Q: Brandon asks: It was a recent topic of discussion in this week’s VLOG that civil society is in danger and that government intervention is shrinking it. In response, Dr. Wheeler’s solution seemed to be that conservatives should be just as activist as the progressives in order to grow civil society to its “original” state while pushing back the government intervention destroying it. On another hand, Dr. David Azerrad seems to think that conservatives need a left to oppose and that different parts of conservatism pop up mainly due to the overreach of the left, not the activism of the right. If Dr. Azerrad is correct, is there any real possibility that conservatives could be activist enough to push back government intervention and grow civil society again? If so, how could current conservatives build the kind of movement required? Am I understanding Dr. Wheeler’s argument correctly? Are there too many questions in this paragraph?

A: Yes, but that’s why we’re here, so I wouldn’t worry tremendously about it.  Let’s see if we can isolate the questions in a logical manner however.  First, while I won’t speak for Dr. Wheeler, I highly doubt the type of activism he’s proposing is the same as what we are currently seeing on the Left.  When conservatives talk about building or rebuilding civil society, we almost by default have to be concentrated on more personal levels.  The things we aim to cultivate — community, virtue, direction, civility, etc. — don’t come about via government mandate but rather from a change of the heart.  Government, for the conservative, is based on the things above, but its proactive deliberations are ideally oriented towards maintenance of negative liberties (i.e. – don’t hurt others and don’t take their stuff).

Now, here’s where we find a rather curious problem.  It’s absolutely true that a conservative defense is generally mounted at the national level, but our offense is most generally conducted at the personal level.  And why not?  It’s practically genetic that we would do so.  Let’s imagine our prototypical conservative, Mr. Adam Kirk Buckley-Muggeridge.  Mr. Buckley-Muggeridge obviously isn’t of the disposition to go smashing and replacing the key pillars of society, and he would much rather be sure that he was doing his best part in promoting virtue in his own sphere of influence.  Realistically, if there isn’t a grave threat to those key pillars of society, he’s probably quite content to live his own quiet life and just check the national scales every now and then: “Right now, everything prim, trim, and not too grim?  Bully!  Back to the velvet room then.”  So, this sense, Dr. Azerrad is correct because conservatives don’t need to mount a national effort in the absence of leftist activism because our offense is locally driven at its core.  The flip side of this is that leftist activism is thoroughly nationally driven, so conservatives are consistently playing defense.  Here’s where the problem comes in.  A locally driven offense requires a substantially longer period of time to work than a nationally driven one.  Thus, leftist activism is bound to always be pushing, and conservatism is almost always trying to stay still.  We may mount a doggedly good defense, but it’s still a defense at its core.  But, once again, a nationally driven offense doesn’t fit well with our values, especially if government is involved.  And here is where we come to the heart of the issue.  We need a national offense, but we’re dispositionally set against one.  Here’s a quick recap of the issues:

1. Conservatives play offense locally and defense nationally.
2. Leftist activism plays constant, unending offense nationally.
3. The conservative disposition is generally set against playing a national offense.
4. Accordingly, we have a disparity in national firepower.

So what options do we have?  Two, I think.  First, I’d agree with Dr. Haymond in pushing back against the government intervention.  It’s a time-honored tradition, and we should certainly keep the faith on it.  This is the more immediate and practical of the two options.  Second, I am of the opinion that we have got to get behind quality productions in the arts and culture.  A lot of conservatives tend to take a very dismissive view of the culture and spout something out along the lines of: “Ahh, phooey on the culture. I’m just going to go watch reruns on Turner Classic Movies and Hallmark.”  Well that’s all fine and good, but you know who’s not ignoring the culture?  Leftist activists.  You may hate what they produce, but they own the cultural narrative right now, and they do a fine job of keeping it.  Ignoring the culture is no longer a luxury we can afford.  Andrew Klavan is fond of saying, “Facts don’t care about your feelings, but feelings are facts,” and he’s absolutely right.  You don’t like the cultural narrative?  Then, be a part of conservative groups that are trying to build a counter-narrative.  There’s a lot we could discuss here, but I’ll make it short by simply saying that conservatives have got to build a national narrative that looks more enticing than pie charts and corny films.

Q: Cathy asks: How do you feel about roundabouts?

A: I love them, personally.  When I was a really young driver, they terrified me for some reason, though everything on the road terrified me as an adolescent automobile operator.  Seriously, seven years ago, you would have been looking at one big, Grade-A chicken when it came to driving.  When I first started driving, I actually had one instance where I stopped the car in the middle of a turn and refused to go any further because the speed limit on the next road was >25 mph.  Things have thankfully changed since then.

Anyway, I like roundabouts; we need more of them in my opinion.  The one problem associated with them that just makes me want to eat my steering wheel is that people often don’t know how to use them properly.  If no one is coming, you can keep going, folks.  It’s a yield, not a stop.  Every time someone parks their keister at a roundabout, I just want to walk up to their window, ask for their license, and then bop them on the nose with it.

Q: Cathy also asks: Should the judge in the Harvard case recuse herself?

A: I’d rather she didn’t.  I’m not a big fan of judges recusing themselves unless it’s painfully obvious that they have a major conflicting interest.  Recusals are ripe for political exploitation, and conjuring up something from the steamy cauldron of petty politics can be a really slimy thing to do to a judge.  In this case, I don’t think we have something that concrete, based on what I know.  The judge got rejected by Harvard?  Well, I’m sure a lot of judges got rejected by Harvard, but that doesn’t mean they can’t apply the law fairly as they should.  I’ll invite Dr. Smith to chime in here if he wants to; he’s more of the expert on these matters.

Q: Nathan asks for my comments on the caravan headed towards the border.

A: I’m going to cheat a little bit on this one since we are so close to the election and answer sparsely but hopefully still appropriately.  Are there good people in the caravan who legitimately would like asylum?  More than likely, yes.  Are there bad people in the caravan who probably want to do harm to the US?  More than likely, yes.  Is this being played for political value on both sides?  Yup.  Choose your favorite moral lens and you can make this caravan into just about anything you want it to be.  With that being said, this is a textbook example of why conservatives place emphasis on rule of law and not letting emotion run our governance.  Regardless of how you think we should treat this caravan, the important thing is that we apply the appropriate laws fairly to all parties involved.  The truly unjust course of action would be to hedge the laws in any direction — right, left, up, or down — and grant special treatment to a select group.

Q: Nathan also asks: Any analysis on Trump’s planned executive order on birthright citizenship?

A: I don’t want to step on Dr. Smith’s ground too much here since he is our resident constitutional scholar, but here’s a short answer.  Trump likely can’t use the executive order, but Congress probably can enact legislation to the same effect.  Andrew McCarthy has a good piece at National Review on this, and I would likely just end up repeating him so I will direct you there for now.  Essentially, the issue boils down to #Derivatives.  Read the article, and you’ll see what I mean.

Q: Bernard of Saxe-Weimar asks: How important is it for Christian parents to expose children to opposing points of view? Can the unformed mind resist indoctrination?

A: Side note: I seem to attract an unusual amount of attention from medieval regents here on the mailbag.  I’m flattered of course but also a touch unnerved…

I have most appropriately been relistening to a dramatized version of the Screwtape Letters recently, and I think one of the first letters holds some wise insight to this question.  In the letter, Wormwood keeps directing his target to debates with the local materialists, assuming of course that this constant exposure to materialist doctrine will win him over at some point.  But Screwtape, ever the insightful old codger, points out that, while meritorious in some ways, this tactic has the unfortunate consequence of making Wormwood’s target engage his own reasoning faculties, which is a very dangerous thing for a demon to let happen to his client.  That, says Screwtape, can quickly spiral out of control and lead the client to consider whether things are true and false, whereas a good tempter should aim to present theories as “strong” or “bold” or maybe “rooted in reality.”  Much better to keep him rooted in indecision, writes the Under Secretary of Infernal Civil Service. Lewis is making a couple of points in that letter, but one is the danger associated with being swept away by a multiplicity of viewpoints without having established fundamentals of what is true, virtuous, and right.  This idea — that every wisp of confectioner’s sophistry has merit — is utter rubbish.

Now, more to the question, here’s four points:

1. There are few greater fools in this world than the man who thinks himself unchained to any particular “indoctrination,” as you put it.  Man is a worshipping being, and the praise will be directed somewhere, whether it be to science or matter or sex or money or work or God.  There is a notion going around these days that the scientific man is a bastion of perfect clarity of thought and full devotion to unbiased truth, and, by contrast, that any whiff of religion or philosophy is just an unfortunate holdover from our lesser days.  What inevitably happens, though, is that science is placed in a divine realm it was never meant to occupy, and scientists merely become the priests of this new religion.  In short, you will be servant to something.
2. I think it is dreadfully important that parents instill the axiom in their children that truth is tangible.  In an age of moral uncertainty, firm ground becomes priceless real estate.
3. I have a sneaking suspicion based on my many interactions with atheists that the real trouble we get ourselves into is not failing to teach our children enough doctrine or not always having the right answer or not exposing them to enough viewpoints but, rather, in refusing the growing mind’s questions altogether.  That is a swift path to conjuring up images of deceit and undue secrecy in a child’s mind — prime fuel for the flames of rebellion.  So, yes, teach your children in Christian doctrine but engage their questions as well.  Here’s a novel idea if you don’t know the answer to your kiddo’s question.  Go find the answer together with them.  You’ll learn, they’ll learn, and all will have shared in a delightful bout of intellectual bonding.
4. All this being said, I don’t think parents are under any obligation to expose their children to any viewpoints they don’t want to.  We can debate the merits of doing so, but that decision lies with the parents.  They nurture the child, and they get to decide on these matters.

Q: Bernard also asks: It seems like many people are talking about the decline of civility and community. Do you have any practical suggestions for reversing this trend?

A: Meals with friends and family is the first thing that comes to mind.  Even the writer of Ecclesiastes realizes there is something deeply bonding about sharing in the sustenance of life with other people.  There are other things too: Camping, bowling, movies, sports, hiking, swimming, Bible studies, leaf-raking, yardwork, building things, duet acting, singing, playing instruments, running….name whatever activity you’d like, but the underlying theme remains the same.  Go do stuff with people; interact with other human beings.  And, tangentially to this, try to get to know other people.  Yes, that means you may have to *gasp* talk to them and be vulnerable with them at times, but I suspect you’ll find it much harder to hate your fellow man when they have name and are no longer just an object in your way.

The important things here are consistency and the cultivation of character.  When you don’t feel like being kind, be kind.  When you don’t feel like talking to someone, have the decency to at least say, “hi.”  You’ll mess up plenty along the way, but that’s life, and life is hard sometimes.  Acknowledge your failure, pray through it, and get back up.  Don’t live civilly because it feels good.  Live civilly because it is right.  In doing so, you will grow ever more civil and virtuous, and I cannot overstate the impact that will have on people around you.  It may be cliche to say “Be the change you want to see,” but that’s not too far off.  Do the hard but right thing and act.  Reversing the decline of civility won’t come in one fell swoop but by the ten million nudges of the faithful.

Q: Maddie asks: Can you address what US tension possibly looked like 100 years ago or even 200 years ago?

A: Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Sharpsburg, Manasses, Shiloh…in short, it looked like the Civil War.  We’ve also had brutal elections in our past (1800), and let’s not forget that people used to get caned in the US Senate by opposing members of another party. In many ways, it’s not that we’re necessarily more tense today; we just do a much better job of sharing it for everyone to see 24/7.

Well, I think that’s all for this week.  As always, feel free to write in at mailbag.bereans@gmail.com, and I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.