The Murray Option : Small Victories Leading to Bigger Results?

Well, we've had lots of talk around these parts about the "cult vaporware" of the Dreher Benedict/"BenOp"/Bunker Option.  Keep up the good work.

As a change of pace, tho, maybe it's time for another installment of my book report on By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, by Charles Murray.  Previously (as they say at the beginning of an episode of 24), the argument was that the allegedly "disinterested" experts and elites can and ought to use the power of the State to change social institutions for the collective good, with the Constitution evolving to allow if not authorize those changes.  Whether one characterizes the federal government as having lost its legitimacy, it has at least become, in Murray's words, a "vehicle through which a ruling class hectors and pesters us about our shortcomings".  And a vehicle that is not amenable to change by conventional political means, not the least of which is the corruption of the legislative branch (a recent example of which is this*).

The second part of By the People describes a way of effecting this change: namely by "systematic civil disobedience".  This systematic civil disobedience is not a general attack on all federal laws and regulations, but only on a subset for which one can persuasively argue "no harm, no foul".  Murray provides guidelines on which federal** regulations ought to be exempt from this systematic civil disobedience (e.g. regulations on acts that are in fact bad, i.e. malum in se; the tax code; regulations directed to classically defined public goods), and those which shouldn't be attacked for practical reasons (e.g. those with "halo" effects).  Candidates for systematic civil disobedience include federal regulations touching the use of one's property, so-called "best practices" regulations on crafts and professions, those regulations directed to activities in which willing participants are the ones who are ostensibly "protected", and those for which which the accused is obeying the spirit of the rule but not the letter.

The tools suggested by Murray for carrying this out are:

• a private legal aid foundation providing pro bono services to defend the innocent, to defend those technically guilty of violating regulations that should not exist (and inflicting litigation pain on the agency while doing so), and to generate publicity about the issue; and 
• an insurance vehicle for covering fines, costs, and damages incurred by the accused 

Collectively, these tools are referred to as the "Madison Fund" (I like it!).

The goal of these actions is to effect changes in the behavior of the federal government, including the judiciary, in several ways.  One way is to change the legal standard for evaluating federal agency action so as to prohibit the "arbitrary and capricious" enforcement of regulations (currently, the arbitrary and capricious standard is applied only to the adoption of regulations).  Another way is to overrule the Chevron Supreme Court decision granting judicial deference to administrative agency decisions (deferring to the agency because they're disinterested omniscient experts, ya know) for those regulations that are not mandated by an intelligible principle in the enabling legislation (i.e., regulations that Congress specifically requires the agency to make) but are instead discretionary regulations that the agency enacts on authority it happens to find under the statute. Once deference to the agency on those discretionary regulations is removed, the courts will be free to decide the merits of the regulation in an adversary proceeding.  

But there is even a larger goal of this systematic civil disobedience.  Murray hopes that the courts will see that these changes will overwhelm the judicial system with a flood of litigation, enough so that reform of the civil court system as a whole will be made.  Such reform, hopefully, will change the system so that the process is no longer the punishment, as it is today (to wit, this example).  

*****

The main issue that I have with Murray's approach is that the suggested systematic civil disobedience, while necessary, may not be sufficient to effect meaningful change, for a couple of reasons.  

First, I think the primary problem is over-regulation of a free people generally, including in those instances in which actual injury may occur.  Trying to find those laws and regulations in which "no harm, no foul" will apply may be looking for needles in haystacks.  The progressives can always find some victim of anything -- all we have to do is watch the news.  A fertilizer plant blows up in West, Texas, and the Governor is blamed for it, because he promoted the business-friendly regulatory climate of Texas.  Even Fox and Friends*** had successive jihads on unsafe bounce houses and an "unsafe" stewardess photo one day this week.  We've all heard the old "if only one life is saved, it'll be worth it" screeds.  And if this issue isn't addressed, then we'll be in the same absence of personal responsibility, somebody's-gotta-do-something-there-oughta-be-a-law mode that we've been in.

Second, there are certain critical issues today that may not be able to wait for the long game of the Murray Option.  The topics of religious freedom and the damage wrought by Obamacare directly come to mind. I guess this means the Murray Option is not an either/or proposition -- gotta do both.  

And finally, reaching the intended goals seems to be resting on multiple long shots in succession that all have to come out right way, including the legality of Madison Fund Insurance (can one insure against their violations of law?), and then convincing the courts to make significant changes in the law from cases involving only the stupidest of regulations.  In other words, can small victories lead to bigger, Nation-altering, results?  

Maybe so.

Murray has hope that it will.  I say it's worth a shot, but it'll take work and it'll take time.  It sure beats "antipolitical politics", anyway.

*****

*How does someone enter Congress after having been a high school teacher and emerge wealthy enough to pay $3.5M in hush money? (Presumably this means he's got a few $M left over, or he wouldn't have paid.)  

**The disobedience is directed at federal regulations, because it is the federal government that has become illegitimate in Murray's view and thus can be morally attacked, in the sense of the Declaration of Independence.

***Which is rapidly becoming unwatchable, primarily because of its numerous "outrage of the day" stories.

Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™: who put the BOp in the BOp shoo BOp shoo BenOp?

Who was that man?

I'd like to shake his hand.

For, you see, there may be an unanticipated dividend to Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™, or as Prophet Dreher has prescribed it for the faithful, "BenOp" (Google plaintively asks instead, "Did you mean bebop?".

It might be great for getting chicks.

Hit it, Barry:

I'd like to thank the guy
Who wrote the song
That made my baby
Fall in love with me

Who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp BenOp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the BOp
In the BOp shoo BOp shoo BOp?
Who put the hip
In the hippy dippy BenOp trip?
Who was that man?
I'd like to shake his hand
He made my baby
Fall in love with me (yeah!!)

When my baby heard
"Bomp bah bah bomp "
"Bah bomp bah bomp BenOp"
Every word went right into her heart
And when she heard them singin'
"Rama lama lama lama"
"Rama ding dong"
She said we'd never have to part
So

Who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp BenOp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the BOp
In the BOp shoo BOp shoo BOp?
Who put the dip
In the hippy dippy BenOp trip?
Who was that man?
I'd like to shake his hand
He made my baby
Fall in love with me (yeah!!)

Each time that we're alone
Boogity boogity boogity
Boogity boogity boogity shoo
Sets my baby's heart all aglow
And everytime we dance to
Hippy dippy BenOp trip
Hippy dippy BenOp trip
She always says she loves me so
So

Who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp BenOp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the BOp
In the BOp shoo BOp shoo BOp?
Who put the dip
In the hippy dippy BenOp trip?
Who was that man?
I'd like to shake his hand
He made my baby
Fall in love with me (yeah!!)

*    *    *

And once you've found the BOpper girl of your dreams, use the rest of your charm to sweep her away from that charismatic cult and into a full and more appropriate, real world Christian life, how 'bout.

 

If you're still taking Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ seriously, now I'm just laughing at you

Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™

In another 3,200-word eruction entitled - what else? - Talking Benedict Option, our favorite tailor to credulous emperors and their courts Rod Dreher does just that, talk, talk, and talk some more about people talking about Rod Dreher talking about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™.

Here is why I and others are laughing at you: not just because you thought those Shake Weights would knock that spare tire around your middle right down, not because you still want to maintain to your snickering friends that those premium-priced Monster cables deliver a noticeably higher quality audio-video experience, but because you are unequivocally one of these people:

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!"

      "What a marvellous train!"

      "And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.

That's right. You're a goober, a mark, a chump, a sucker, the eager tool of a relentlessly self-promoting impresario who really does nothing else in life but promote himself. Because, bless your heart, that's just how you roll.

But perhaps not all of you. It's statistically impossible for all of you to naturally be that witless. And, moreover, one of the most salient aspects you share with Rod Dreher is the unquenchable need for your own Internet presence to constantly be reaffirmed, particularly by the highest god of the realm you serve, the one whose name also cannot be spoken and which also begins with a G.

In this ghostly, drifting penumbral nebula of cyber-pseudo-Christianity within which you promote yourself, everyone involved clearly understands Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ isn't something to be practiced, it's the Internet that is to be practiced instead.

Rod Dreher invents the Emperor's New Clothes of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ and wants to get everyone talking about it, because to talk about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ is to talk about the narcissistic black hole at the center of the Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ event horizon, Rod Dreher.

But if there's something on a trending ballistic within that ectoplasmic cybermist of pseudo-Christianity that defines you, you don't want to be left out, do you? Maybe talking about Rod Dreher talking about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ will raise your own cyber-pseudo-Christian profile as well. And that will make your great god G very happy.

So for all of you more-than-mere-goobers, Christianity and Christian culture really become the means; mutually and reciprocally talking about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ as a thoughtful, serious option for Christians in order to raise the Internet profiles of all of you doing so becomes the true end.

And so as you peer into and talk about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ with a spiritual seriousness either credulous or cynical, the misty abyss of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ will rejoice and peer into and talk about you. And not only will that flatter you, it will make your great god G very happy.

But eventually, after Rod has landed his Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ book deal - you do understand all of this Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ noise, all of it, is nothing but an Astroturfed buzz campaign to land him a book deal, right? - and after he has sold many dozens of books and garnered dozens of five-star Amazon reviews from those blog followers whose comments flatter him, the hot sun of the real world will rise again, the misty vapor of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ will lift from your eyes, you will find yourself inexplicably babbling about a naked emperor, and you will sheepishly realize this

“Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air..”

Or maybe you prefer a more contemporary version

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned...

You can even read all about this orbital ghost realm you and Rod Dreher are cheerfully cultivating instead of Christianity and Christian culture here.

In the meantime, though, I'll just be laughing at you. Because, like the Emperor, his courtiers, and his townspeople, you've worked hard for it, and you've earned it.

UPDATE (as they say): As my colleague Pikkumatti pointed out, in order to avoid the unfortunate fate of busy people referring to Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ as "Rod's BO", our Prophet has now launched on the hilariously entertaining course of recursively micro-branding his original brand. No detail is too small for the Mad Man Prophet. I expect T-shirts any day now.

In this brand-branding establishing post, Prophet Dreher gratuitously inserts the term "BenOp" no less than ten times including title and tags:

"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"
"BenOp"    "New, Improved Tide"

Hear his offering, Lord Big G, little double o, and reward him with first page recognition!

Go ahead, use our Prophet's hastily fabricated, Newspeak term "BenOp". Represent.

Mark Shea on the Benedict Option

Since my friend Joseph is always bringing up the somewhat relevant Catholic author Mark Shea, I thought I should check out what Mark Shea recently had to say about the Benedict Option:

Instead of withdrawal from the world, how about sharing the fruits of prayer and contemplation with the world? God did not so love the world that he hunkered down in Fortress Katolicus seeking the perfect liturgy, scrutinizing people for heresy, and repelling everybody who sought him as an invader.

The world is to be loved, not feared or worshiped. Father Dominic got this.

Seriously. Who at this point hears Benedict Option and doesn't think "bunker"? If the so-called Benedict Option was truly a strategic withdrawal then no one would even know about it as I've said before. Conceding defeat in the war of ideas isn't strategic. How can you even purport to be a standard-bearer for Burkean ideals and leave the fight?

Shea and I disagree on many things and his reflexive moral equivalency in the political sphere is tiresome, but we agree (along with Tom) that the so-called Benedict Option isn't to be considered either because it isn't really Christian or it doesn't really exist. Or... maybe a bit of both.

Dog and Child Explain the Benedict Option

Rod Dreher's don't-be-Left Behind Benedict Option™ & church to go

Recently, Rod Dreher picked a fight with Pastor Dan Phillips of Copperfield Bible Church in Houston, then, because he is Rod Dreher, ran away and blocked him on Twitter:

Over the weekend, I got into a brief Twitter exchange with a pastor of a nondenominational “Bible church” (as if all churches aren’t Bible churches) in Texas who said that I am not a Christian, because Orthodox and Catholics are not Christian. I pointed out to him that Christianity did not begin with the Reformation, but then decided to block the guy on Twitter, because the last thing I wanted to do was get into an exchange with a guy like that.

The offense seems to have been the tweet I've highlighted among these remaining:

Jon Swerens says:

May 25, 2015 at 2:16 pm

 

All of the tweets that I could find:

@DennyBurk @roddreher Don’t know Dreher besides that he’s a name. Christian, or Roman Catholic, or something else? http://twitter.com/BibChr/status/602223403253149696

@BibChr @DennyBurk Christian “or” Roman Catholic? I used to be a Catholic, and was at that time also a Christian. Still am a Christian. http://twitter.com/roddreher/status/602242438187520000

@roddreher @DennyBurk Yes, “or.” It is impossible to affirm what the Bible teaches and what Roman Catholicism officially teaches. http://twitter.com/BibChr/status/602282578083643392

@BibChr @DennyBurk This doubtless comes as a shock to you, but Christianity didn’t start with the Reformation. http://twitter.com/roddreher/status/602242769336143873

@roddreher @DennyBurk That’s interesting. I don’t know you, so I ask, rather than assume. You seem to know my level of education. How? http://twitter.com/BibChr/status/602282998474539008

Yes, “doubtless,” for disagreement equals ignorance.

[NFR: I was being snarky. Dang literalists. Note the "Christian or Roman Catholic or something else" -- as if by "something else," I couldn't possibly be a Christian. -- RD]


[NFR.2: Anyway, thank you for digging up the tweet thread. I couldn't find it, but I'm very bad at Twitter. -- RD]

After congratulating himself for his beliefs of the moment after Methodism, agnosticism, and Catholicism

 An hour later, I was standing in our Orthodox vespers service, thinking about that guy and smiling. There we were, praying in a church that can trace itself in an unbroken line back to the apostles

and following a critique of Phillips dimensionally beyond anything contained in Phillips' actual tweet above, the theological disagreement between Phillips and Dreher sets Dreher up to raise this ominous a priori eschatological question:

Well, anyway, I have no interest in engaging in theological disputation here, and won’t. What prompts this post is my curiosity about this question: Does laying hold to a position so extreme and so ungrounded in history leave people like Mr. Bible Church vulnerable in other ways to the forces of modernity, which deny the authority of the past? That is, does the nature of their conservatism leave Christian fundamentalists particularly vulnerable to the cultural forces that are tearing Christianity apart in the West

But it seems that it's not just fundies like Phillips who are vulnerable to the "cultural forces that are tearing Christianity apart" foreseen by Prophet Dreher. Just about everyone else is, too: conservatives, Protestants, even Catholics:

This reminds me of firebrand political conservatives who seem to think conservatism began with Ronald Reagan, and that before his appearance among us, there was a vast void between the age of the Founding Fathers, and Reagan’s coming. Their historical ignorance denies them deeper philosophical resources that they could rightly draw on to defend their position against contemporary challenges. All true conservatives — as opposed to ideologues — lay hold to continuity with the past, and the democracy of the dead.

Christians who refuse, even denigrate, the Church’s deep theological roots in history, strike me as holding a conservatism that is a hard outer shell. What happens when the experience of living in modernity, with its valorization of radical autonomy, erodes or pierces the armor? With their creedless, non-denominational, make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach to Christianity, they are sitting ducks. They deny themselves the wisdom and profundity of tradition, which would give them deep roots. Ironically, their approach to ecclesiology is itself part of modernity, the very thing they oppose so fiercely. Christian fundamentalism, especially in its nondenominational variety, is parasitic on older, more ancient forms of Christianity, in ways that its adherents don’t appreciate.

It’s like political conservatives who don’t grasp that conservatism is a far broader and deeper thing than Reaganism and post-Reaganism. Given Reagan’s celebration of the free market, they don’t know what to say when questions are raised about the market’s role in undermining traditions that conservatism has historically stood for upholding. So they double down on dogmatism and ideology, which, as time goes on, persuades or attracts fewer and fewer people.

This is going to happen to fundamentalist Christianity, I think. It is an unstable thing, and far more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of time than its believers think. We can all look at liberal Protestantism and liberal Catholicism, and see how they are withering. Fundamentalism looks strong by contrast. I think this is deceptive.

And yet, it must be conceded that all that tradition, and all that doctrinal depth and comprehensiveness, is not producing Catholics who believe in what their own church teaches,

When all these other institutions and structures ultimately crumble and fall, as Prophet Dreher has foreseen they must, this tacitly leaves one Last Church Standing with roots deep enough and a - what? appropriately not-hard outer shell - to ultimately withstand and weather  the "cultural forces that are tearing Christianity apart in the West". Which church could that be?

Why, Rod Dreher's own personal current church of choice, Eastern Orthodoxy, of course.

As one of his commenters explains and which Dreher, who constantly adds NFRs to comments he disagrees with, makes no effort to deny or repudiate,

There is no such thing as “small-o Orthodoxy.” None whatsoever. There is the Church, and then there is everything outside it. This does not mean that there are no God-fearing people outside the Church. Far from it! I think of God-fearing people, outside the Church, as contemporary versions of Cornelius the Centurion in the Gospels, whose hearts are in the right place, but who simply haven’t received the whole truth yet.

However, what this does mean, is that a Christian life is not possible outside the Church. Only within the Church is a fully Christian life possible...The New Martyr, Metropolitan Hilarion Troitsky, explains this further in his sermon “Christianity or the Church?”

So, if you're going to take Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ in order to strategically withdraw (as Dreher did from his Twitter fight with Phillips) from the world and cultivate your Christian values offline rather than fighting for them openly in the public square, there's really only one political and religious option within which Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ can be warranted safe and effective for you and your family if taken as directed: Rod Dreher's personal church of choice.

You want to be Saved from the "cultural forces tearing Christianity apart", don't you, particularly your own fragile, shallow-rooted, inferior Christianity or, worse, God-less social conservatism. Don't you?

Then don't risk being Left Behind in the apocalyptic cultural wasteland Prophet Dreher foresees for you.

Run, don't walk, and convert to the one true church guaranteed by Prophet Dreher to deliver a satisfactory Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ today. Operators are standing by.