Perfect Description

Buried in the middle of an analysis about How COVID-19 Will Test the West, Andrew Joyce writes:

Life under liberal finance capitalism is largely one of illusion, in which the prospect of real death is pushed far into the distance, both psychologically and culturally. Postmodern Western liberal culture is largely one of perpetual adolescence, in which the primary virtues are acting according to one’s individual will, identifying oneself in a hyper-individualistic manner, and expressing these identities via conspicuous consumption and behavior. We do not “live towards” Death, with a sense of purpose and a feeling that we are part of a much grander civilizational trajectory. We do not understand that Death has shaped our historical path, and that it hangs over us in ways that should direct our actions in the present.

This paragraph is in the section entitled “Life and Death under Liberalism.”  Even if you don’t read the entire article (I skimmed it, and there are some good observations throughout), take time with this entire section.

It is not important that you agree with his views of the virus; this point is about the causes of society’s reaction to it.

There was a time when Western man was concerned about his eternal life and his legacy.  He concerned himself with his ancestors, wanting to uphold their legacy; he concerned himself with his descendants, known and unknown; he concerned himself with his community; yesterday, today and tomorrow.  These concerns shaped his behavior.

No longer.

Corruption, lust and greed

Define the new nobility

Changing the course of history

-          The Gift Of Music, Dream Theater

Who Will Count the Cost?

If the dream is won

Though everything is lost

We will pay the price

But we will not count the cost

-          Bravado, Rush

This will be long.  Read through to the end, or at least be sure to read the end.  It will make you sad.

John Mauldin has written two pieces on the coronavirus in the last few days – including a mid-week letter, the first I ever remember receiving from him in more years than I can remember; let’s call these his dream regarding a national response.

Coronavirus Is Not an Emergency. It’s a War.  March 19, 2020

Without radical action (some of which is already happening, some places, but not enough), this pandemic could cost many lives and potentially launch an economic depression. I am not exaggerating when I say this. I really mean it.

It is the radical action that will cause the depression (well that, and all of the money pumping of the last decade), not the virus.

…we have to treat this situation not as an emergency, but as a battle that could turn into a war. World War C.

I am guessing that by “C,” he means coronavirus.  It would be better if he thought of “C” as the vitamin.  Along with sunshine, vitamin D-3, and zinc, it will do far more to alleviate this flu than any governmental lockdown.

Bluntly, this is going to cost more than a few trillion dollars.

Says the man who for a decade or more has made a great living blasting government deficits as the big risk to society.  Actually, it will cost about $20 trillion per year, because that is what it will take to replace the now comatose US GDP. 

We will pay the price of whatever the governments (federal and states) want to incur; but who will count the cost in lives destroyed – not just disrupted – by the draconian measures put in place?

From his second letter, The Beacons Are Lit, March 20, 2020 (the reference is to the lighting of the beacons in the film version of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (video):

Today in the real world, we also face a dark, implacable, powerful foe. It is a microscopic virus that we now know is a threat, a very serious one. We in the United States have just seen the beacons. The warning travelled not just a few hundred miles but around the world: from China and Korea, to Italy and Spain, and now here.

The beacons are lit. How will we answer?

We will answer like madmen, consumed by a mad disease. 

Mauldin points to his experts, for example:

Dr. Scott Gottlieb is not some crazed liberal. He is a physician and public health expert who was appointed FDA commissioner by President Trump.

Because only crazed liberals have reason to expand bureaucratic power, so I guess this guy is OK?

Note, both of those were on the reliably conservative WSJ editorial page.

Because conservatives are not known to act like crazed liberals?  If these “conservative” characteristics are meant to confer credibility, Mauldin has been asleep ever since Robert Taft left this world and the Senate at the same time.

I’m saying this strongly because as recently as this week, I’m still hearing from lots of readers who don’t get it. I won’t give examples.

Mauldin is talking like a crazed liberal.  If you disagree with him, it isn’t because you see things or interpret facts differently than him; it is because you “don’t get it.”  Still!  I am surprised that he didn’t drop a “let’s get on the right side of history, you deplorables” somewhere in here.

The US lost 2,996 lives on September 11, 2001. We thought that was enough to go to war.

And “we” were wrong about that decision (just as we were wrong about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on the family, etc., etc., etc.).  Every major traumatic and cataclysmic event in the United States in my lifetime – and for decades before – is due to a lie or false narrative.

The measures we must take to save lives necessarily mean shutting down large parts of our consumer-driven economy. People are losing jobs and businesses are losing revenue.

He is willing to pay the price (actually, to force you to pay the price); the cost to those whose lives will be destroyed is irrelevant.  No problem.  The government can print the money.  Just ask Mauldin:

We need to sustain the economy for however long it takes to beat down the virus. That’s going to mean massive fiscal stimulus spending—multiple trillions of dollars’ worth.  We are going to have to do for everyone the kind of things we have long done for natural disaster victims—emergency grants, subsidized loans, exemptions from rules, and more.

For everyone!  Now, do the math: no one is working; therefore, nothing is being produced and no taxes are being paid.  At the same time, everyone must be subsidized.  There is no way to square this circle – it is impossible.  Who will do the subsidizing?  Not with digits, but with real goods and services? 

Addressing the Divide

This post may not be for all of you; if you find yourself uninterested or confused by it, you can quit reading at any time.  I will, however, ask something at the end for which feedback would be appreciated.

I have noted that for liberty to come to the fore, a foundation built on the traditions of the West – including Christianity – is mandatory.  Yet what does this even mean and how is this possible when considering a Christianity that is split into an almost countless number of factions?  Christianity presented a solid foundation in the West when Christianity was reasonably unified.  It is in this context of unity that I write this post.

Paul VanderKlay is setting a wonderful example in this regard.  A Christian Reformed pastor, he has had many conversations with Christians of all stripes and has demonstrated both goodwill and the reality that our similarities are far greater than our differences.

He has recently had two conversations with a Catholic theologian, Dr. Brett Salkeld.  VanderKlay introduces Salkeld in the first of these two conversations as follows:

Dr. Brett Salkeld is the Archdiocesan Theologian for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Regina Saskatchewan and the author of "Transubstantiation: Theology, History and Christian Unity". You might assume that this is simply a book about a historical theological dispute, and it is, but I think this book is a clear presentation of the history of the conflict surrounding our understanding of the word "God". We use the word "God" as if we know what we're talking about, or that we all mean the same thing when we say the word. I'm convinced we don't and I believe this conflict is at the heart of the great falling away of the church in the West. Brett and I get into this along with a lot of the issues I deal with on this channel.

After the issue regarding the Virgin Mary, Transubstantiation might represent one of the biggest disagreements between Catholic and Protestant.  It turns out, maybe it shouldn’t.  From the book review at Amazon:

This thoroughgoing study examines the doctrine of transubstantiation from historical, theological, and ecumenical vantage points. Brett Salkeld explores eucharistic presence in the theologies of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, showing that Christians might have more in common on this topic than they have typically been led to believe. As Salkeld corrects false understandings of the theology of transubstantiation, he shows that Luther and Calvin were much closer to the medieval Catholic tradition than is often acknowledged.

There are also favorable Editorial Reviews from both Catholic and Protestant theologians / scholars.

For reference, the second conversation can be found here.  Be forewarned, between the two videos there is about four hours of conversation.

I am not going to follow my normal method of writing about the points that I find key in these videos.  Instead, I have purchased the book.  So here is my question for you: given the subject of the book, it is much further “out there” than the topics I write of here, even the topics where I incorporate something of Christianity.  It doesn’t relate to the Christian relationship with liberty; instead it regards the divide in Christianity.

Is it worth it to you that I write something (or somethings) of this book at this blog?  Whatever your thoughts, I will probably not get to it for a few weeks.  But your answers will be helpful in my consideration.

In the meantime, for those interested, I encourage that you watch the videos.  The conversation is truly a blessing.