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.  

Ready for some behind the scenes? I, as a duly ordained contributor to this blog, get to see which posts are upcoming/in the works/breathing new life/etc. At present, this mailbag is basically all we have planned right now, so guess what? You poor suckers are mine…ALL MINE! Mwahahaha!!!…..unless of course Dr. Haymond comes out with Part VI of his recent series or Dr. Smith reviews the space Nazi thriller Iron Sky (hint, hint). But yes, love me or hate me, I’m what you’ve got right now, so let’s make the most of it, shall we?

Q: Marcus Aurelius asks: “How would you describe Ayn Rand to an alien?”

A: Greed, efficiency, and selfish ambition = good. Altruism, charity, and caring for others = bad. Oh, and don’t forget that you owe absolutely nothing to anyone. Duty is just a facade.

Yah, that about summarizes Rand.

Q: Aurelius also asks: “Do a two word movie review: The Last Jedi.”

A: “Missed opportunities.” Sorry, Nathan. I know this will pain you, but so I stand.

Q: Aurelius finally asks: “I’m wondering how you feel about the usefulness of terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” or “left” and “right.” It seems to me these all mean different things to different people and almost always require clarification and are commonly used to smear people.”

A: For those who missed it last week, I had a sliver of writing devoted to bemoaning the squishiness of political labels, and we are carrying on that discussion here. I think, upon further reflection, I would treat political terms much the same as I treat denominational labels in Christianity. “But Mr. Mailman, didn’t you just say last week that religious labels were easier to apply than political labels?” How astute of you, dear reader. Indeed I did, but you will notice that I ever so craftily and presciently stopped at a level above what we traditionally consider denominational terms (e.g. – Protestant and Catholic). Ta-da! Look at that wiggle and escape.

More relevantly, it’s not really a strict one-to-one comparison that I’m aiming for, more a general application of the same principle I’ve given to denominations in the past. Political labels, like denominational labels, can be useful signposts when handled correctly. The reason they are so squishy is because there’s not a concrete set of views you must hold to be labeled, yet there are definite policy positions attached to each label. Conservative policies include free market economics, pro-life positioning, traditional understandings of marriage and family, and small government among other things. Yet, someone can very easily be called ‘conservative’ while holding, for instance, more liberal views on sexuality (think Andrew Sullivan) or more pro-government inclinations (think Tucker Carlson). It would be very odd to hear someone say, “Yes, I’m a Christian, I just tend to believe the Resurrection isn’t real.” Um, no. That is the central doctrine for Christians; you cannot reject it and still be a Christian. Conversely, you can get away with being a Tucker Carlson or Andrew Sullivan. Political labeling functions more like a weighted average of your policy positions.

Regardless, I would still make the case for keeping them around. Their relative squishiness doesn’t mandate chucking the whole apparatus; we still have enough linguistic footing in our society to make general approximations with these terms. Most of these terms will of course start to break down as you narrow in on the particular tastes of an individual, but they at least offer a decent starting place for getting to know general inclinations. As you get to know a person more deeply, labels will tend to fall away naturally in your own interactions (less, “Oh I’m dealing with a liberal” more “Oh I’m dealing with Joe”). At that stage, we only keep labels around to help bridge the knowledge gap between that person and someone else unacquainted with them.

Very briefly, I should note that I think ‘left’ and ‘right’ tend to carry more of a pejorative sense to them than ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative.’ You can, of course, turn any term into a pejorative, but ‘left’ and ‘right’ seem to be distinct in this regard. We tend not to hear of ‘uber liberals’ or ‘mega conservatives,’ but we do hear about the ‘far left’ and ‘far right.’

Q: Nathan asks: “The position of the Roman Catholic Church has consistently been anti-abortion. Yet in the United States, many Catholics are pro-choice Democrats (Biden, Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez, to name a few). Most of them are supportive of late-term abortions and hold views that polling shows is extreme even within their own party at large. Why do you think so many Catholic Democrats are so supportive of abortion when their church and, it seems, the majority of the electorate is not (at least on things like late-term)?”

A: Well, well. Here we are again with labels, seems to be a theme nowadays. The short, convenient answer is that, in the same way we have nominal Protestants and nominal Muslims and nominal Jews, we can certainly have nominal Catholics. The longer answer is probably more nuanced than that. I suspect there are a couple of possibilities:

1. They might be truly nominal and just using the name for some sort of political boon. America isn’t quite so secularized at this point to be overly welcoming of explicitly atheistic politicians, so it still pays to be publicly religious at a minimum. Maybe they were raised that way, and it’s convenient for them to hold the moniker for political purposes.
2. They may be sincerely Catholic but sincerely confused on what that should entail for their beliefs. Obviously, Catholics are not 100% aligned on every issue, and it would be foolish to expect their members to be so. However, it does seem reasonable that, for an institution that prides itself on unity, general agreement on an issue as monumental as abortion should be more or less a given. We’re not fussing over shades of red for the cardinal robes here; we’re talking about human life. At the very least, we should be able to say, “This is what Catholics traditionally and largely hold to on abortion, and, if you differ significantly from that, you are departing from Catholic teaching.” Hence why I say they could be sincere but sincerely confused.
3. They could be privately against abortion but publicly apprehensive about the ramifications for holding to that position. This is a pretty common line; sometimes, it’ll include a variation where the individual is against abortion but “doesn’t want to impede on a woman’s right to choose” or something like that. I tend to treat this one as a cop-out, but sure. Maybe some people genuinely hold that view. Fair enough.
4. Kind of a mixture of the previous three, but I think the final option is that they simply have a higher allegiance to abortion than to whatever they think their Catholic faith entails. Their loyalties lie with sexual libertinism and brutal rejection of consequences, and Catholic faith just doesn’t really enter into that equation.

A Final Reflection:

With all the abortion talk going on, I feel like I should offer a thought or two about what’s happening. Honestly, I am delighted with what is going on for two reasons:

1. Had you told me a few years ago that the pro-life movement would have this much momentum behind it, I simply would not have believed you. As it is, I am pleasantly surprised by hope. I think the science is increasingly, clearly on the pro-life side, and I think the moral arguments are starting to touch people more deeply now. To all the tireless advocates of pro-life policy and sentiment, you have my gratitude.
2. An unexpected but useful side effect of this momentum is we are seeing abortion advocates drop all pretense and facade of civility, reason, and sensibility. What shocks me right now isn’t necessarily the brutality of the pro-abortion arguments but the absolute rage tied up with them. With someone like Peter Singer and his very ghoulish arguments on when human life truly begins, I can, at an absolute minimum, appreciate the arguments for at least being arguments, abhorrent though they are. There is none of that with the current pro-abortion talk; it is all rage, ranging from deliberate misrepresentation (claiming women could be jailed for having abortions in Alabama, which is simply false) to ad hominem attacks of the most despicable nature (claiming Alabama will be overrun with incestuous children now). You know what I say? Let them rage; let people see the resident evil lurking in the hearts of these people; let them see all the vile of abortion brought to light. It’s about time.

This road probably leads to the Supreme Court at some point, and we should honestly expect the fight to continue long after they render a verdict. For now, at least, let’s be grateful for the victories and continue the good fight while we can.