Think!

"Mitch: Did you know there's a guy living in our closet?
Chris: You've seen him too?
Mitch: Who is he?
Chris: Hollyfeld.
Mitch: Why does he keep going into our closet?
Chris: Why do you keep going into our closet?
Mitch: To get my clothes - but that's not why he goes in there.
Chris: Of course not, he's twice your size - your clothes would never fit him. Think before you ask these questions, Mitch. Twenty points higher than me? Thinks a big guy like that can wear his clothes?" -Real Genius

Many of you know I cut my adolescent teeth in speech and debate, but I do (I think) an admirable job of not bringing up things on this blog that might be divisive among our friends. After all, you aren't here for political analysis; if you're like most of the populace you either already have your mind made up or you deliberately fence-sit because ultimately you aren't sure your opinion matters. You're here (probably) to see pictures of Asher or (less likely) because you're on Facebook and bored. (Or you're with the telemarketing industry... how y'all doin'?)

I'm not going to make an exception to this rule now, but I am going to talk about politics. Please please please for the love of whatever is important to you in your life, take this election seriously. Make your friends take it seriously too. Our candidates want, I think, to take this election seriously, but when every news cycle is dominated by pig quotes or kindergarten sex ed or poking fun at "drill, baby, drill" it's hard to get a message out. There's a lot of blame to be placed for this particular predicament, and while I have thoughts and opinions you won't see them here (see the above paragraph).

But, please take your job as a voter in a democracy seriously in these elections. The founders didn't believe in vast-unwashed masses taking a direct hand in their governance because they would always be underinformed, easily manipulated, or otherwise truly incapable of making the decisions necessary to good government. I agree with this, mostly because I often find myself in that very category.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 10:

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

(Before you go off ignoring the point I'm trying to make; yes, I know Madison is talking about pure democracies, arguing in favor of republic, which of course is the shape we have taken. But I think Madison would agree with me in our current state, especially since he is talking about the problem of faction in governance. Making the logical connections is left as an exercise to the reader, but they are there.)

Since, however, we find ourselves in such a mess as that described, whereby all of us, regardless of time, intention, or qualification are given exactly the same sway as every one else (electoral college considerations not withstanding) in the selection of our highest government official, let us vow (at least to ourselves) that this election season we will try our best to make a rational decision.

This will not be easy given the current news coverage. I'm thoroughly post-modern in my view that an objective source of news/debate is impossible to find. Let me therefore suggest that those of you on the left read (at least once a week) all the articles and editorials from that poor-hating, business-bedding rag called the Wall Street Journal, and those of you on the right read (at least once a week) all the articles and editorials from that hippie-infested, elitist-catering propaganda machine called the New York Times. (For extra credit, read an overseas source of news as well, although this will probably involve some financial outlay on your part. The Economist, Financial Times, and others all qualify.)

Most of you will know all the viewpoints discussed. Few, if any, issues you decide elections on will change in your mind. But at least you will be deciding this election based on something instead of nothing.

Both candidates for our highest office have deep convictions and political values that run both with and contrary to their party (again, despite the coverage). You will never know the wheres and hows of this, however, from 5 minutes of shouting by pundits or reading/listening/watching your one biased source of news.

While you're bemoaning the waste of time it seems to be, remember to be thankful for the blessing it is to be born in this country, where such an investigation is even possible.