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 offered up a musical appetizer, so may I recommend Handel’s Concerto No. 10 in D Minor, or, as I like to call it, “A Song of Wrath and Grace.” If you want a glimpse of what standing naked before your Creator would feel like, I believe Handel has captured a rough approximation. I’ll let you figure out which parts of the piece are wrath and which are grace.

Q: Nathan asks: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seemed to complain recently that Nancy Pelosi had placed her on several of the busiest committees and subcommittees and that she wondered if it was intentional on Pelosi’s part to keep her busy. But is not working and being busy the reason she is there in the first place?”

A: On the whole, I tend to see ‘ole AOC as being more in the agitatin’ for revolution business, though that doesn’t inform us of her work ethic persay. I suspect Pelosi has one or two tricks up her sleeve for trying to keep AOC busy (or at least away from the donors), but if her plan was to keep AOC quiet it’s not working right now. What may be working, ironically, is AOC’s own belligerence as some of the top brass in Democratic party are souring on the ongoing infighting. Personally, I’m just glad to see the Democrats distracted with internal squabbling; it makes for good theater and even better reelection chances for conservatives.

Q: Nathan also asks: “AOC also actually has suggested that Pelosi is singling out women of color. Would not AOC and her friends (the other “women of color”, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc, which she means) not be under criticism from Pelosi if they actually did their jobs rather than going out there making anti-Semitic and other outrageous remarks?

A: Probably. I remember back in my younger days cheering on some of the similar infighting the Republicans experienced right around when the Tea Party exploded onto the scene. You could not be too conservative for my liking back then. Mitch McConnell was a sellout, John Boehner and Paul Ryan were feckless, the RNC top brass was utterly useless, and by Jove those spineless RINOs in the Senate and House were nothing but dead to me. Needless to say, I’ve had to do some repenting over the years, seeing as most of the people I criticized back then are the ones who have aided many of the parts of Trump’s agenda that I appreciate. The tax plan? – Largely the work of Paul Ryan. Supreme Court and other judicial appointees? – You can thank Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham…oh and Susan Collins of all people.

The point is that, while I love my Freedom Caucus bros and Ted Cruz and my staunch defenders of conservative principles, it’s usually the more mainline folks who wind up driving policy towards the directed ends. And, you know what? That’s perfectly fine; we need both in government, some to rally the troops and some to work the key players. As you’ve probably guessed, I’m not a fan of ideological purity tests. I remember Marc Steyn addressing this one day back in 2016 when some conservatives were ready to throw Marco Rubio under the bus, and Steyn basically said, “Look, if we keep throwing people out of the tent, pretty soon there’s not going to be anyone left here.” I’m not saying politicians shouldn’t have principles, but if you’re going to die on them, you will probably not be a major policy player. And, realistically, it’s not even that principles have to be abrogated entirely; just don’t let the best be the enemy of the good.

Anyway, I’m off topic. I’m fine with whatever Pelosi has to do to keep AOC and her lonely band away from actual power; that’s my take.

Q: Daniel asks: “Regarding the US Women’s Soccer Team, why can’t we just celebrate our country winning a world tournament without turning it into an inward political battle (this includes some of the players)? I’d think a national team should be one of the few things still able to unite everyone. Also on the subject of equal pay for women that was stirred up, shouldn’t the market value dictate the pay? For instance, NBA players, in my opinion, ought to make more than WNBA players because the economic value generated in ticket sales, TV viewers, advertising, etc, far exceeds what the women’s game does.”

A: Yes and yes. That was easy.

Anymore, this sort of nonsense is just white noise to me. You can bust out all the charts and graphs and stats you want, but at the end of the day it never matters. I was at an econ club (nerdy, I know) a few weeks back, and we had a mock debate in which I applied my economic reasoning as strictly as I could until the other guy said, “Well, your policy is just racist,” to which the moderator jokingly quipped, “Welp, I guess he’s won.” And that’s basically what we have here, just substitute sexist for racist.

So, let people cavil and wail for a bit, and we’ll get past this just like we do most outrage flavors of the month. Yes, you’ll have to dismiss all those Google push notifications from Vox, but we’ll get through this eventually. Though, you just gotta wonder what kind of self-righteous obsession is necessary for a world-famous athlete to co-opt what should be a time of unity and celebration and turn it into a soapbox/money grab. Hey! You know what turns people away from watching your sport? This. This turns people away. Oh, and by the way, what in the blessed, green globe is Joe Biden doing calling for this equal pay nonsense? Joe. JOE! You’re supposed to be the level-headed one; you’re supposed to be the return to normalcy. Good heavens, man, abort the mission; change course, redirect your efforts, about face, repent for the end is near! Is this really what the Democrats want to spend their precious time campaigning on?

This is one of those areas where I wish I had Churchill’s level of nonchalance, like when a member of Parliament berated him for a ending a sentence with a preposition, “This is the sort of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put.”

Q: Daniel also asks: “So there is some question as to whether or not Nathan D is in fact an undercover Marc (Clauson I assume) based on comments in the July 8 article? Can you confirm this shocking development?”

A: I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of one or several monikers, aliases, alter egos, code names, body doubles, and/or other bynames with which several of our commenters have dubbed themselves. Longtime readers of the mailbag will recall that we have had a bevy of feudal lords, Germanic princes, English kings, French monarchs, secretaries of state, governmental officials, Roman emperors, and several other similarly deceased statesmen miraculously comment on this blog, so anything is certainly possible.

Q: Jimmy Stewart asks: “Any thoughts on the MLB All-Star game?”

A: See, folks? Famous have-been actors are drawn here too.

Two thoughts actually:

1. I was very pleased to have the game in Cleveland, and I was more so pleased to see Shane Bieber strike out the side and take home the MVP award. I think he’s only the second or third person to pull off that stunt in his home field during the All-Star game, so it was something special to behold. And, of course, the AL won again, which is always a plus in my book.
2. Keep your eye on Vlad Guerrero Jr. He may be something special, kind of in the same vein that Ken Griffey Jr. was the better version of his dad. Guerrero Sr. was one of the better players around when I was growing up (8x Silver Slugger, for instance), and his kid is looking promising right now.

A Final Reflection:

In lieu of a final reflection from me, do yourself a favor. Carve out twenty minutes or so and go read this piece called “Giving Up Darwin” by David Gelernter. Gelernter is not a Christian, he’s not an advocate of any type of intelligent design, but he is a gifted writer and gives a richly fulfilling review of Stephen Meyer’s work that Claremont Review of Books deemed worthy of publication. Don’t let me spoil anything for you; just enjoy the read.