I’ll say that part of Redstate’s purpose is indeed to operate as an academic discussion chamber. The overarching purpose is far more than that, but it has always been part of its being. The change to overt activism in that sense is fairly new. I support it, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be able to discuss philosophy here. We lose an important aspect if we do.

If the final decision comes down that we should discuss only those things that pertain to current congressional action, okay and I’ll keep out of the discussions and just read. However, next time someone discusses the WoD, ending abortion, etc, I’ll expect that to be shut down quickly by commenters as irrelevant to the immediate goal.

But recognize the need to be engaged politically. If being a PC becomes a prerequisite for posting comments, opinions, or questions to RS I doubt anything good would come of that. I’ll just write the idea off as Monday morning brain flatulence.

In college, people argue whether pure anarchy and pure communism are viable political systems. In a law school class on technological change, a student (who was not me) did a presentation on the legal implications of a tachyon phone (a phone that allowed to you call the future). Interesting topics? Maybe. Serious topics? No.

There is a difference between arguing absolute pie-in-sky how the world should be vs. things that could actually get accomplished in the course of our lifetimes. To me, that is the difference between an “academic” debating society/”dorm room debate” and arguing policy.

While I would have opposed social security at the time it was enacted on the basis of it being unconstitutional, I do classify a 2010 argument that “social security is unconstitutional” as being both pointless and actually self defeating since it just begs the MSM to put all of our candidates and elected officials on the sport with “are you going to condemn the people at RS for saying that SS should be stopped?” Such arguments will be used as weapons by our opponents.

President Bush got absolutely burned on this issue, and all he went for were 5% private accounts. SS is a delicate issue that requires a delicate touch if we want to get anything constructive/helpful done with it. Our adversaries would like nothing better than for there to be prominent voices talking about how SS in unconstitutional. Its exactly what they want, its what they want to pounce on, and its how they think they will back the house.

In summary, I think the argument that social security is unconstitutional is politically speaking irrelevant at best, and at worst, self defeating. It also serves as distraction from things we could actually get done in 2011, like repealing parts of Obamacare.

Even someone as conservative as Angle was forced to walk back her SS pronouncement for the remainder of her campaign. RS is a prominent web site, and it is for the most part, a serious place. I would suggest that we not be so eager to provide the opposition with so much ammunication when the cost/benefit analysis reveals such an illusory benefit.

In order not to fan any flames on this issue, I think I will retire from the SS is unconstitutional debate. My hope is that attention focuses to more realistic issues that nobody in the R caucus would be afraid to support.

Put another way, if there is a conservative argument that makes DeMint and Coburn run for the tall grass, its probably not an argument we need to spend a lot of time on at the moment.

I’m new to political activity and perhaps others here at Redstate are also, so I’ll outline my experience as a first-time poll watcher this year.

In summary I will say that it was not as intimidating as I expected. I was naturally motivated to get involved to improve the candidates in my own district/precinct, but soon discovered that this part of the San Francisco east bay was too far gone blue to get anything going. I had walked a precinct weeks ago in an effort that should have required at least a hundred volunteers, but I was only one of six walking that day.
So I enlisted in a campaign for a neighboring US Congressional district where there seemed at least a chance the Republican could win. The State Assemblyman in this area was also polling reasonably well.

So, I showed up on time at the campaign headquarters and recieved lists and maps that would lead me to the polling place and the precinct I was to watch. Full instructions on what to do and all relative laws and polling place rules were provided worded in simple language that was easily understood.

So I took my list of voters to the polling place and checked the posted ‘roster’ for those that had already voted. (This polling place actually handled five precincts and it took me a few minutes to figure out which list I needed, but not a big deal)
Having crossed off the ‘voted’ people, I followed the maps to the precinct and visited each house that still showed a non-vote, leaving a door hanger for the candidate if nobody was home and urging any voters I found to be sure to vote in this very important election.

Then back to the polling place to cross off more names. (Rinse and Repeat)

Since I was only talking to Republicans the people I met and spoke too were generally supportive and most were eager to have their vote counted.

My only surprise during the whole day was the fact that the ‘rosters’ are not updated after 5:00 pm, a full three hours before the polls close.

In closing I would recomend that any conservative that can take the day off on voting day to be a poll watcher in the future. I believe my efforts resulted iin two to three votes being cast that might otherwise have been missed. Multiple that by the many thousands of precincts and you can see that this can really make a difference, especially in close races.