace treaty and the League of Nations Covenant. Unfortunately, the President suffered a stroke that left him bedridden and partially paralyzed. 

His wife, Edith Wilson, and others in the President's inner circle (including his physician and a few close friends) hid the true extent of the President's illness and disability from the American public. Edith took over several routine duties and details of the executive branch of the government from the onset of Wilson's illness until he left office almost a year and a half later. From October 1919 to the end of Wilson's term on March 4, 1921, Edith, acting as First Lady and shadow steward, decided who and which communications and matters of state were important enough to bring to the bedridden President. Edith Wilson later wrote: "I studied every paper sent from the different Secretaries or Senators and tried to digest and present in tabloid form the things that, despite my vigilance, had to go to the President. I, myself, never made a single decision regarding the disposition of public affairs. The only decision that was mine was what was important and what was not, and the very important decision of when to present matters to my husband." 

First, deciding what is essential is very significant, especially to a progressive president trying to transform the office. And her claim that she made no decisions on her own feels disingenuous. If Wilson was so bedridden and suffering from paralysis so severe that he could not make a single public appearance, how was he fit to judge his decisions? The thought that Edith would not make calls are her own is improbable, bordering on fabrication.  

Edith became the sole communication link between the President and his Cabinet. She required they send her all pressing matters, memos, correspondence, questions, and requests. Edith even successfully pushed for the removal of Secretary of State Robert Lansing after he conducted a series of Cabinet meetings without the President (or Edith herself) present. She also refused to allow the British ambassador, Edward Grey, an opportunity to present his credentials to the President unless Grey dismissed an aide who was known to have made demeaning comments about her. She assisted President Wilson in filling out paperwork and often added new notes or suggestions. She was made privy to classified information and was entrusted with the responsibility of encoding and decoding encrypted messages. 

Because my listeners are intelligent, learned, and discerning (I know this because you downloaded MY podcast!), you probably guessed where this was going back on the Edward III stuff. This brings us to the Biden Administration.  

This week, May 1, 2023, House Republicans are sounding the alarm about a quietly issued executive order that will empower the Biden administration to “open the regulatory floodgates.” The “modernizing regulatory review” order, which was published on April 6, will require fewer regulations to undergo the interagency review process, further opening a red-tape spigot that’s been working overtime since President Biden took office.

House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer and Representative Pat Fallon wrote a letter to administration officials. “Even under pre-existing rules for federal regulatory development, the Biden Administration’s pace of regulation and escalating regulatory burdens has been breathtaking. This administration has surpassed by far the cumulative costs and paperwork burdens imposed by the Trump and Obama Administrations—imposing $318.1 billion in new costs and 217.4 million new paperwork hours.”

Here are a few in the scope of over 20 federal departments and agencies (yes, presidents have nearly 23 direct reports; what could possibly go wrong) staffed by tens of thousands of progressive bureaucrats writing their regulations and creating their state-run utopias. 

A December 2021 report from the Heritage Foundation includes over 30 regulations of Biden overreach.  The Department of Energy (DOE) is considering a swath of new and likely more stringent energy-efficiency standards for household appliances. These include standards for refrigerators and freezers, kitchen cooking ranges, and ovens (yes, they ARE coming for your gas stove), but it continues. In addition, they will regulate washing machines, dryers, water heaters, light bulbs, ceiling fans and ceiling fan lights, dehumidifiers, mobile homes, dishwashers, microwaves, and furnaces. The DOE also proposes reviewing test procedures for these and other appliances (such as televisions, showerheads, and air conditioners) to determine future certification, compliance, and enforcement of standards.

The SEC is considering rules regarding digital engagement tools used by brokerages, including gamification, behavioral prompts, predictive analytics, and differential (targeted) marketing. 

And even water activities. For those who don’t know, WOTUS (which sounds ominous and stands for Waters of the United States) dictates which waters are federally regulated under the Clean Water Act. During the Obama administration, a definition was released that empowered federal bureaucrats to place every single body of water—every ditch, puddle, and stream—under federal regulation. That means permits could be required for activities such as removing debris and vegetation from a ditch, applying pesticides, rotating types of crops, or building a fence or pond. Permitting can be costly and time-consuming, requiring small businesses to hire attorneys and environmental consultants they cannot afford. To put an end to this overreach, the Trump administration finalized the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which revised the definition of WOTUS and brought back a balance between federal and state jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, this rule was quickly pulled back by the Biden administration.

And, of course, the Student Law forgiveness program. Writing for Reason Magazine, Ed Beom notes, “Under current law, federal student loan payments are capped at 10 percent of an individual's "discretionary income," which the Department of Education defines as income that exceeds 150 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. That means a single borrower with no children starts making income payments exceeding $20,400. The Biden Administration wants to lower that threshold to 5 percent for undergraduate loans and impose a new limit of 10 percent for loans put toward a graduate degree. Biden's plan would also wipe away outstanding student debt after ten years of payments for those who borrowed $12,000 or less—and a maximum payment period of 20 years no matter how much was borrowed. 

But if you cap monthly payments at a lower level and shorten the allowable repayment time, many loans will never get paid back in full. That cost ultimately falls on the taxpayers—the tab on this. A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that Biden's so-called income-driven repayment plan will cost at least $230 billion over ten years, about $100 billion over the $138 billion price tag attached to the proposal by the Department of Education, which is overseeing the program's rollout. 

And who is overseeing all of this regulation and overreach? An 80-year-old Joe Biden. In a recent piece in the New York Times by Michelle Goldberg (I intentionally wanted a liberal news source as opposed to my conservative standards to illustrate this issue) stated, “I hope he doesn’t run again because he’s too old. I didn’t want Biden to be the Democratic nominee in 2020, partly for ideological reasons but even more because he seemed too worn-out and unfocused. Biden has always been given to gaffes and malapropisms, but there is a painful suspense in watching him speak now, like seeing someone wobble on a tightrope. Moreover, his staff often seems to be keeping him out of view; as The Times reported, he’s participated “in fewer than half as many news conferences or interviews as recent predecessors.”

And in another piece by Peter Baker, citing White House Staff, “Mr. Biden looks older than just a few years ago, a political liability that cannot be solved by traditional White House stratagems like staff shake-ups or new communications plans. While impressive for a man of his age, his energy level is not what it was, and some aides quietly watch out for him. He often shuffles when he walks, and aides worry he will trip on a wire. He stumbles over words during public events, and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gaffe. Although White House officials insist they make no special accommodations, they privately they try to guard Mr. Biden’s weekends in Delaware as much as possible. He is generally a five- or five-and-a-half-day-a-week President.  

I would argue that circa the 1980s, Biden or even VP Biden was not the sharpest tool in the box, but there was no questioning his vigor, which would often border on bombastic. 

That is not Biden today, and the regulators know it. The pace of regulation within the Biden administration is even faster than that of progressive, popular Obama. Part of it is, like Seymour and Cranmer, there is no one to gainsay their decision, and because Biden is dismissed as an old, doddering creature, the normal watchdogs are only now seeing what is happening. 

The big stuff from Biden, the unnecessary, highly wasteful COVID Act from 2021, and the bloated, debt-busting Build Back Better Bill of 2022 got the headlines. Still, in the background, an unsupervised group of bureaucrats is doing the progressive work. So who exactly is making certain those fresh 80,000 workers at the IRS are focused on their duties?  

Why is this worse than Obama? Because Obama and his desire for transformation were so clear, and after 2010, and especially after 2014, there were Congressional forces to stop him, some of the most egregious parts of the executive agencies were curbed. Likewise, President Warren or Sanders would have a hawk-like vision of the regulatory bodies. But under doddering old Uncle Joe? We all say it is just Joe being Joe while Lina Khan at the FTC seeing monopolies where none exist, Tim Wu, Biden’s so-called competition czar — warning that the Amazon–Whole Foods merger would create a “super-monopoly” or Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg decrying our racist road network. The Atlantic in 2021 talked about the surprise that the Biden Administration was creating a New Progress Era. Of outgoing chief minister, er Chief of Staff Ron Klain was declared a “national treasure” by uber-progressive Pramila Jayapal. Note laudatory nature was not so much for Biden but rather for Klain. 

Now keep in mind the nine-year-old child the Protestants took advantage of, the increasingly ineffectual Edward III and Wykeham, or the sick Wilson being managed by his wife. It is much harder to trim back governmental bureaucracy once in place. As the Brookings Institute noted, When Barack Obama entered office with the Great Recession raging and the actual size of the federal workforce at about 10 million civil servants, postal workers, active duty military, contractors, and grantees. He raised the total with billions in economic stimulus to 11.3 million, then backed it down to about 9 million before leaving office. Trump added another 2 million to that total. The Biden administration’s 2024 budget aims to increase the overall federal workforce by another 3.6%, making it the largest since World War II when 9 million men were part of the armed services. To pay for all of this, not to mention curbing the deleterious effects all of this regulation will have on our economy, is something that even the highly intelligent, capable, and shrewd Elizabeth Tudor would have found daunting.