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, I don’t know about you, but I have had an exceptionally relaxing two weeks off from the mailbag, which I hope everyone else enjoyed as well. And, wouldn’t you know it, with the coming of the fall semester comes the resurgent, frequent posting of our beloved old guard Bereans. Good times all around, says I.

Q: Nathan asks: “Why do some people try to make Trump out as a racist for verbally attacking/criticizing Democrats who happen to be of an ethnic minority when he gives the same treatment to white politicians, Republican or Democrat, who cross him?”

A: Oh, there are reasons abounding, though I think they can be broadly categorized as such:

1. Some probably do see Trump as genuinely racist in his comments, not out of an ulterior motive, but out of sincere concern over his rhetoric. I don’t agree with this assessment, but I can respect the concern at least, seeing as it comes from a place of conviction.
2. I’m equally sure there are individuals who use the race card out of convenience. If I can frame my opponent as a racist, that seems to (a) negate any need to engage with them on an intellectual or political level and (b) open the door to using any means to stop them. As you may have guessed, I have very little tolerance for this view.
3. I’m willing to make ignorance its own category. Part of me is tempted to lump it in with the first category, but I’ve seen too many of those “man on the street videos” where Trump’s words are presented as Obama’s or vice versa, and people start saying all sorts of wonderful things about Trump seconds after calling him a racist.

Q: Nathan also asks: “Which planet would you live on in the Star Wars universe?”

A: Oh man…so many options. Part of me really wants to live on an adventurous, dangerous planet like Tatooine, Felucia, or Dagobah just for the kicks of living on the edge. If you want the good life, though, I think it’d be pretty hard to top Naboo or Coruscant. Given the options, I’d probably live on Coruscant with vacation homes on Naboo and Kashyyyk.

Q: Daniel asks: “Several questions related to gun violence/legislation: First, what exactly is the gun legislation being talked about by Trump and McConnell? Is it better enforcement of what is already on the books or additional laws? What is reasonable and what is treading too far into taking out the 2nd Amendment in your opinion? Is there a tendency to overreact right after a big shooting like what we’ve had? If the measure being floated around goes “too far” would it get by the SCOTUS?

A: Lots of questions here. Let’s go one at a time.

1. Primarily the new gun legislation being proposed, or rather considered, by Trump and McConnell is to expand background checks beyond their current scope. From my reading of it, this is primarily an expansion on what is currently on the books, so this goes beyond better enforcement of current rules.
2. I will link the two questions on reasonableness and SCOTUS because my answer to both revolves around the most recent Court rulings here. To date, the prevailing doctrine on the 2nd amendment is that it is incorporated against the states (meaning the 2nd amendment’s language applies to states as well the federal government). In both the McDonald and Heller cases, the Court has been fairly protective of the 2nd amendment, though how that plays out is a still a matter of some debate. Anything semi-automatic or slower (particularly including handguns) is generally protected. Fully automatic weapons, by contrast, are very hard to come by. They have to have been manufactured prior to 1986, and, even then, there is a bevy of hoops and registrations to be had. On the whole, that general framework on purchasing firearms is fine with me. There are several tangents one can follow from here, so I’d need more specificity on what policy is being considered to answer any further.
3. Is there a tendency to overreact? Yes, as there is with basically any disaster. It’s an understandable reaction, but it still doesn’t make it right. That also doesn’t detract from the grief or pain we feel after shootings like these; it simply means that the potential for bad policy goes up, as it does after any crisis moment, and we should be wary about that. Hasty action in either direction won’t help.

Q: Marcus Aurelius asks: “There seems to be a problem with the term “progress” or “progressive” in a political context. It implies there’s some goal or ideal we’re working towards or that politics is perfectible or some such. However I don’t think you or I would take issue with the ideas of scientific or technological progress. There isn’t an end goal for science or technology but we still talk about progress. Maybe this just means improvements. If this is the case, why is the term apt for these fields but not politics? I suspect it has to do with the political bent that has more or less cornered the market on the term.

A: Well…it’s a bit sticky to be sure. So far as “progress” is used nowadays, I think you’re right that it’s more politics than actual concern with defining and carrying on a progressive campaign. “Vote for me, and we will finally achieve ‘X’,” is not at all an uncommon theme. That’s why vision, though I despise it as a buzzword, really is vital for politicians to lock down. They likely won’t win without one.

Whenever we talk about progress, we are implicitly answering a necessary question that comes with that term, “Progress towards what?” In that sense, it very quickly becomes obvious why progress is harder to talk about in politics than in something like technology. To start with, people have far more unanimity about what progress looks like in technology. There’s not a whole lot of controversy in saying that modern computers are better than a Commodore 64. We want our tech to be faster, more powerful, better able to meet our demands, more affordable, etc. We have metrics for technology already in our minds, and we are working on improving those metrics. You can debate the use of that technology ’til you’re blue in the face and question whether we should even have it, but, just in looking at whether tech X has progressed over tech Y, making a judgment call there is not terribly difficult.

Trying to get unanimity from people on politics is an endeavor best suited to masochists. Just in the United States alone, about half the country, at any one time, is probably despondent about the direction of the nation. Eventually new elections will come, and that half will suddenly feel that the nation has really gotten itself a good grasp on progress and is now moving forward to new and better heights. The other half, formerly engrossed in elation, will pine and moan about the new, regressive state of affairs. Your view of progress in any particular state will be explicitly tied to your vision and your ideals. If we only take it to that extent, then it does become very difficult to make any meaningful sense of progress. If there is no arbiter of those visions, then progress is just shorthand for, “My side/vision/ideal is winning.” So, at some point, if progress can find any concrete footing, I think it has to be rooted in an objective truth. Sorry to bring it back to this question again, but I think the two points are inextricably linked. If you are recognizing progress and regress, you have some objective truth in mind, be you conscious of it or not.

With that being said, I should say that progress doesn’t necessarily have to be so starkly stated in all walks of life. If I find the evolution of a particular field of music preferable (i.e. – I deem it progress), that doesn’t mean an alternative evolution of that field would have been regressive. I may not particularly care for it, but that’s my preference. So long as it’s done in good faith and with excellence, more power to that alternative evolution. I guess the better way to state this is that some walks of life have ideals (any deviation from which invites regress) and some do not. I believe there are ideals on matters such as racial equality and the sanctity of life. I do not believe there are necessarily ideals on musical taste, clothing preference, food choice, etc. As a Christian, it seems to me that God has given us a small set of ideals to ground us in righteousness and justice and beyond that He leaves the door open for creativity and exploration. And, what’s more, that seems to a good chunk of the Christian hope – a renewed heavens and earth with a unity in Christ at its base but gloriously diverse in its overall makeup.

A Final Reflection:

I don’t have much to say this week except this: Hold doors for elderly folk. I was coming out of the store the other day after a bit of an exhausting week, and I saw this pair of elderly ladies coming my way, so I halted my forward motion and held the door for them. You would have thought I had purchased them two tickets to Malibu the way they thanked me. My goodness, the one woman was just an absolute peach. She walked right over to me, looked me square in the eyes, and said, “Thank you so much sweetie. That is so nice of you to do.” I gotta tell ya, I grinned ear-to-ear all the way back to my car after that. I don’t know, maybe I’m just a sucker for the old stereotype of the Boy Scout helping the old lady cross the street, but it was a charming, little moment, and it just made my day. And you know what? It feels good to help people in that way.

So there you have it, folks. Hold doors and be genuinely thankful towards others. God bless and have a great week, everyone.