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.  

It’s been a while since I’ve done a classical music recommendation, so I’d would be remiss to fumble this opportunity to recommend my latest piano kick: Chopin’s Polonaise: Heroic. I’d wager this is easily his greatest piano piece. Play this in the background for the mailbag, and I guarantee your experience will be enhanced or your money back. Then again, you don’t have any money, and we don’t charge a fee, so I guess the joke’s on all of us. Tee-hee, har-har, good show everyone. But, anyway, do give the Polonaise a listen and come join the rest of us for the mailbag.

Q: Daniel asks: “I’m seeing Ian McDiarmid apparently in a new Star Wars movie, Tiger Woods winning the Masters, and Democrats crying foul over a presidential election result for years. Did I get transported back in time to the early 2000s?”

A: CBS has also been remaking the Twilight Zone as of late. Might be worth your time to have a chat with them.

Q: Marcus Aurelius asks: “Can you be opposed to both elitism and populism?”

A: Sure can, in fact I think that’s one of the founding principles of the Constitution. We want neither a tyranny of the experts nor the untamed passions of the masses, hence why we have the electoral college and the direct election of US Representatives and used to have the indirect election of US Senators. So in a word, yes.

That being said, I do want to clear up something that often comes up in regards to this topic. A frequent line I hear, typically from Republicans but also from Democrats, is that not only do not want a tyranny of the experts but we want no experts whatsoever. I’m not entirely sure that’s what the Founders had in mind. They certainly didn’t want a central committee, but to say that they opposed the election of exceptional, highly-skilled public servants is taking the caution against elitism and turning it into a rage against elitism. Russell Kirk said it best:

“They [the Founders] did not aspire to abolish class. What they disliked was not class, but caste: hereditary distinctions and privileges enforced by law. The granting of titles of nobility, accordingly, was forbidden expressly in the Constitution; and this violated no man’s inherited rights, for there were virtually no noblemen in America at the time of the Revolution. The founders of the Republic never aimed at the French vision of absolute equality, as preached by theorists like Condorcet. Though they could not abide caste, they heartily approved of “natural aristocracy” — the leadership of men of unusual talents and large resources….An aristocrat, in other words, is a natural leader, qualified by intelligence, charm, strength, cleverness, industry, wealth, family, education, or some other resource to influence the opinions of his neighbors….What they foresaw for the future of the Republic was not, then the abolition of class and superior talents, but the employment of class and superior talents to the benefit of the commonwealth.” – The American Cause

Ding, ding, ding. There you have it, folks. By the way, if this rubs you the wrong way, try imagining a society in which everyone was truly equal in every single regard, or you could just let Kurt Vonnegut do that for you. Hierarchy is a part of humanity’s DNA, and it does us more good to seek righteous ways to use it rather than trying to stamp it out. History alone should inform us of the perils inherent to such an endeavor.

Q: Neil McElroy asks: “Any favorite in this year’s NBA title hunt?”

A: Ah, yes, what to make of the playoffs? The hopeful side of me says the Bucks have a decent shot this year. I realize beating down the Pistons isn’t much of a guarantee for future playoff success, but they did look good all things considered. Moreover, they probably have the ‘easiest’ path (obvious playoff chaos excluded) to the Finals, and I think they can handle anyone from the West.

The more grizzled, old veteran with me, however, can’t shake the fear of one more Warriors win before Durant skips town (shoot, maybe they still get a couple after that). The Warriors are kind of like the Patriots. Everyone hates them, and each year there’s talk of a new, dominant face for the sport, but every blasted year they wind up competing for the top honors. It’s not really hard to see why, admittedly; you could send the Warriors to the Olympics, and they could win. They simply have an embarrassment of riches on that team. The saving grace, of course, is that I think they have a much tougher road to the Finals, but, by golly, that hasn’t stopped them before.

In the end, it’s the playoffs, so any prediction is probably unfounded, but here’s one anyway just for kicks. I’ll be hopeful and say Bucks in six.

Q: McElroy also asks: “Any idea as to the impact of the Republican tax legislation now in action? Successful politically? Economically?”

A: Well, Mr. McElroy, funny you should ask that because I just so happen to have been reading up on that recently. After the recent economic growrth report of 3.2%, I don’t know how you can deride the tax reform and its corresponding deregulation with a straight face anymore. When CNN and the WSJ are in agreement over the benefits it has brought, I’d wager that it’s safe to largely call the legislation a success. Yah, some of the fundamentals could have been a little better, but the WSJ already pointed out the effect of the shutdown and some other factors that will likely rebound in following quarters. And, what do you know, inflation is sitting nice and low just for kicks. In short, the tax legislation is economically successful. It’s always a good day for me when I get to see another Keynesian fallacy sent to the guillotine.

Oh, but let’s talk about the politics for a second, where once again there be dragons. I understand that a certain amount of politics is positioning yourself as the good guy and your opponent as the bad guy, but I also like to think that there would be a measure of concession when the opponent’s policy really does a good job. By golly, I must be mistaken. The New York Times ran a headline not too long ago titled, “Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut.” Realizing that the NYT primarily speaks to more liberal audiences, I have to conclude that Democrats are a truly morose sack of sorry sorts. Really, I would have thought something more upbeat and celebratory would have been in order, but nope. It’s all: “Smile, you brooding, lemon-twisted grouse; I got you a present.”

It honestly goes to show how successful the Democrats/media have been at controlling the narrative. That much I think we have to give them credit for. I repeat again: Conservatives need to build a narrative beyond the pie chart. I love pie charts, but people need stories and art and music and satire (hopefully you’ve all enjoyed the Bullington Diatribes so far; if not, that’s ok. I will just weep bitterly on my own time). Admittedly, that’s easier said than done, but the left owns the culture and the media. Sooner or later, conservatives will need to reckon with that reality.

Q: McElroy finally asks: “Thoughts on a potential Roy Moore revival in the race to challenge Doug Jones? Is the GOP starved for candidates or electorally out of touch?”

A: Just in case anyone thinks this is a joke, here’s the proof. Daniel, I may go with you when you visit the folks about CBS about the Twilight Zone.

To start, I doubt Moore is going to get the nomination a second time around; he’ll have the entire Republican infrastructure aligned against him, and losing a Senate race is a good way to spoil your future chances of electoral success. But, let’s say he does emerge as a front runner; what might be causing that? A couple of thoughts:

1. There is certainly the brute fact that Moore has name recognition, and, in a world of voter ignorance, that may be the single most valuable thing to have in an election. He’s made a name for himself among Alabama Republicans, and that may be enough to snag some support.
2. Roy Moore has a particular charm and appeal with the Christians who want Christendom now, people who I believe want to immanentize the eschaton with a distinctly Christian fundamentalist flavor. Dr. Smith is far more qualified to speak on southern politics than I am, but I suspect there are undercurrents of post-millennialism at play here, though I doubt the people I am describing would accept that label. And, as someone who has heard him speak before, I can attest that he is a gifted orator; let’s not discount that factor.
3. Moore is something of a true believer to many people, uncompromising and unapologetic in his views and representing a rare voice of religious fundamentalism that many people empathize with but generally have no political outlet for. Moreover, since he is such an anomaly in this regard, he is guaranteed to be hated by the media, but that’s something he can use to his advantage. Being hated by the media is a sort of a badge of honor for many conservatives, and Moore definitely relishes his contrarian stance to the media and the broader left. You can see then why so many people disbelieved the accusations against him. “He’s already hated and feared by the left, so of course they’d tried to destroy him” goes the logic.

So, in short, I think Roy Moore fills a particular niche for many conservatives, thus his resilience. Again, I do not think he’s going to make it very far given the circumstances, but, sure, if we want to throw away a Senate seat again in 2020, why not?

A Final Reflection:

I’ve been watching this show called Black Mirror as of late, and it is just about the trippiest thing I’ve seen in my short stint on planet Earth. In a nutshell, it’s about alternative legal realities under a dystopian tech future, and it’s freaky. One of the things, though, that is often addressed is the nature of consciousness; often, the show will place its characters in situations where they can live on by transferring their consciousness to some form of computer code which perfectly models their being. It’s fundamentally a question about what makes someone human. Could I just map my brain and transfer my humanity to another body?

Forgive me if this seems like a jump, but I think this is why something like Harry Potter is ultimately more believable than a dystopian tech future like Black Mirror. I’ll take my ghosts and spirits of Harry Potter over the computer codes of Black Mirror because Harry Potter at least points to something beyond the raw materialism of shows like Black Mirror. You’re more flesh and bones, brothers and sisters. You’ve been designed that way, and the One who designed you places immense value on you. Take comfort in that fact.