An age eerily reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s

As a parish priest I do not involve myself in politics. This parish prays for the nation’s president and our state’s governor personally by name, no matter the political party to which they belong.

If you happen to disagree with them politically, that’s all the more reason to ask God to guide them into the paths of righteousness. After all, God is neither capitalist nor socialist. Nor, for that matter, does he especially favor Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians.

That said, there are certain political activities a parish priest cannot ignore—and the ugliness and violence that has followed the presidential election falls into that category.

Indeed, it should appall decent people of all political stripes. For it is utterly at odds with the vision of our founding fathers and America’s time–honored understanding of the way our democratic process works.

Rather, it is eerily reminiscent of the book burnings and the vicious street battles between the Communists and the Nazis in Germany during 1920s and 30s that brought Hitler’s Third Reich into being.

Those of us who lived through the immediate aftermath this terrible period in world history vividly remember the newsreels showing fascists shouting down their opponents and destroying their works—even music. And we no less vividly recall the communist show trials intended to absolve the guilty, and to shame and silence their innocent opponents by imprisonment and judicial murder.

Distressingly, the behavior of today’s protesters differs from that of the communist and fascists of the 1930s only in degree. And it is doubly distressing to see such a rabid rejection of contrary opinions not merely tolerated, but, in some instances, actively encouraged on the campuses of some our most prestigious colleges and universities.

The problem seems in large part to stem from the political correctness that discourages schools from teaching—and, above all, requiring—students to behave in a mannerly fashion to both staff and fellow pupils.

Elementary education is often thought of as the “Three Rs.” But, in fact, until just a couple of decades ago the most basic of the subjects in the elementary curriculum was “good manners”—for without the respect for others that manners impart teaching becomes nigh on impossible.

My parents, both members of “the greatest generation,” would never have tolerated the sort of social behavior judged acceptable by the louche standards of the 21st Century.

They expected girls to strive to be “ladies” and boys “gentlemen.” It was not a matter of class. The status of “gentleman” and “lady” was not conferred by birth. You either were one—or you were an oaf.

At the age of 10 or so, for example, in an effort to make me “speak like a gentleman,” the masters at preparatory school worked hard at ironing out my East Anglian diphthongs and to stop me saying “oy” instead of “I” and “moy” instead of “my.”

Eventually, they succeeded. But mother wasn’t vastly impressed. She believed in the maxim: Handsome is as handsome does. The measure of a person’s worth was not how they spoke, but how they behaved.

Funnily enough, back in those days, we, kids, really worried about our reputations. We weren’t goody–goodies, of course. Quite to the contrary. But we lived by a code of conduct that required us to act like ladies and gentlemen.

It was not an option to lie your way out of trouble. If you were rightly accused of a transgression, you admitted the crime forthrightly and took your punishment without complaint. If somebody was being punished for something you’d done, you were morally obliged to own up and take the punishment. To allow somebody else to suffer for a thing you had done was contemptible.

It was beneath contempt to fight unfairly. You never fought anybody smaller or weaker than yourself, no matter how gravely they might have insulted you. And you never—and I mean never—hit somebody when they were off guard. If you knocked your opponent down, you helped him to his feet. Fists were the only acceptable weapons. You never hurled a stone, or used your feet, or a stick. If your opponent asked for quarter, it was given immediately.

As a gentleman, it was an absolute duty to help and protect people weaker than you. This obligation extended by no means solely to women and girls. You were equally obliged to aid and protect the elderly, not to mention boys younger or smaller than yourself.

The ultimate indication of your worth, however, was the reliance that could be placed on your word. When you gave your word, you kept it—no matter how dire the consequences might be. And you never cheated at little things, like cards, because if you couldn’t be trusted in small things, who would trust you in truly important matters?

Adults lived by the same rules. Phrases like “women and children first” were not mere high–flown rhetoric. The history of the two World Wars and countless civil tragedies, such as the sinking of the Titanic, provide ample evidence that such principles were taken seriously. “My word is my bond” was a fundamental principle in the realm of commerce.

Today such notions seem hopelessly antique. Today, even brides– and grooms–to–be sign prenuptial agreements defining the legal limits of loving, honoring and cherishing—for how long, and for how much.

Only 60 years ago such ideas would have been considered unconscionable. Today they are unremarkable, which gives you an idea of how far we’ve come—and how fast. We are materially richer today than a half century ago, but in all other respects we are the poorer.

Grandfather Hawtin, admittedly a notable eccentric, dated the decline of Western Civilization from the day British municipalities started amending the wording of the signs on public rest rooms. It was, he observed, not entirely without irony that standards of personal conduct started to go down the toilet the moment rest room signs were changed from the traditional “Ladies” and “Gentlemen” to the politically correct “men” and “women.”

Be that as it may, are we really happier than we were when the highest compliment that could be paid to a person was to be described as a good Christian lady or gentleman? GPH✠