By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, September 08, 2019
Pete Buttigieg, like Elwood Blues, is on a mission from
God — or so he seems to think. Penguins beware.
Buttigieg has managed to make an impression on the
impressionable by insisting that God must surely regard air pollution as, in
the idiotic idiom of the time, “messed up.” The sin of presumption apparently has been omitted from Mayor Pete’s negligent
Episcopalian Sunday school curriculum.
It is remarkable how far this meretricious kind of thing
goes with the mush-brained partisans who dominate our political discourse in anno Domini 2019. Christian
conservatives were writing about the moral relevance of environmental attitudes
as early as the 1930s: T. S. Eliot, noting contemporary concerns about soil
erosion and unwelcome changes in agricultural practice, argued that “a wrong
attitude towards nature implies, somewhere, a wrong attitude towards God.”
Papal encyclicals and apostolic letters have addressed related subjects.
Volumes have been written on them. To this, Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg of
Harvard and Pembroke College, Oxford, adds:
“Messed up.”
Dude.
The usual hearts twittered in the usual way. Why? Because
they feel the sanctifying presence of the Paraclete? No, because they detect in
this line of rhetoric an opportunity to wrong-foot Republicans, who take up
their crosses and their AR-15s alternately. It is cheap rhetoric, but it is the
sort of thing you’ll enjoy if you enjoy that sort of thing. “Take it up with
Jesus, loser!”
You can get a good sense of the intellectual vacuity (and
religious sterility, if you’re interested in that) of this mode of politics
from, e.g., Kirsten Powers’s banal and illiterate conversation with Buttigieg,
written up for general amusement in USA
Today. (You will not be surprised to read that Mayor Pete has “started a
crucial conversation,” and has proceeded from cliché to cliché.) Powers, when
she is not half-chiding her fellow Christian for showing what she considers
excessive grace to people who have naughty political ideas (one wonders what
she would consider insufficient
grace), hits the reader with a few insights that are not exactly blistering in
their originality: Jesus, she says, never mentioned abortion (but then, neither
does the Constitution), while He did speak a great deal about looking after the
poor. Powers writes this as though Christianity had been planted in a cultural
vacuum and as though “feed my sheep” were synonymous with “vote for the party
of the welfare state no matter what other horrifying business may be on their
agenda” — and as though these kinds of issues had not been the subject of centuries of Christian inquiry. The New
Testament is silent on the questions of, among other things, child pornography
and cannibalism, but Christians are not expected to maintain a morally
indifferent attitude toward these. Still less would Christians be expected to
maintain such indifference in the face of the Supreme Court’s happening upon a
right to cannibalism lurking in some unexplored constitutional penumbra and the
subsequent establishment of a franchised chain of coast-to-coast cannibalism
outlets enjoying public subsidies.
Messed up.
Willi Schlamm observed that the problem with capitalism
is capitalists, and, likewise, the problem with Christianity is and always has
been Christians, from Saint Peter forward. Christians should of course be on
the defensive about — among other more significant things — our relationship with
Donald Trump and Trumpism, where applicable. But politics is about choices and
tradeoffs. Buttigieg worries about factory pollution and feeding the poor, but
he apparently is unable to do the elementary mental work of connecting the two:
Rather than starving to death or dying of exposure, the poor in the developed
world enjoy a relatively comfortable and secure standard of material life
because of those factories and the pollution they produce. The high-yield
modern agricultural techniques that gave poor old T. S. Eliot the willies feed
humanity and are the principal reason the only famines the world has known in
recent years have been man-made, created by politics. Factories don’t only produce pollution, and they don’t only produce tractors and life-saving
medicines; they produce both, which makes real life more complicated than the
cheap moralism that impresses intellectually stunted progressives.
How do we balance concern for the environment against
concern for economic production, or the desire to act publicly in the interest
of the poor and in the pursuit of public goods against the concern for liberty,
of which private property is a necessary buttress?
Those are questions answered by politics and by politics
alone; Scripture is of only indirect use to us there. Christians go to the
polls to face the same unappetizing menu as any other group of voters and are
under no especial disability on the matter of identifying and acting on their
own political interests as they calculate them. Buttigieg represents the latest
in a long line of disappointed little inquisitors who believe that they can
provoke a politically potent “religious Left” into existence with sophomoric
accusations of hypocrisy — as though there were not at least as much compromise
within political parties and
movements as between them, as though such compromise, including compromise on
issues of real moral importance, were not only a necessary but a desirable
feature of politics as conducted in a non-totalitarian context.
The necessity of tradeoffs and compromise in ordinary
politics is not an unlimited moral license. “Woe unto them that call evil good,
and good evil . . . and justify the wicked for reward.” Every politician, and
every one of their cheerleaders in the media, would do well to meditate on
those words. But until the Kingdom of Heaven is established in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, there are only imperfect choices on offer.
In any event, I do hope the divine-right-to-abortion
crowd will forgive their co-religionists if we roll our eyes a little while
they pretend for five minutes to care what the pope thinks about x, y,
or z, but only when it serves
partisan Democratic interests to do so, or when they pronounce with Falwellian
certitude that Jesus would have supported a cap-and-trade regime or federal
subsidies for sex-change operations, or that some notion of Bible-based
morality renders tax reform impossible. We could all do with fewer lectures on
“grace” from the people who would dispatch federal bayonets to force septuagenarian
nuns to underwrite contraception coverage in order to press a petty political
advantage for no purpose other than precedent and humiliation.
I will not presume to speak on behalf of the Almighty —
who has not, as a matter of fact, requested my opinion on the matter — but even
taking into account that the Lord works in mysterious ways and that He seems to
have a bizarre and occasionally cruel sense of humor, it is difficult to
imagine an omnipotence worth having that is constrained to express itself
through the instrument of Pete Buttigieg, who looked at creation and saw that
it was . . . messed up.
“Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don’t fail me now.”
The Blues Brothers had a mission from God, too — and a much more developed
systematic theology than the one clouding the mind of the esteemed gentleman
from South Bend, Ind.
No comments:
Post a Comment