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.  

Folks, it has been an absolute joy to be your metaphysical mailman for the latter half of this year, and I relish the prospects we have for 2019. We’ll be back after New Year’s, and feel free to keep sending those questions in during the break. For now, though, let’s power through this last one before we go on Christmas hiatus.

Daniel asks: “Any thoughts on LeBron James’s comments casting NFL owners as ‘old, white men with a slave mentality’?”

I have a few, yes. Given the nature of the comments section in our last few mailbags, I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever I say on this is going to be peerlessly insightful for some and borderline racist for others. In like manner, I suspect people will generally fall into two camps on these comments, some seeing James as a prophet and some seeing him as whiny or knuckleheadish. So, with that being the case, let’s see if we can walk a nice middle ground with some abbreviated thoughts.

I think it is entirely possible for both camps to have a legitimate point to make in this case. I’m sure there’s a certain downside in any sport knowing that basically any game could be your last with a particular team, and you could have to pack up with short notice and begin anew in a different place virtually overnight. Money only carries you so far when relationships are constantly changing, and you never get to settle down into an area. Moreover, I’m sure there are players who could lodge some legitimate grievances with their owners.

At the same time, let’s consider a couple of things. First, while the money is not everything, the people making these comments tend to have some of the more hilariously large salaries (some of these people are making thousands of dollars every time they touch a football). That doesn’t nullify the complaints, but it does add an aristocratic air to them. Second, what we call ‘trading’ in sports is just deemed ‘relocation’ for every other private sector job in America. The same thing happens to a family of four making 65K a year when they’re told of their new assignment halfway across the country (need I mention the military life here?), only they don’t get the attention of half of America in the process and are not welcomed as superstars when they arrive. Finally, I’m a firm believer in reserving labels for the appropriate occasion, thus why I hate it when the right or the left throws the Nazi/Hitler terminology around. It cheapens language so that, when everybody is Hitler, Hitler no longer looks like such a bad guy. Same thing applies here. NFL players are not slaves, and NFL owners are not slave owners (nor do I think they have a ‘slave mentality’). To think otherwise is to cheapen the mark of slavery on this country. As Dr. Smith pointed out last week, you may be able to use terminology like this (war, slavery, Hitler, Nazis, etc.) to mobilize people to your cause but at what cost?

If you want a simple ‘for’ or ‘against’ on the question, I would plop down in the ‘against’ column. Again, you can be rich and famous and still have legitimate grievances and bones to pick. You can even go public with them to drum up support. But using slavery language in this capacity? That strikes me as odd at best and insulting at worst.

Tony asks: “In a discussion thread on Stanley’s article regarding Edmund Burke he mentioned that Australia has a compulsory voting policy. Curious as to your musings on such a policy, if you were “king for a day” would you institute such a policy? What could be some positives and negatives of such a compulsory voting policy?”

If I were king for a day….has a nice ring to it doesn’t it? Yah, there are few things that I want to be compulsory for any citizen, and I don’t think voting should be one of them. Some people don’t want to participate in the deliberative process, and I’m perfectly content to oblige them of their request. As to the pros and cons, those necessarily depend on some basic worldview beliefs you hold. Generally lodged within the assumptions of this proposal is a belief that more voters is always a good thing. I’m not sold on that proposition, especially when large segments of our population (and some representatives, so I hear) can’t even name our three branches of government. Could you still make an informed decision in that case? Yes, but does anyone else find that fact just a little distressing?

I think the stronger case to be made against compulsory voting is that not everyone has the same stake in the game when voting. We do want some measure of equality in our voting process, but there is also the concern of proportionality, mainly because our votes tend to influence the redistributive processes of the nation. This where we should remember the quote about democracy being two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. I think compulsory voting would only exacerbate that issue.

In short, any changes to the voting system is going to have seen and unseen effects, positive and negative. The issue comes down to how we balance those competing interests of equality and proportionality. Now, what would I do? Critique this as much as you like, but I think we could find a reasonable balance of these interests if we say that net-positive taxpayers (even if that net-positive is a measly $1.50) get to vote regardless of age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, hairline, weight, height, etc. After all, the original rallying cry was “No taxation without representation!” If you are a net contributor to the system, you get input on how the system runs. Seems like a reasonable balance to me, but let me know what you think in the comments.

Phillip asks: “In the spirit of last week’s question, what’s your least favorite Christmas carol?”

Santa Baby, hands down. Let’s set aside the mediocre tune for a second and focus on the petulant, little brat who sings it. If you want a case study on who not to be like, just listen to this song on repeat. Should you successfully avoid scraping your eardrums out with a rusty butter knife, you’ll understand.

And with that, I think we are done for the year. Before we go, take a moment to reflect on the immortal, Christmas words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who saw so clearly through the sorrow and heartache of the earth to the joy beneath it all:

I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play, 
and wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom 
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime,
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South, 
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth,” I said; 
“For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; 
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men.”

Have a very Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and may God’s peace be with you all ’til we meet again.