Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Well, last week I said my March Madness bracket was doing pretty well on the whole. Oh how I forgot the ides of March, and how the tables have turned. The good news is that the games have been positively exhilarating just about every time, and the better news is that it’s mailbag day! What’s that? You’d rather have March Madness? Gee, thanks. Don’t I feel special. Oh well, I already wrote it up, so I guess you poor suckers are stuck with me now. To the mailbag!

Q: Daniel asks: “Are you sure Mueller didn’t miss anything here?”

A: I’d buy the Ovechkin/Russia collusion scandal to steal America or Canada’s chances at Olympic gold. The Washington Capitals have been on my naughty list ever since they spoiled my Blue Jackets Stanley Cup chances last year.

But, since you just so happen to bring it up, let’s take a moment to talk about Russia. Anyone who follows my satire column has probably inferred my general feelings about the whole Mueller probe. I actually have some very vivid memories of the key moments from two years ago, especially the Comey firing. I was finishing up some landscaping for my aunt, and, as I was walking to my car, WSJ sent through a news alert announcing the firing, and I just remember thinking, “Ah, crap.” Call me a prophet, but even back then I had a notion that some sort of overreaction was brewing.

Now we’re finally at the end of these matters, and I think there are a few things to take away. By the way, before I tell my thoughts, do consider Dr. Smith’s excellent take on the matter. Read that? Cool, here’s what I’ve got:

1. It’s palpably clear at this point that this investigation was started on shaky grounds at best and downright dishonest grounds at worst. The Obama DOJ, either through malice or incompetence, started an investigation into a Presidential candidate of the opposite party based on one drunken conversation from a low-level Trump aide and a mendacious dossier funded by Clinton opposition research money. We also know that members of the FBI (Peter Strzok) seemed fairly intent on preventing a Trump presidency through any means possible. All things considered, it seems apparent that the DOJ was weaponized in some capacity by the party in power against the opposition. That’s exceptionally concerning to me.
2. The Democrats and the media put basically all of their eggs in the collusion narrative, and they are now left hanging with nothing. The reasonable approach would have been to say, “Well, we don’t know the facts yet, but we’ll wait to see what the Mueller report has.” Instead, they look appropriately ridiculous. They called for early impeachment, made premature collusion claims, accused Trump of treason, and made general fools of themselves. It’ll be interesting to see where they go now.
3. Trump is certainly in a much better position for 2020 now. There is some campaign fodder to be used from this, but he needs to avoid overplaying the Mueller complaints card. There is plenty to hit the Democrats on for 2020, and Trump will be ill-served to spend all his time complaining about the investigation. Take the victory lap, maybe bring it up once in a while to point the media/Democrats dishonesty, but don’t spend all day/every day turning the attention to yourself. There be bigger fish to fry.

Q: Nathan asks: “Saw this poll on the New York abortion law (and abortion in general). Any reaction? If public sentiment on abortion is actually anywhere near this, then why do you think many Democrats are going hard all-in on late-term abortion?”

A: Well, as the article mentions, New Yorkers tend to support abortion at higher rates, but obviously that doesn’t automatically translate to support for fully unrestricted abortion. I think the key thing to remember here is that this is how the Overton window gets moved. Once you normalize something just a step below infanticide, infanticide starts sounding a little more acceptable. That may hurt you in the short term, but the longer that law remains in place, the more it gets normalized until eventually they’ve won the battle by attrition. Part of the sexual revolution requires that sex be stripped of all possible consequences, no matter how evil and perverse the actions required for that may seem to anyone with half a conscience left in them. This is just one more step in that direction by the moral revolutionaries.

Q: George C. Marshall asks: “What is your opinion of South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and the current surge in his popularity?”

A: Yes, let’s talk about Pete. I have listened to numerous commentators discuss the Democrat party, and it always seems like they cast Pete Buttigieg as one of the moderates on that side of the party. That, however, seems like it does a particular injustice to the term ‘moderate.’ When I was growing up, a moderate was someone who kind of had a foot in both camps. Maybe they supported increased military spending but not more intervention, maybe they liked tax cuts but not too many, maybe they wanted to cut some spending for some programs but increase spending on other ones. In short, a moderate held moderate positions. If Buttigieg is a moderate, the term ‘moderate’ may just as well be meaningless. He is very much on the left for LGBT issues, he supports Medicare for all, he has expressed support for the Green New Deal, he seems to at least be fine with late-term abortion, he heavily favors gun control, and he is quite liberal on immigration. The one thing that moves him a little bit towards the right is his foreign policy stance, but even on that there are slim conservative pickings. So, I suppose if ‘moderate’ means that he is not an out-‘n-out socialist and has some more traditional views on the military, yes he is a ‘moderate.’ Realistically though, I think he is solidly on the left. As for his rise in popularity, it’s fun to watch for now, but I don’t start caring too much about the polls until we get closer to the election, which is still a year and a half away. That is an eternity in politics, so we’ll check back with Mr. Buttigieg in a while.

Q: George also asks: “Any thoughts on the movie Lincoln, either as a piece of art or in regard to its history or view of American politics? It is a particular favorite of mine.”

A: I’ve a few, yes. First, it is certainly an excellent drama led by the all-time great Daniel Day-Lewis. His performance alone makes the movie watchable, and there’s also a good deal of witty humor in it which adds a very welcome amount of levity to the movie. I’m also a bit of a sucker when it comes to courtroom dramas and legislative connivings, and Lincoln spends a significant amount of time on those dealings. Viewers go into that movie thinking they are about to watch a movie about his life but then witness a compelling drama about one of his greatest accomplishments instead. One of the most dramatic parts of that movie is towards the end when Lincoln is meeting with staff and colleagues and, in a very tense moment, seizes control of the room and essentially declares, “I am the President of the United States, clothed in immense power and given this one shot to end slavery for all time, and by golly you will achieve this for me or else.” It is a wonderfully chilling and powerful moment that basically sums up the movie. For me, Lincoln is an easy 8.5/10, and everyone should watch it if they get the chance.

Q: George finally asks: Any significance to 538’s article noting the general stability of recent presidents’ approval ratings compared to past ones? Is it just that Americans don’t feel as influenced by major events, don’t care as much, or are more politically polarized and solidified?

A: As with many polls regarding the Donald, I think the prudential path is to say, “We’ll see what happens after Trump leaves.” He’s certainly unique in his own way, but I maintain that the Obama years created the conditions for Trump’s rise, so I think we would need to remove ourselves from that whole saga to get a glimpse of whether or not some of the switches we see going on are permanent. Admittedly, that’s not much of an answer, but hey you get what you pay for I guess.

Q: Jordan asks: “What are your thoughts on abolishing the UN?”

A: Uh huh…I see you people are trying to get me in trouble now. Very well then, let’s see what ruckus I can raise.

Interestingly enough, we tackled this question during my days in International Relations class, and the answer we came up with was, “No, but……” That’s a pretty succinct way to state my views. For example, the mere fact that the United Nations forces countries to come together under peaceful terms is, I think, a good in and of itself. You may not be able to force different nations to get along with each other, but you can at least make the disagreements awkward. But…..when those nations are primarily gathering together in some committees to, oh let’s say, gang up on Israel, then I’ve got a problem. When I was a Model UN participant, I got a chance to visit the Czech mission in New York, and the representative there spilled some of the dirty secrets about the UN’s inner workings. One such secret is that, apparently, there are different levels of hell you can descend to based on a host of factors. Once a colonizing power? You’re in hell. Aggressor against a peaceful neighbor? You’re in hell. And at the very bottom, the seventh, innermost level of hell? Supporters of Israel. So, yes, that antipathy is problematic for me.

I also have to wonder about the legitimacy and usefulness of these committees. For example, Saudi Arabia and Iran, two of the worst places on planet Earth to be a woman are members in the Commission on the Status of Women. Russia and Iran, who have literally been financing the Syrian state’s war on its people and causing them to flee the country, are on the refugee committee. You’ll forgive me if I seem a bit puzzled by this. I understand they have country quotas to fulfill, but I would much rather have my committees staffed on the merits.

More problematic on the whole is the general perception of the UN as lacking the chutzpah to get anything done, outside of grandiose virtue-signaling and pageantry along with the occasional tut-tutting of Israel while other member states are legitimately financing terrorist operations against them. Is that worth shutting the whole thing down? Probably not, but it may merit the U.S. simply not respecting the institution when it delves into the anti-Semitic or the ridiculous. “Well, doesn’t that just look like the US flexing its muscles on the world stage?” Uh, yes. This is a pretty great country that regularly champions global freedom, and I would much rather have the freedom-loving, American eagle flexing its muscles on the world stage than the totalitarian Chinese dragon or Russian bear. Welcome to the world of international relations, friends.