The Burkean-Kirkean Conservative : Why George Will & Rick Tyler are Still Right

Many years ago after I published my first piece of commentary for the Denver Post about why my young children did not watch movies like Shrek, a close friend remarked to his wife, "For a liberal Democrat, that sounds pretty conservative ..." I just shook my head and kept my thoughts to myself, simply glad he read and enjoyed the piece. For in reality, I was neither a progressive (which is what he really meant) nor a Democrat at that time. On the other hand, while my belief system hadn't changed, I also hadn't been a Republican for more than a decade. Living in Colorado, I was like the majority of voters, unaffiliated and independent and regularly voting for members of both political parties. Though I'd grown up in a Republican household, I felt about the GOP (and the Democrats as well) the same way Ronald Reagan did early in his political rise when he left the Democrats, opining "I didn't leave my party; my party left me."

And, in the political and ideological boondoggle that is contemporary America in 2020, I am happy to see the publication of two important books on the belief system of conservatism, works that will hopefully bring people to more fruitful and less decisive discussion of what they believe and why. I recently finished George Will's The Conservative Sensibility and now I am just beginning and truly enjoying Rick Tyler's Still Right: and Immigrant-Loving, Hybrid-Driving, Composting American Makes the Case for Conservatism. These works are about the belief system, not stances on legislation and political positions that build party platforms. And the mistaking of platforms for beliefs is what leads old friends of Facebook to pejoratively throw the term liberal when I opine that mail-in balloting is safe effective and has been in practice in Colorado for years. Again, I'm just left shaking my head wondering where in the writings of Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk is a view on mail ballots at issue. 

Yet, when I mention Burke or talk about how I'm aligned with Kirk's conservative principals, which he outlined in The Conservative Mind, I generally get Hannity talking points in response. It's disheartening, to say the least, but it affirms my belief that these critics are Republican, but not conservative. Kirk was not interested in party agendas - he was interested in cultivation of the mind and spirit. It was not about marginal tax rates but about local communities and schools, traditions and institutions, and the value of culture through literature. These are ideas also discussed by George Will and Rick Tyler, and they are the conversations we should be having. While George Will never mentions Donald Trump in his book, Tyler talks quite directly about the man in the White House because the rise of Trump and his seemingly odd and inappropriate control of the GOP is wrong for the party and truly bad for the country. People like David Frum, David French, Rod Dreher, Ross Douthat, Andrew Sullivan, and David Brooks agree. These strong voices of conservatism know the damage that is being done to our national consciousness, and they are hoping to wake some people up.

Conservatism is the antithesis to the chaos, disruption, and instability that Donald Trump represents and cultivates. Conservatives believe in decorum and the very institutions that ground society and allow individual liberty to thrive. And so many of us are baffled by the support of him, even as we know that the divisiveness and tribalism that rules the day have left many voters feeling they have nowhere else to go. That's why we are "conservative but not Republican."

For some more reading on similar views, check out:

The Bohemian Burkean - NY Sun 

the Burkenstocked Burkean - National Review

The Crunch Conservative - NPR

Is the National Anthem Political? How About the Flag? What about Military Tributes?

Don't look now, but I think somebody spilled some politics in your sporting events.

As the year 2020 has exacerbated everything else, the issue of political views being represented during pro sporting events has taken a more prominent and visible position as the NBA returned to the courts following the tumultuous year of political protests related to the issues of police violence, race, and the Black Lives Matter movement. And George Brauchler doesn't like it. Brauchler, a prominent Denver-area Republican, is the DA for Arapahoe and surrounding counties of the metro area, and he penned an op-ed for the Denver Post asserting: "There Should be a No-Politics, No-Policy Zone Surrounding America's Stadiums and Arenas." 

Now, I will admit that there is a part of me that sometimes feels like "I just want to watch the game" -- and I've felt that way for nearly twenty years. And it hasn't just been about the politics; it's been every possible addition to the actual game, from the pomp and circumstance of coin flips and first pitches to the community-focused events like welcoming "such-and-such" charitable organization to the game. And, I know that is really crass and pathetic when I am actually anxious to be done listening to a local children's choir or hearing a tribute to truly selfless and life-changing volunteer because I just want to see some (fill in the blank: baseball, hockey, football, basketball, lacrosse, tennis, ... etc.). That conceded, I didn't really care for Brauchler's tone, insinuations, or to be honest, aloof ignorance of his argument. On Twitter, many people weighed in and criticized the argument based on issues of free speech and every extension of that, and Brauchler engaged with and countered all of them, mostly by saying "that's not my point" or "read the article."

But I had a different question: 

I asked whether along with his assertion of "no politics, no policy" zones at pro stadiums and events he was also advocating eliminating the playing of the national anthem, the displaying the American flag, and the staging of any and all events promoting and acknowledging the military and first responders such as police officers. Brauchler had no comment. There was no response and no engagement and no acknowledgment, despite his practice of answering every other comment and thread. So, I followed up a couple times, and even tried to engage other commenters and various local news sources. I'd like to know if he is willing to explain how kneeling during the playing of the national anthem is "political" but the playing of the anthem is not. Truly, I know he doesn't want it to be, and I agree that the entire purpose of the anthem is promoting a sense of unity and national pride and support for the freedoms on which the United States was founded and continues to thrive. That's the way it should be. 

But what if it's not? 

Truly, since early in the 2000s, pro sports organizations have increasingly politicized their events. And as the companies have gladly embraced the marketing of politics, and it has become more prominent and even expected, I've become increasingly uncomfortable with it because it just seems so gratuitous and exploitative. Too often it feels like pro sports organizations are not honoring the country, the flag, the anthem, the soldiers, but instead simply using them for a commercial agenda. It can feel so unseemly to watch organizations promote a sense of community around a national identity at the same time the fans are going to turn around a few seconds later and be quite awful to the opposing team's players and fans. Perhaps it really is just a pause in that rabid fandom to remember our common bonds, but it too often just seems a bunch of empty promises.

The problem for Brauchler, and the reason for his silence, is that my query is a political hand grenade. If he agrees then he risks being portrayed as unpatriotic, a political wasteland for today's Republicans. Yet if he disagrees, then he is nothing short of inconsistent and even hypocritical. But this is a truly interesting and engaging discussion that is a golden opportunity to connect and engage and discuss and hopefully learn to understand opposing views. I would have loved for anyone in the local news to set up a public forum where George Brauchler could sit down with local pro athletes like Von Miller and Justin Simmons of the Denver Broncos, and Jamal Murray of the Denver Nuggets, so they could have thoughtful and productive and perhaps even unifying discourse on an issue that is currently dividing the community. And, of course, this is all purely an academic or intellectual exercise, both for Brauchler's article and my follow-up question. There will no ending of the playing of the anthem, the displaying of the flag, and the staging of events honoring our heroes -- nor should there be. And, there will be no pro sports players accepting the expectation that they just "shut up and dribble." Players will continue to play their sports and speak out while standing up, or kneeling down, for their beliefs and values. 

Brauchler eventually did respond on Twitter. He wrote:  "I disagree."

Hmmmm ....

Generation Xercise

When I heard Jane Fonda at the age of 82 revived her 1980’s workout video for Tik-Tok, I realized it’s time for Generation X to remember the advice of Olivia Newton John and get physical. Since the pandemic shut us down, many people stuck at home are feeling the effects. I used to get ten thousand steps in a day, walking an 82-acre high school campus, but since March, I’ve been in my home office, stuck in front of Zoom and M-Teams meetings. I felt it immediately - in my back, in my butt, in my neck. And I’m in pretty good shape. Since working daily neighborhood walks into my day, and amping up my home workouts to avoid going stir crazy, I’ve actually lost weight and improved my overall wellness. When it comes to health, wellness, and fitness, those of us heading into our 50s need to take a cue from Jane Fonda. To that end, I’ve written a fun, nostalgic reminder and refresher about fitness for those who can and should be “Generation Xercise,” which I recently published on Medium:

In the early fall of 1981, the kids of Generation X were enticed to get in shape, or just pay attention to fitness, or at least entertain our adolescent selves watching others get sweaty. Oh, sure, we’d had the first two Rocky movies to get us up and moving, and the third film revolutionized the training montage for sports films in 1982. I know I had at least a few weeks of sprinting around the neighborhood and lifting make-shift weights in the basement after Rocky kicked Clubber Lane’s butt. But it was the early days of MTV that first got us going, or at least thinking about going. For that September featured the release of Olivia Newton John’s “Physical,” and both music videos and adolescent boys were never the same.

Now, as we head into our fifties and even approach retirement age, perhaps it’s time to remember that Aussie’s advice. It’s time for Generation X to get physical, to become Generation Xercise. I hate to say it, my friends, but we’ve gotten soft, and fitness is no longer optional. This is mandatory. We’re running out of time, and our waists can’t wait. A recent study out of England on the health of people in their 40s and 50s -- yeah, that’s us Gen X -- found we may live longer than the Boomers in front of us, but our overall health will be poorer. The sixty-plus age group was actually in better shape physically than we are at the same age. That’s not good. Living longer, but living in pain and sickness is a really cruel trick of the contemporary age, and we need to flip the narrative. Remember the dean from Animal House: “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.” Well, overweight, out of shape, lethargic, and generally grumpy is no way to go through retirement.

Labor Day - New Year's in September

 Today I mowed the lawn for probably the last time of the year, as I sense the late summer southern exposure is sending it dormant. And, I'm in the midst of some concrete repair on the front porch. That came after cutting down and raking up the tiger lilies. And it's just before I start pulling the first of the leaves out of the gutter. All of this is out in front of the winter storm coming on Tuesday, which will drop inches of snow in Denver amidst forecast highs in the low 30s just twenty-four hours after we hit our record-breaking 73rd day above 90 degrees. Yep, fall is coming in this weird year of 2020, and the "fall cleaning" is all part of the alternative off-track New Year's weekend celebration we all know as Labor Day. It's an idea I've sort kicked around and practiced for a few years now, and I've recently seen that feeling popping up in others' written works.

Labor Day weekend is a perfect New Year's Eve/Spring Cleaning sort of transition time, as we've long known it as the time for returning to school, last weekends at the pool, winding down of the free form activities of summer. Granted, we probably all feel a bit cheated this year, the summer that wasn't. But this can still be a time for reflection and preparation for what purports to be a long, dark, cold winter. It will definitely be one of hibernation, so it's time to sweep out the cave and clean out the closets in anticipation of long days inside. What shall we do with this moment and this transition? One other writer/blogger who has thoughts on this is Mike Vardy who has a great post describing "Why Labour Day has Become my New Year's Day." Vardy's piece made me smile because not only do we feel the same way about this weekend, but we also both used to view our New Year's day as actually February 2 in the spirit of the existential re-birth portrayed in the classic Bill Murray movie Groundhog's Day. The idea of re-invention in pursuit of finally getting it right is, in my view, the whole point of living. It's what Longfellow meant when he wrote "Neither joy and not sorrow is our destined end or way, but to act that each tomorrow find us further than today." Getting better is the goal, and we can make a resolution to change and grow that way any day of the year, an idea Vardy developed in his book The Front Nine: How to Start the Year You Want Anytime You Want. 

So, I'm still in pursuit of my goal to live deliberately and live artfully as I head into my fifties and began to carve out what Act III looks like for me. Still learning to play the piano, and I'm actually starting to feel a bit more comfortable. Some day I might actually be a piano player. I have an 80-day streak going on Duolingo with my French Lessons. Health and fitness are good. I actually have a nice piece of writing which will see national publication very soon. And as I continue to meditate every day, I am starting to believe that I may be just a bit less of a neurotic princess and, perhaps, even a kinder gentler Michael than I was last year.

So, as I said last year, "Happy Labor Day. Good luck in becoming who you are ..."

Vote for the United States of America

 Now that the Democrats have concluded their political convention, nominating Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and the Republicans are gearing up for theirs, where they will affirm the campaign of incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence, the serious campaigning will begin. And after hearing the Democrats and before even seeing the Republicans, I can say the most significant speech and pronouncement throughout this process has already been given. It was a short five minute video from former Ohio Governor and long-time Republican leader John Kasich. 

It emphasized one word:  United

John Kasich is a good person and a lifelong public servant. And he crossed party lines to speak for the Democrat's convention during which he endorsed another good person and lifelong public servant, Joe Biden. He talked about unity and shared vision. He and many others are concerned about, and he warned against, the significant "division, dysfunction, irresponsibility, and growing vitriol between our citizens." That has been "the path of the past four years," and that is not what I like to believe about my country. It's not how I was raised, it's not what I recall from my youth, and it's not what I want in my leadership or on the news every night. 

I truly believe we lost a great opportunity in 2016 when, for reasons and motivations I still can't fathom, we as voters passed up the chance to have an election between Joe Biden and John Kasich. That would have been an incredibly tough and legitimately close election for all the right reasons. And the true beauty of it would have been that America couldn't lose either way.

I don't really believe many people are enjoying the unpleasant division in our country right now. Not many people appreciate and value the negativity, the contempt, the derision, the anger, the outrage, the discomfort, the angst that we feel whenever politics is mentioned. It shouldn't be like this, and it doesn't have to be. We can vote for candidates like John Kasich and Joe Biden -- people who work together and compromise and learn and grow, even as they disagree and occasionally get in spats about issues on which they are passionate. 

We all know one party's candidate has embraced division and contempt. One candidate is like that All-State insurance meme about mayhem and chaos and destruction. We know for absolute certainty how the past four years have felt. We know what the future with one candidate will look like. 

Thus, this year I am recommending that whomever we vote for, it's the candidates who represent unity and the "United" States of America.

Gen X Parenting: raising the neXt generation

From Dr. Spock’s Common Sense Book of Baby & Child Care in 1946 to Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother in 2011, we have seen no shortage of philosophies on parenting in the past seventy-five years. Lately most of the attention has been on the Baby Boomer’s helicopter parenting of their Millennial children, who are now heading into prime child rearing years. But, of course, in the middle is Generation X, the latch key kids of the 70s, who’ve quietly gone about raising Gen Z. Through that lens, and looking back on my past eighteen years raising two children while educating countless others, I’ve crafted a parenting reflection entitled “Gen X Parenting, & raising Generation neXt,” which is posted on Medium. Here are the first couple paragraphs: 

"Would you let your ninth grader hang out at a house with no parents home? Would you let that same freshman male hang out alone at a house with two girls?" That challenging question was posed by a friend on social media. My answer: "Sure.” If Gen X’s approach to parenting were a formula, it would be: raise ‘em and trust ‘em. And even as my wife and I debate how much is our kids’ nature and how much is our environment, we know we’ve played a significant role in who they’ve become.

So in that hypothetical situation, I’d trust him. We trust our son and our daughter. We also speak candidly with them and always have. That's the mark of a Generation X parent. The Boomers created the idea of helicopter parenting, and it’s not an admirable development in the parenting game. It’s not surprising though; for the rebellious flower children didn’t want their kids doing what they had done, and with rising levels of affluence, they simply wanted to give their children everything, a sort of nod to indulging every pleasure, but with supervision. Granted, some in the Gen X demographic are influenced by similar child-rearing anxiety, even morphing into the disturbing snowplow parenting phenomenon. But for most of us who grew up kind of on our own as latch-key kids of the 70s and 80s, we have different ideas about raising children. It’s the sort of hands off approach to be expected of the last kids to ride without seatbelts and car seats.

Teaching as the Performance Art of Engagement

It's been a while since I thought about it, but a reader recently reminded me of and inquired about a blog post from 2010 in which I opined about "Teachers as Performers." After twenty-eight years in the classroom, I'd say I now realize the key is not just performance or entertainment, but the art of engagement. If the teacher creates an engaging lesson that is tailored to the students sitting in front of him or her, then the "entertaining" quality can take many different forms. Despite my introverted loner nature, I am on stage in class most of the time, and my teaching generally has pretty high energy or intensity. However, over the years as I've noted the downside to that for students who don't quite "get" me, I've actually tried to approach each and every year with the goal of being the "kinder and gentler" Mr. Mazenko.

For me, the performance aspect became my shtick early in my career, and it seemed almost necessary and certainly more comfortable to do it that way. That high intensity approach probably has much to do with my first job out of college -- teaching English as a second language in a private language school in Taiwan. Though I trained to be a high school literature and writing teacher, I was teaching elementary school kids, and even kindergarten for a year, in Taiwan. The fun, engaging performance style connected with the kids who were learning English because they had no choice. The rather rigid, or "canned," curriculum was centered on games and activities as well. The school and the parents liked that high energy approach.

After five years teaching in cram schools in the evening, I returned to the States and taught middle school for a couple years at a Catholic school in the city of Chicago before transitioning to high school in a middle class suburban district. And, at each stop along the way, I just found a performance approach seemed to equal engagement. In all honesty, I now realize I may have been overestimating the engagement level, especially when I consider the insight that "too often school is a place where kids go to watch adults work." I also had a great mentor who once advised me to make sure I don't "become a caricature of myself." Reflecting on these ideas is helpful. We do need to be "on" quite a bit, but it's important to remember we can also be human beings and be vulnerable. Otherwise, it's easy to burn out.

Reflection is the key. Be thoughtful about what you do every day, and ultimately be true to yourself and what your style of engagement is; for at then end of the bell, the only important consideration is whatever works. Just teach kids. Not just content. Not only skills. Teach the kids.

Krista Kafer's "Pro-Mask" Column actually makes things worse

In Sunday's Denver Post Krista Kafer, a Republican columnist for the paper and former talk show host, offered her advice on masks and COVID19: "Want to Convince Me to Wear a Mask?" Beyond the obvious that no one should have to convince anyone of the practice, as the CDC and basically the entire medical community, as well as many business leaders, have already made the case pretty clear, Kafer's premise held promise but ultimately falls flat. Kafer, a part-time rhetoric teacher at Colorado Christian College, offers advice on the art of persuasion, as she criticizes the apparently "not nice enough" approach of pro-mask voices and advocates like Democratic governor Jared Polis.

   

Kafer appears to offer reasoned criticism of the wrong way to persuade reluctant mask wearers, and in her view she is using a sarcastic and ironic tone to present what she mistakenly believes to be a positive pro-mask piece of commentary. Sadly, the professor and former radio host actually downplays the seriousness of the pandemic and rising COVID19 rates, subversively validates the irresponsible behavior of mask resisters, and justifies risky and aloof thinking that put us all at risk. In doing so, she basically ensures the pandemic and related economic disaster will persist and worsen.

Everyone wants this crisis to end, and while uncertainty remains, there are some areas where we can find common ground and help our communities. We can all agree the key to re-opening schools, restoring jobs, and reviving the economy is controlling or ending the pandemic. The key to managing the pandemic is slowing the spread of Covid19. And the key to slowing the spread is consistent mask wearing, regular social distancing, and choosing to be Safer At Home when possible.

While Kafer’s criticisms of Governor Polis and others who chastise, shame, or scare people may be valid, she unfortunately fails to solve the problem or assist efforts to reduce infection. Since many people won't listen to him, we actually need her and GOP leaders like Cory Gardner and Patrick Neville to help. If the President asked, his supporters would do it. If he'd lead, they'd follow. Why can't Ms. Kafer and the GOP get this? She could have used her platform to encourage people to do better – instead she justified their decision to make things worse.

Joe Biden should name first ever All Female Cabinet

Joe Biden will choose a female running mate soon, and when he wins in November, we will have the country's first ever female Vice-President (and maybe four short years from the first female President). It's a choice that is long overdue, especially when it's the norm around the world, including less, ahem, progressive countries than ours.

I fully support and have advocated for decades that the United States needs more female political leaders. It just makes sense, even if we discount the idea that "the women are smarter." So, I've often told the female students in my classes and clubs that they should simply stop voting for men. Just start electing more women at every level. And, granted, I fully understand that beliefs and stances on the issues should drive the decision, first and foremost. No one should choose a candidate just because she's a women. For example, I would never vote for candidates like Michele Bachmann or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And, for pretty much the same reasons. But there plenty of qualified and dynamic female legislators and executives, and when all things are equal, choose the woman.

To that end, Joe Biden should not stop at naming a female running mate: he should name an all female cabinet. And Biden should do so immediately, even before the election, at the same time he announces his VP. After the VP pick, he should release the list of his dream team with all the awesome women he's planning to invite to help him lead. Here are some of my picks:

VP - Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)

Sec of State - Nancy Pelosi (CA)

Sec of Treasury - Elizabeth Warren (MA)

Sec of Defense - Tammy Duckworth (IL)

Sec of Justice -  Kamala Harris (CA)

Sec of Commerce - Amy Klobuchar (MN)

Sec of Agriculture - Debbie Stabenow (MI)

Sec of Interior - Gina Riamondo (RI)

Sec of Education - Michele Obama

Sec of Labor - Gretchen Whitmer (MI)

Sec of Homeland Security - Susan Collins (ME)

Sec of Transportation - Nikki Haley (SC)

David Lee Roth, The Marine Corps response to COVID, & the Leadership We Need

"I sure wish our country had taken a Marine Corps approach to Covid."

That was the answer from Diamond Dave, David Lee Roth, former frontman of Van Halen and an ever-evolving artist whose latest work is an ongoing series of paintings and sketches that he calls his "performance therapy" when he was asked about our response to the pandemic.

A Marine Corps approach. Exactly. Everyone together, singularly focused on the mission. Working as a unit until the enemy is defeated. And leaving no man behind. 

A Marine Corps approach. A Moon Shot. A Marshall Plan. A Patton-esque campaign. A coordinated, deeply funded, strategical and scorched earth assault on this existential crisis and threat. It was a "Day That Will Live in Infamy" moment. It was an "all for one and one for all" challenge. It was "all hands on deck" situation. It was a War Time President opportunity. It was "win one for the Gipper" scene. It was a challenge and an opportunity for greatness. It was Rudy and W. standing on the rubble in lower Manhattan with bullhorns pledging resilience and triumph. 

And the irony is not lost on me that the current President of the United States was singularly focused on re-election, and the response that would have guaranteed another four years is the one he would never choose. Rather than a "we've got to get the economy growing again to win the support of the people" approach, it would have and should have been a "full faith and resources of the White House and the federal government to meet and defeat this challenge" policy. That would have sealed the fate of November, 2020. And he missed it. And we bear the brunt of his ignorance.

And, sadly, while he and his family and sycophants could never see the truth and opportunity, I am so profoundly disappointed in the Republican leadership who could have stepped up. At any time. It was something that a Mitt Romney or a John Kasich or a Joe Biden or a Barack Obama would so instinctively and easily done. 

The Marine Corps approach. Good point. Who knew Diamond Dave would have the answer. The question is who's willing to lead?

Semper Fi.

No Tax Returns? No Debate.

There is simply no reason for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to participate in a debate against the current president. Nothing new or good or helpful can come to Biden or the Democrats from engaging in a debate. The last election proved that, and hopefully, for the good of the Republic, Joe Biden and his people realize or figure this out. The debate is already happening as it is, every day playing out on television and on social media. The election is really a referendum on the current president and his past four years in office. Americans simply have to decide if they want four more years of him.

But, if there were to be a debate, Joe Biden should establish one simple condition:  the President must release his tax returns for the past six years well in advance of the debate. There is no legitimate reason they aren't already public record. Half the country is definitely interested in them. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the president has no special privilege to maintain their privacy, and it's certain they will be accessed by the New York Attorney General, if not also the House of Republicans, soon. So, if the Republicans want a debate between the two, they must convince the President to release the returns. And thanks to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times for proposing this idea.

Otherwise there will be no debate between the two, and Joe Biden should simply arrange with the networks to make himself available to their staff for an hour or two of discussion of all the issues and questions they would normally raise in a debate. Biden's debate is with the American public and can be smoothly and effectively handled through the network media.

Guns & the risk of senseless irreversible tragedy

"Expect to see another rise in gun sales."

That was libertarian Republican writer David Harsanyi of the National Review, and formerly of The Federalist and The Denver Post. That sort of commentary saddens and troubles me, even as I understand the point he is making. Harsanyi's comment was responding to the violence and vandalism that came out of the George Floyd/Black Lives Matters protests in numerous cities across the county, including Denver where David and I live. Basically, he's implying that our neighbors seeing destruction near their part of town will inevitably feel like they must arm themselves against raging mobs that are sure to take over the cities and suburbs.

That's troubling to say the least, and the nation saw that mindset in action later in a ritzy private neighborhood of St. Louis' Central West End, when attorney Mark McKlosky and his wife pointed their AR-15 rifle and handgun at protesters who were marching to the mayor's house. The images of people on the verge of irreversible tragedy fascinated social media and the infotainment world for about fifteen minutes, and I couldn't help but wonder if the extreme views of people like Harsanyi and McKlosky are firmly rooted in the belief that property damage must or should be countered with deadly force. Basically, if someone vandalizes your home, would you kill them?

I don't own a gun, though I grew up around them and respect the right to possess them. However, I also fully support regulation of firearms, including mandatory training, licensing, and registration of all guns. And I do worry about people who would instinctively grab a gun to "defend themselves" in too many non-lethal situation. I carry pepper spray and have for a long time, ever since I was attacked by a loose neighborhood dog, and because I live in an area with high coyote and wildlife activity. My local police recommended it, and it gives me a reasonable and non-deadly defense against the potential threats I may face. Granted, if someone breaks into my house to assault and kill me or my family, a can of pepper spray may not stop them and standing on my lawn like Rambo McKlosky would be more of a deterrent. But I don't think that's the appropriate mindset for the type of civilized society in which I grew up.

The margin for error and senseless tragedy is too thin for people to feel like they must have a gun as the primary way to protect themselves. And there are too many collateral issues that also increase America's preventable tragedy epidemic. Not only do we know that America has a strange gun fetish and a gun violence problem, but there is reason to believe that "the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic could worsen our gun problem.

So, when I hear observations like Harsanyi's, I simply feel sad for who we've become and are becoming, and I'm troubled that an astute and reasoned thinker/writer like David believes such comments and views are the way to go.