Fraters Libertas

Nothing Else Matters

Spitbull is a clever Minnesota blog that was spawned back in September. Because of our close ties with its proprietor (including endorsing him for political office last year and sharing an appreciation of toast art) we consider it an extended part of the Fraters family. Sort of our very own talented bastard step child. Despite his recent lack of material (apparently he's in some sort of extended refractory period-perhaps a mango might help?) his early efforts have been quite solid.

About a month ago I took a friendly poke at the Warrior Monk for his libertarian voting habits. And despite his short tenure in the realm of blogging, he responded like a grizzled veteran by cherry picking selected quotes from my piece, presenting my arguments without context, inferring meanings that I never stated, and ignoring any of my comments that didn't support his counter arguments. Well done Warrior Monk. You've now earned your key to the blogosphere's executive washroom. Just watch where you step after the the Monkeys have been in there. They tend to be a little messy.

I was planning on preparing an exhaustive rebuttal to the Warrior Monk's lengthy piece but have had not had the time. Now that I do, I've lost most of my original fervor on the matter and so will keep this brief and to the point.

My original post was focused on 2004 presidential election and my belief that those of a conservative bent should quit their carping and rally behind GW. WM took to task my call for the right to rally together and seemed offended that I used the term "we" to denote the right thereafter. He accused me of practicing the politics of division: "us" versus "them".

And I suppose he is right. My appeal was directed to a particular group that shares many (but by no means all) of the same beliefs. In my introduction I stated as much by warning :

It also speaks to those politically inclined to the right

If that doesn't describe you then the message is not directed towards you. I happen to place myself with those who are generally considered to be "the right" (I know, I know Right/Left is a simplistic division and doesn't full explain the varied political/social values and beliefs of people blah, blah, blah. But it's the best we've got and I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about the semantics of it right now). So when I address a group that I associate myself with I use the team we. In the way I say we when talking about Catholics. Or the same way I say we when talking about the hockey team I play on.

You don't consider yourself part of that group? No problem. As the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party likes to say: Move on.

WM also argues that his vote doesn't really matter so why bother. Personally I don't care one way or the other if you vote or not. I'm not one of those who assumes that the higher the turnout the better. Why people believe that having more people with little interest or knowledge about politics vote is a good thing is beyond me. Remember 1998 in Minnesota? Damn good turnout. The result? Jesse Ventura. Still not convinced? How about MTV's Rock the Vote program? Yeah, that's the bedrock of the republic there.

But I do believe that your vote does matter. Obviously one individual vote usually does not make the difference. Although if five hundred and eighty eight individuals had decided to vote in Florida in 2000 and cast their ballots for Al Gore, he would be president right now. (Bart-like shiver of fear)

From some of WM's comments I deduce that he is very individualistic. And as much as I abhor the C word, I acknowledge that voting is a collective enterprise. One vote individually does not matter. However, collectively votes do matter and elections are decided by them. Wars too cannot be won by an individual soldier but must be won collectively.

From the perspective of an individual soldier his role in the war does not matter. If he throws down his weapon or his spatula and walks away it will not influence the outcome. But if too many soldiers on one side do this the war will be lost.

I realize that whether they make a difference is not the primary rational for soldiers to fight. A sense of kinship with their brothers in arms, duty, honor, sacrifice, and patriotism are all motivating factors. To a much lesser extent these same factors come into play with voting. Is that such a bad thing?

Once again if WM does not want to participate or be associated with a particular group (or any group for that matter) I don't take issue with him. I don't wish to force him to vote for anyone or even to vote if it isn't his desire. My main point was that for those who align themselves on the right side of the political spectrum, George Bush should be your man in 2004. My reasoning for this was based on Bush's performance thus far in the war and the fact that except for Lieberman, I could not envision any of the other Dems prosecuting it successfully. Apparently this was not clear to the WM who accused me of not presenting the merits of my case for Bush.

To simplify the message I came up with the following formula:

IF
A: you believe that the United States is engaged in a war with Islamists

AND
B: you believe that the outcome of this war is the single greatest issue facing our country

THEN
C: you will vote for the man you believe can best win the war as president

I believe that George Bush is that man. And I think that most of those on "the right" recognize this too. Even this guy acknowledges it. And in his heart of hearts I suspect the Warrior Monk does as well.

Social Security, Medicare, the economy, farm bills, energy, taxes, health care, education, immigration, and the budget? None of them mean a damn thing if we (there I go again) lose this war.