A little Learning is a dang’rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again. (Pope, Alexander. An Essay On Criticism)

Hush, I tell myself. I do not know all the intricacies of the economic times. I do know that I still have a job. I work for a medical supply retailer, and sales are actually up. I still get offers from credit card companies even though I’m not interested.

I have my principles. I have my gut feeling about the bailout bill in all its forms, but I don’t think I can give an informed opinion on why it should or shouldn’t pass. Willful ignorance may seem like an answer, because I know, either way, I am a willing participant in this economy. I do know that things might not be as bad as they are. If Congress can afford to take a break, we shouldn’t I?

I like reading about the opinions out there, though. Misinformed, ill-informed, insufficiently-informed, the current situation has brought out such character in so many writers. Jeff Goldstein’s Who’s Right? cites a very Conservative viewpoint and another column from one who seems to have lost his mind. But, what’s a cog to do? Stay happy, spend wisely, and keep soldiering on.

My dear Libertarian friends, I have always watched you from where we are on the Right, and I have wondered: what are you really about? I am interested in politics not so much to push a Far-Right agenda unto the rest of the people, but because I believe that, between the Right from where I stand, and the Left against whom I argue, a compromise that serves the constituency best would be nice. It would be nicer were I actually in public service, but that’s another thing all together.

But come to think of it, isn’t public service what politics is supposed to be about? We ridicule the biggest spenders and autocrats in our government today, Republican and Democrat, those selfish power-players for whom public office is an all-they-can-eat buffet of taxpayer money. It bothers us that despite their actions, year after year their constituents vote them back into office. In the end, the voters get what they deserve.

Whenever I hear from you, or read of you, you all seem so… Uncompromising. So adamant are you in holding on to your valuable principles that you can’t get anything accomplished in politics. What is more important to you: that you follow, to the letter, the Holy Writ Of The Fountainhead By Saint Ayn Of Rand, or to get something important to you and the people you choose to serve done? Not necessarily done expeditiously or recklessly, but just done, in order to approach an outcome which, if not fully achieved, comes close?

I will assume that you know that politics, structured the way it is in this country, demands compromise. Getting something done requires building a coalition. The question for you, dear Libertarians from the House Of Paul Or Barr, is whether you accept this reality.

The Libertarian dilemma, as I see it is simple: you see the need for action, you know what you need done, and from what principles you draw your rationale. Your intents are well: this action is in the service of what you believe to be the good. But doing so requires the sacrifice some of your principles, maybe even act against your own world view, to get it done. What do you do? Do you leave those whom you serve in the same state, for fear of losing a piece of your Libertarian Soul? Or do you make that sacrifice of principle in order to seize power and actually achieve something?

Being the election season that it is, it’s hard to not turn political at random moments. The co-worker, the family member, or friend whose politics don’t match with my own can become sources of marvelous conversation. All too often, though, I engage in something that I have observed among bloggers on the Right a lot. It would go a little something like this: “Well, McCain was wrong in A, B and C but he was right at X, Y, and Z.” Or, someone might say, “Well, McCain has quality D, E, or F that I don’t quite like BUT he’s still ok because of U, V, and W.”

The other observation that I have is that we have spent a lot of time debunking rumours about BHO that are patently false. I understand why we do this: we would rather lose in honor than win with dishonor; at least for most of us. And before I get slammed by a “McCain is a liar” moonbat, let defer, one last time: yes, motherf*cker, I know. All politicans lie to an extent.

I say “one last time” because I am done deferring to McCain’s faults. In response to last Friday’s debate, BHO was rightfully skewered by the McCain campaign for saying that his opponent is “absolutely right” quite a few times. What he never admitted to was where he was wrong. BHO never admitted to being wrong on the surge, he would only say that it succeeded beyond “anyone’s” wildest dreams. We ridicule him for it because we expect him to act honorably. The McCain campaign tried to make ads out of it because it appeals to people’s sense of justice in that a person who can admit to his mistakes (or that of his side) is more credible than one who does not. And most importanly, and quite naively, we do it because we expect the moonbat Left to operate the same way we do.

Except, anyone on the Right who has tried to speak with someone on the Left knows that these people cling on every word and score points on every deferment. They worship their candidate like some six-sigma compliant saint and would never, not in a million years, defer to the flaws of the person they support. They leave that to us. They leave the “he is wrong on this and that” chatter to us, whom they think are complete chumps anyway.

There’s plenty out there about McCain to read about, good and bad. But I am done, done deferring to his flaws in order to smooth out a conversation with someone about this election. Every second spent on that is time not spent on insisting, quite rightfully so, that BHO is a radical Leftist with a snake-charmer’s ability to mesmerize people into thinking he is a centrist, despite his radical Left connections to one of the most radical Left organizations, his connections to a known domestic terrorist (and God forbid we question Bill Ayers’ patriotism!), and his adherence to the tenets of radical Leftist Saul Alinsky. (There’s a great connection map and primer from The American Thinker, link courtesy of The Anchoress.)

We on the Right are far too self-critical in public. This seriously has to stop.

I watched the first half at the gym through closed captioning, which I found to be quite a blessing considering the profuse stammering from Sen. Obama and the also-but-not-as-profuse stammering from Sen. McCain. I’ve gone through a few of the links on Instapundit’s roundup, and I’ll have to ape the emailed comment by Jeff Garzik on the soundbite-driven nature of everything these days. A comment I left on John Althouse Cohen’s post, I repost here:

Rehashed and watered down?

This is because you and I and just about everyone and their mother-in-law’s hairstylist’s brother who by the way isn’t even in this country is suffering from campaign fatigue.

Fatuous and quote honestly, flatulent, soundbiting from both sides at every possible moment they can take, and we the viewers are none the better for it.