Dear friends, I’ve been trying to write a long, comprehensive, singular essay on the things I’ve observed over the past week of my silence. This is all I’ve come up with:

The vote rationalization parade

While it may be “only natural” for bloggers to try to rationalize and share with the rest of the world the reasons with which they vote—all things considered, it is the exhibitionist nature of the blogosphere to gab—I find it disturbing to see the increasing trend in people explaining their votes to their readers. Please, folks, this isn’t an essay contest! Your vote is no less or more valuable than that of your non-blogging neighbor just because you can explain in a few hundred words why you’re voting for someone.

Consider this question instead: are you trying to convince others to vote along with you, or are you trying to convince yourselves?

At the end of the day a person’s vote is his and his alone. In fact it may be the most over-rationalized choice one makes when discussed in public, but the truth of the matter is, it’s the most irrational choice one has to make. It is the one choice we do not get any accountability for, except to ourselves. The only question that you should ask when you do make the choice for any of the presidential candidates, or for even sitting the election out, is simple: are you being honest with yourself?

So, Armed Liberal, Dan Drezner, among a lot more folks: stop. Just frelling stop. We all have a ton of archives with which people can research why you make the choice that you have chosen to parade all over the place. Show some balls and just say: “I am voting for _____. Enjoy, y’all.”

Stewardship

Having a liberal stepfather in his late sixties makes for very interesting conversations. One thing that I do admire about the man, despite the numerous hilarious instances of “for me but not for thee” behavior—for example, when talking about things in black and white when it suits him (say, “Bush lied, plain and simple”) followed by declarations that his world view is about shades of gray, or when he talks about how teh administration makes too many excuses and yet he makes excuses for the mistakes of the Clinton years—and consistent cognitive dissonance, is his civility.

It does not surprise me that we have a wildly disparate point of view not only on the rationale for warfare, but on the nature of the enemy itself. Hearing in person the talking points that I read on liberal blogs hither and thither is an entirely holy experience: it reaffirms why I am no longer a member of the “progressive movement,” as those who Ann Coulter chooses to call “liberals.” These range from the standard phrases such as “we had no reason to go to war” (which is debatable) along with “we have no right to force democracy unto the throats of those who don’t want it,” but there are two points that I need to talk about briefly.

First is the idea that the Muslim world is not “capable” or is by nature of its being Muslim inherently resistant to democracy is nothing short of bigotry. It is, in fact, more bigoted to assume that than to assume that the mullahcracy of Iran and the Wahabbist sect being endorsed by the Saudis are both evil institutions that are not good for the modernization of Islam. Indeed, matters of state are written in the holy writings of Islam and yet there are countries that try to maintain a tenuous balance between a state that respects Islam as a state religion and a theocracy like that of Iran’s. And yet we still see other countries struggling to be move forward despite the tenets of Islamic matters of state. When one pooh-poohs the election of Yudhoyono in Indonesia, it really says much about how little faith some liberals have over how the Muslim world can catch up.

Secondly is the idea that we are not “worthy” of sharing (or as such darling liberals would use the term “impose”) our civilzation with the rest of the world. The one rationalization that I hear a lot from liberals in this day and age is that there are so many problems here at home; why bother with the rest of the world? There was a time when people like Pat Buchanan sputtered out the gibberish. Perfect is the enemy of good. We cannot wait for such a time when we’re “good enough,” because that day will never come for those who believe that the rest of the world is none of our business.

Wretchard, author of The Belmont Club, summarizes a Robert Kaplan article thusly (emphasis added):

Robert Kaplan summarizes the real task before America in the coming years. It is not to find “an exit strategy from Iraq”, as if there were somewhere on the planet it could hide from terrorism; nor is it simply to find Osama Bin Laden as some, ever anxious to reduce the current conflict to a law enforcement problem, would claim as a goal. It’s task is to hold back the dark until a new global civilization can find its footing.

We may be holding back the dark for this new global civilization but I think that it is quite evident that such a global civilization does not appear out of nowhere. Our country is its own midwife, pregnant with a hope that is yet to come. Not only are we holding back the dark for the coming of this global civilization that he speaks of, but it is also our country’s duty to make sure that it survives long enough and makes itself better enough to bring the world together.

Indeed there are other civilizations on this planet that may have an easier time to unite our species. The American way is a way full of internal strife. It is full of conflict. There is little peace, not just outside of our borders because of us but within our own lands. But we are free. And that is the engine on which we run. And this is why I think we are worthy stewards of the coming years.

“We work for the room, your honor. We work for the room.”

Without a doubt, the disparity between the national popular vote and the results of the electoral college in the 2000 presidential election have wounded the faith of the defeated party in The System. What does not surprise me, but still appalls me is the kind of tactics that they have chosen to adopt in this year’s election.

Stephen Green writes:

The system, the trust, is far more important than anything else. It’s more important than the White House, or Congress, or Social Security, or jobs, or even the Terror War. Our Constitution is rigged to make it hard for any party to screw things up in the short time of four years. There’s always another election around the corner, if you think the current crop of office-holders is screwing things up – that’s the beauty of our system.

But maybe there won’t be another election, if you cause the people to lose faith that elections work.

I think that the punditocracy—myself included—will be surprised with the result of the coming elections. One thing that we must never forget is that the American voter is not stupid. Despite efforts by al-Guardian to allow the Brits to have their say in our elections this year, or despite the condescending venom of Michael Moore, or even the “we cannot stress this enough” tone of Stolen Honor, the individual American voter’s rationale for voting is beyond reproach because it is not even open for scrutiny.

I have a bad feeling—a hunch that feels like a kick in the guts—that this election, like that of the last, will be won in the courthouses. It’s really sad, as it is, but this has been attempted by the Democrats in 2000 and they lost. Would they be as proud to say that their president was selected too? Not that it matters, because there’s really no victory in the marketplace of ideas that the Democrats have promoted over the past four years. Just ask Rich Lowry.

The Beck Maxim

Speaking of the marketplace of ideas, I came upon one of the wisest principles, so tersely written, that has assured me that my extended periods of silence on the blog are really okay. It goes a little something like this:

It is impossible to reason a person out of a position that they have not reasoned themself into.

No other sentence in this election season has given me so much peace and solemnity.