Election (and Country) Post-Mortem

You may have noticed this blog has been light on political content of late, despite the fact I'm a political junky. The political blog world moves to fast for me though, especially during election season. By the time I've diligently thought about some current issue, carefully written a piece, the issue is already yesterday's news and there is something else afoot. Not to mention there are more talented political writers than myself who I would mostly only be echoing anyway.

With Barack Obama having won re-election, this fact and its repercussions will be at the forefront of the political world for quite a while, so I feel comfortable that this piece won't be passe by the time I finish writing it. Plus, most punditry and the conservative blogopshere are missing certain glaring aspects of the fallout, it seems to me. 

The beltway, media, pundit world -- which is strongly liberal -- seems convinced that given the results of the election -- namely Romney's dominating with white males and married females, but getting crushed with minorities and young, single females -- the Republican party must fundamentally alter its own nature or perish, as these demographics are growing while white males are proportionally shrinking. Many movement conservatives also seem to think that the election should be a real wake-up call, and ought to cause us to re-think our entire approach.

For a starting point on my own perspective, I would mostly echo Charles Krauthammer, who gets what the appropriate response to the election for conservative Republicans should be: mostly, change nothing. The one thing he does think we should change is our approach on illegal immigration, but where I diverge with him is in seeing this as a panacea, or as something that is easily accomplished. Neither is the case. Not to mention that for many conservatives, such as myself, this counts as hedging on matters of principle -- namely, on law & order and fairness -- which is what he thinks we shouldn't do. Though his broader take is accurate. What he doesn't say is that, even if we can't easily fix 'issues' with a shifting demographic that make the future bleak (for Republicans and hence the country), the correct response is still unyielding, unapologetic, robust conservatism of the sort the Republican party has mostly been tending towards -- albeit haltingly -- post Tea Party revolution.

What is good for the nation is good for it whether the nation realizes it or not. If what is good for it is short-term pain, loss of comforts we've come to be dependent on, cuts in benefits etc. in order to deal with the mess that our profligate, reckless government (and many citizens) have gotten us into (and it is), well obviously this isn't a pleasant reality to put in front of voters. And faced with unpleasant reality and cheerful falsity, fallen humans almost always prefer the latter. This is evidenced by the fact that even the Republicans are forced to downplay this reality in order to even have a competitive chance at winning. But it's the conservative message, and it's only by following it that we might avoid fiscal calamity and ruin. 

Of course, there are always practical and strategic shifts that can be made, but simply losing doesn't necessarily signify that any significant mistakes were made in the first place. We certainly could have elected a more strongly conservative candidate, and we ought to in the future, but beyond that the very flawed candidate ran pretty well. He just ran up against the wall of a (inconceivably) popular incumbent, and came bearing the burden of  bad news: eventually the government runs out of other people's money. People who like the government printing money and paying for various things in perpetuity do not want to hear it. It isn't a mystery. 

And when I say we ought to nominate stronger conservatives, the comeback is that "It was strong (social) conservatism that was repudiated in the election!", citing losses by Akin and Mourdock (who made half of a gaffe between them, which was then blown insanely out of proportion by the liberal media), state wins for Gay Marriage and pot legalization, Obama's aggressive focus on social issues, in addition to Romney's loss as evidence. Which is itself a dubious reading of the events; for the entire 18 months of the election, jobs and the economy were always cited as the #1 issue by voters themselves. In any event, to the extent that it was a rejection of conservatism, to some degree -- and it was -- what of it? Voters getting something wrong does not mean that conservatives -- pols and pundits, bloggers and volunteers, voters and campaigns -- necessarily got anything significantly wrong, either in message or strategy. You can be right and unpopular; you can be wrong and a superstar. History is not a solvent. 

That said, it is precisely the moderate Republican presidential nominees who lose general elections and the more solidly conservative that win them. Behold these two groups: 

Group I: Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Bush I (pre tax lie), Bush II and Bush II

Group II: Bush I (post tax lie), Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney

Our present run has moderates losing at a 100% clip, while the more conservative win at a 100% clip. Of course, there are many other variables that play into an election such as the country's situation at the time, the candidates' personalities, events and statements during the campaign etc., but still, even over a small sample, this is telling. 

The other widespread reaction by (left-wing) pundits to the election is the absurd, historically myopic contention that there is something unique, or strange, or significant about the fact that many conservatives and Republicans (media and pols) either were, or appeared to be extremely confident going into election, despite the state polls and electoral math not seeming to be in their favor. And that afterwards they expressed disbelief and shock. As opposed to what? Could they acknowledge publicly that their chances are slim going into the election, thereby making their chances even slimmer? Not if they aren't politically suicidal. Afterwards, could they tell supporters and donors that they knew they didn't have much of a chance? Not if they don't want to burn bridges needlessly. This is political psychology 101, and the spinning occurs on both sides, when it needs to. This sort of reaction is precisely what happens anytime someone wins a national election that isn't that close. And there's nothing noteworthy or unique or novel about it at all. 

In our new-media climate of political reaction, where there is a fiercely competitive market for immediate, hastily drawn conclusions, it's unsurprising that so many dubious ones are always the first out of the gate.

Conservatives -- especially Christian conservatives, who worship the God who became Incarnate as a slave and submitted to death on a cross to overcome the world -- should be willing to languish in exile, if that is the cost of bringing truth to the American people. It may not be the cost, and it probably isn't, but if it is, so be it. 

The Case For Mitt (and Conservatism)

A friend of mine recently asked me directly why he should vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. It admittedly caught me somewhat off-guard since I so rarely think about that question. My blunt and somewhat tongue-in-cheek answer was that "He's a Republican." And given the platforms of the two major parties and my own values, it really is that simple to some extent. Still, I felt (and feel) compelled to give a more thorough response to the question.

My answer will be written with an audience of wavering or uncertain Republicans, independents, and perhaps some unusually open-minded and moderate Democrats in mind. If you're a fairly committed liberal or progressive, I have nothing in the way of persuasion to offer but this: stop being a committed liberal or progressive.
  
The Case For Mitt is the Case For Conservatism/Republicanism

Personality politics is what drives many national elections, but it usually massively obscures the fundamental issues at hand. The personality and idiosyncrasies in policy proposals and ideology of presidential candidates is exceedingly more important to consider and weigh during the primary process than it is in a general election. The reason for this is that during the primaries you're winnowing down from a pool of candidates who share many of the same basic values and beliefs, and so the finer distinctions between them become important.

Once we are into the general election, this is no longer the case. We are now dealing with two candidates whose fundamental ideologies are often drastically opposed to each other. And, to get to where they are, each has to have shown some significant level of fealty to the party (and that party's values) which has nominated them for the presidency. Which is a loyalty that usually carries through into their presidency and how they will govern. With this being the case, the real critical distinction isn't between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama but between the Republican party platform -- its values, policies, and vision for the country -- and that of the Democratic party. Mitt Romney is a fairly ordinary Republican; Barack Obama is a fairly ordinary Democrat. What sets them apart as a Democrat from other Democrats or as a Republican from other Republicans is no longer relevant, for the most part.

This is something that many on my own side, myself included, sometimes forget. It is about Obama's failures as a president, sure, but it's important to note that anyone who shares the values of the Democratic party could not have done significantly better because their ideals preclude success.

So, while so much of the national dialogue in the media is focused on things Romney or Obama have said or done, the really savvy voter can mostly short circuit all such considerations by looking at both the Democratic party platform and the Republican party platform. Also helpful would be to compare these platforms to previous platforms and see what direction the parties are headed in. And, in the case of Democrats, taking a look at their attempt to 'remedy' the platform and re-insert some of the language that had been extracted (and shiver).

So:

• If you value the protection of the lives of the unborn (over a woman's "right" to kill), vote Republican.
• If you value the Constitution's vision of a limited government with enumerated powers, and don't think it's a 'living document' (beyond the fact that it can be amended) that can mean anything the prevailing spirit of the times deems it to mean, vote Republican.
• If you value equality of opportunity, self responsibility, and see the dignity of hard work, vote Republican.
• If you think a robust capitalism, with limited constraints, is the best way to organize an economy and lift the conditions of all (and you correctly recognize, contra ubiquitous propaganda to the contrary, that 'too much market' didn't cause the economic crisis of 2008), vote Republican.
• If you believe in fiscal responsibility -- that both individuals and governments should not live beyond their means -- vote Republican
• If you believe in a social safety net for the most helpless in society, but believe that the primary responsibility for them should fall to families, local communities, charities, and local governments, with the federal government playing a very small role, vote Republican.
• If you believe in a strong national defense and peace through strength, but that war should always be a last resort, vote Republican.
• If you believe in choice -- and therefore quality -- in education, vote Republican.
• If you don't believe in socialized medicine -- with its harmful effect on quality and availability of care, and its economic havoc-wreaking -- vote Republican. 
• If you believe we should care much more what our allies think about us than about the fickle opinion of the world as a whole, vote Republican. 
• If you believe that the entitlement system is broken and unsustainable, and must be addressed so as to bring the debt under control, vote Republican. 
• If you believe people should keep the vast majority of the money they make, however much that is, vote Republican.

If you don't broadly agree with these values, then it's my humble submission that you at least abstain from voting, rather than do the unconscionable and vote for Barack Obama.

If I wanted to be really thorough, I would go through those bullet points and argue why you ought to assent to them all, but that is a tall task indeed (in terms of effort and number of words), so I will defer that task to if and when I'm challenged -- in the comments or elsewhere -- on specific points or asked for elaboration.

Sure, it's true that sometimes parties and politicians don't strictly adhere to their expressed ideals and go astray. But by and large, they do sincerely subscribe to the broad values contained in their platforms and will generally govern in the same basic vector of their party. I think this is the case for both Romney and Obama. With that in mind, forget about the men. They are ciphers or icons for ideologies and visions that are diametrically opposed, and should be approached as such.

On Todd Akin, 'Facts', and Demagoguery

Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in the state of Missouri, recently made some controversial statements. When asked about his stance on opposing abortion, even in cases of rape, he responded with the following:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

As you might imagine, Akin has caught serious heat over the comments. It's predictable that he would catch flack from the media and Democratic politicians, but in the wake of the comments Akin has faced almost as much criticism from the Right, many of whom -- from Michelle Malkin to Jonah Goldberg to Ann Coulter to Mitt Romney -- are calling for him to step down. It's an open question what portion of the reaction from the Right is motivated by a genuine concern over Akin's fitness for office, and what amount is naked political calculation, though I suspect the vast majority of it is the latter.

I have a couple motivations for weighing in here: 1) The event is causing significant inter-conservative turmoil and friction in a way I haven't seen in quite a while, which I would like to attempt to soothe somewhat. 2) The large amount of unscientific pedantry and demagoguery being thrown Akin's way needs a riposte, and I don't see anyone else offering it.

There seem to be three elements of the issue worth discussing, and since they are being flagrantly conflated and confused by many, let me make some clear demarcations. There's the policy dimension i.e. Akin's proposal for no legal exceptions for rape in hypothetical anti-abortion legislation. There's the substance of his defense of his policy position. And lastly, there's the way he has gone about phrasing and framing his defense, and the tone that he's done it in. Of course, these all overlap and intersect to some degree (which I will also discuss), but too often one is addressing one aspect or the other, while another person is thinking about it on a different level, causing confusion.

Policy

While Akin's policy prescription is obviously scandalous to anyone on the Left, we can effectively bracket out their concerns because they don't merely object to the absence of an exception for abortion in cases of rape, they object to not having on-demand abortion for anyone, anywhere, any time and for any reason. Their objections are thus moot.

However, on this matter, even within the pro-life movement there is a diversity of opinion. Some support exceptions for rape and incest, others do not, and both have defensible, respectable cases for their position. And because we support a federalist solution to the problem, after Roe is hypothetically overturned, returning the issue to the states, we can accommodate a diversity of views on this side issue. Some states could draft anti-abortion legislation without exceptions for rape, and others could include exceptions. Therefore, Republicans and conservatives generally tolerate honest dissent on this secondary matter, while still remaining united on the primary issue of the 99% of abortions that aren't due to rape.

On Akin's policy stance, whatever division exists is easily accommodated in the conservative, Republican framework, and of course those on the Left hate it the same way they hate any restrictions on abortion. So the policy angle can't really be the fundamental issue here.

The Substance of Akin's Defense

This is where the dispute really lies. First, it's worth noting that Akin's most controversial remarks were prefatory, not his actual response to the question about his policy. His actual response to the question is that rapists should be punished for their heinous crime, not children. But since his prefatory remarks are the primary source of controversy, let's look at his claims (we'll get to the wording of his claims in the next section):

• Rape is sometimes falsely accused (hence "legitimate rape" as opposed to false accusations of rape), or is defined in a way that most would not recognize it as rape (say a 20 year-old and 17 year-old couple having consensual intercourse in a state with an age of consent at 18).
• Rape pregnancies are rare. This can mean various things, but he probably means both that it's rare absolutely i.e. a tiny fraction of all pregnancies are due to rape, and that pregnancy results from rape less often than it would from ordinary, unprotected, consensual intercourse.
• There is a biological reaction to rape which affects female physiology and decreases the likelihood of impregnation.

These are his fundamental claims. The first is uncontroversial; it's a fact that rape is sometimes falsely accused, and that some statutory rape laws are written so as to define certain sex acts as 'rape' that many would not consider it to be.

Half of the 2nd bullet point is also uncontroversial. It's a fact that rape takes place much less often than consensual sex, and that pregnancy from rape is itself rare, absolutely. However, if he meant that the frequency of pregnancy-cum-rape is rare compared to the frequency it occurs in consensual sex, per sex act, then the claim becomes controversial.

A much-cited 1996 study suggests that it isn't significantly more rare, in the latter sense. Though there are questions about the legitimacy of the conclusions of that study, as well as other factors that need to be considered, such as the fact that consensual sex has the feature of allowing for partners to practice pregnancy-prevention; rape has no such feature. Or that only 11.7% of the victims sought immediate medical attention, which leaves open a significant possibility of false allegations (or diagnoses) of rape. In any case, his use of 'rare' is certainly defensible and in no sense demonstrably false. Even on the study's chosen terms of per-sex-act rape-pregnancy of those raped who are age 12-47, 5% is still compatible with the descriptor 'rare'.

The amorphous character of these numbers -- and thus their meaninglessness -- is illustrated in contradictions between studies. Another article at Scientific American is being cited by some, purporting to be a corrective to Akin. In that article they cite DOJ statistics stating that "in 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped." In the aforementioned 1996 survey, they put the number of rape pregnancies at 32,000 a year. Some quick math seems to suggest that in 2004-2005, 100% of women who got raped got pregnant from it. Given the manifold complications in studying the topic, such contradictions are not entirely inexplicable -- aforementioned ones, reported versus unreported rapes, forcible rape versus statutory rape, false allegations of rape etc. -- but then don't run around waving the sheets of statistics in your hand, claiming to have disproved Akin. You haven't.

The third bullet point is the real sticking point. If there is such a biological mechanism, it hasn't yet been identified clearly (although there are at least viable candidates). However, a biological mechanism has been identified that links increases in stress to a decrease in fertility. One need only make an inference to rape increasing stress and anxiety in order to link rape to a decrease female fertility. And given research on that topic, that seems a very reasonable inference. Not that this means that Akin is clearly, unquestionably correct in this aspect of his remarks, but he isn't obviously wrong either, contra the seething mass of demagogues. 

The Framing of His Defense

No one questions this aspect of the critique of Akin. By just about everyone's reckoning, he screwed up badly here and on multiple levels. There are times to point out that certain charges of rape are illegitimate, but not here, not now, and not in this way. His use of "legitimate rape" wording was a big mistake. Further, his claim that the female body has something to "shut the whole thing down" is misleading and poorly worded, even if he is right. If there's any truth to the claim, it's that the stress and anxiety produced from a rape causes certain hormones that hinder reproduction to start producing excessively, and decrease the rate of conception by some factor. If you're going to get into that issue -- which is itself a bad political decision -- then at least be able to phrase your position in a more accurate, intelligent manner.

And, as a politician, he should have gone out of his way to cushion his remarks with disclaiming statements of care. Such as noting that some pregnancies do occur from rape (however rarely), and that such victims need care, and how he supports groups which offer victimized women alternatives and counseling. Or at least something along these lines. He spoke about rape and abortion and only really spoke about the rapist and the conceived child! Mostly treating the woman dismissively as a nonentity or an intermediary. This is quite careless and offensive, and definitely deserves criticism. He must make the point that, though there are competing interests, especially those of the victim, he still concludes that the life of the child supersede those interests.

He could have made substantially the same point in a different manner without giving anyone a legitimate reason to rebuke him, but on this level he failed utterly.

The Response

But enough about Akin. The response to his remark is much more interesting to me. On the Left, there has been predictable reaction: straw-manning Akin's argument (claiming Akin claimed rape can't cause pregnancy, which he never did); boiler-plate vitriolic hysteria; confused or disingenuous outrage; 'scientific' demagoguery. You know the drill.

On the Right, as I've noted above, there exists division. While many movement conservatives are pragmatically concerned about the gravity of this election cycle and thus want him to step down, others think that defending him -- to the extent possible -- is a matter of principle, either on the substance of the matter itself or in solidarity with our brothers in arms. While I'm obviously defending him, my sympathies are torn by these two completely legitimate concerns. What we absolutely should not do -- which a disturbing number of conservatives are doing -- is pile on, in one voice with the Left, denouncing Akin as ignorant or 'wrong'. Sure, criticize him for his carelessness, his callousness, or his failure as a politician. And if that carelessness seems likely to cost us a Senate seat, then advocate for him to step down, but don't pretend it was anything more than a gaffe.

The most obnoxious of all the responses have to be the pedants looking to 'fact-check' or 'refute' Akin's claims (such as The Atlantic and i09 pieces linked above). The only empirical or quasi-empirical claims he made are that A) rape pregnancies are rare (true) and B) that female biology makes conception less likely in rape victims by some degree (not demonstrably true, but not demonstrably false). If you read his statements in a manner that best suits your argument -- such as reading 'rare' to mean 'comparatively rare per sex act', rather than 'absolutely rare' -- then don't complain when I point out that there is nothing necessary about reading his comments in such a manner or that, even if you do, he still isn't necessarily wrong.

Generally, the response has been disappointingly emotional and reactionary across a wide swath of responders. What is there to get so upset about? It was already known that Republicans are Pro-life, so no novel developments on that count. It was similarly known that many Republicans oppose rape exceptions in theoretical abortion law, on coherent, morally serious grounds. Again, not news. The fact that a politician bungled a question, made dubious (but not false) empirical claims, and his indelicate and flippant response came off as calloused toward women? Fair game, but it's a back-page story at best. A politician's error is costing one party a likely Senate seat in a vitally important election year, and the other party is using it, not only to possibly win that particular Senate race, but as a tool to paint Republicans in general as anti-scientific, anti-woman, etc. and leverage this caricature for broad political advantage? Aha, now this is worth getting worked-up over, for those on all sides. And as long as we see it clearly for what it is, it's not a problem. Let's just be sure to harshly condemn those elements diabolically pretending it's about something else.

Toward an Unapologetic Christian Conservatism

If you remember the "Why I Hate Religion" video, and surrounding controversy, from a few months back, in my critique of it I ignored one line which I found to be dumb, because it was minor compared to the other flaws of the video. Near the beginning of the video there was a cheap shot at Republicans, saying something along the lines of that Christians don't have to also be Republicans. While it's trivially true that Christianity is not synonymous with, or inextricably married to, Republicanism or conservative politics, this line betrays a false equivalency that becomes more and more glaring to me with time, and which I feel the need to rage against now.

Because Jesus' project was -- as He told us time and time again -- about the the Kingdom of God breaking into history, and was not a "worldly" political kingdom of any character, deriving specific political programs from his teaching is treacherous. Surely nothing like that is my aim here. But just as surely as Christ was not a political Messiah primarily (despite the ultimate political consequences his Kingship over Earth entails), political policies can be more or less in line with Jesus' vision for the Kingdom. They can be more or less in line with His injunction regarding the distinctness of the spiritual and political realms (Mark 12:17, Matt. 22:21). They can be more or less in line with his teaching about the just role political authorities have (Romans 13).

For example, a thoroughgoing anarchism would not be compatible with Romans 13. Similarly, but for opposite reasons, a totalitarian worldly authority which forces its subjects to do things that are contrary to God's law would be an illegitimate authority that ought to be opposed, and probably fought and overthrown. These are some of the obvious extremes where our response is clear and determined for us, but within the much more subtle shades of our liberal democracy, being a follower of Christ leaves a considerable degree of freedom for the types of political policies and agendas that are acceptable for us to support. And this is legitimate for Jefferson Bethke to point out.

But freedom doesn't mean that anything is on the table. On certain issues, there are stances that are highly compatible with Christian teaching and stances that -- at best -- strain compatibility wildly. For example, on whether or not to support laws which outlaw abortion, the dictates of Christian premises are difficult to avoid. Even if someone has some doubt about the point at which a fetus should attain the right to have its life protected by the state -- as irrational, and not particularly in line with Christian teaching or doctrines such doubts are -- still, it's difficult to avoid the Bible's relentless affirmation of the inherent worth of human life, and at worst one would have to choose to err on the side of defense of life on the question.

By contrast, when the left attempts to make similar cases that conservative beliefs on the poor or on war are also at odds with plain Christian teaching, the attempts fail rather laughably. Christians on both the left and right believe caring for the poor is of utmost importance for a Christian, they only disagree as to the role the federal government ought to play in that -- a subject on which Christ had nothing to say. As for war, this is closer to being a legitimate "inconsistency", if you will, at least as it relates to extreme hawkishness or imperialism, but not as it relates to support of any war. The Catholic Just War theory can be used to defend some war in a thoroughly consistent and Biblical fashion.

On many other issues such as the proper level of taxation, or the proper judicial philosophy, or the prosecution of the drug war, the dictates of Christian principles are not cut and dry. There is legitimate room for Christians to take a wide range of positions on these, and most, political issues.

But I would contend that the fundamental underlying philosophy of conservatism is much more compatible with Christian principles than is modern liberalism. And this is where simply saying "You can be a Christian and not be a Republican!" too swiftly dispenses with the legitimate question of whether one party, or -- really more centrally -- one side of the political spectrum is more compatible with Christian principles or not. The postmodern Christian assumption would seem to want to affirm a thoroughgoing centrism or moderate position as the best, but this is an illegitimate move. It's the same fallacy that results in people falsely deriving relativism from a postmodern critique of modernity.

Just because there are two sides to an issue or because the answer to the question at hand is not absolutely dictated by revelation, this does not mean that one side can not be much more closely in line with Christian principle, or that one position can not be totally at odds with Christian teaching. We can't let our cultural pluralism blind us to our moral senses, or certainly to our Christian inheritance, which I think is happening en masse. And on this score, I don't let all conservatives off the hook. Certain wings of conservatism, such as the libertarian wing, have elevated the virtue of personal volition so absurdly high, and as so ultimate, that all competing values are rendered subservient and secondary. This is very harmful. Though, with that said, that's just one wing of the right that has something somewhat wrong, whereas I think the left has everything completely wrong, and that most of their fundamental assumptions are at odds with Christian values.

However, if you do happen to be that rare species of Christian Democrat, I'm not going to try to convert you from your left-wing politics. That's surely a quixotic task, at least for a blog post of this length. What I do think should be easy enough for all Christians to acknowledge is that we can't simply rest in the proclamation that "You don't have to be a Republican!" We have to actually do the difficult work of examining our beliefs and actions in the political realm and honestly evaluate whether they are compatible with our Christian beliefs, which obviously are of prior and greater significance. We have to examine the possibility that some cherished political belief is actually sinful and at odds with Christ's teaching, even if that belief enjoys prominence and acceptance in mainstream American culture. We have to be mindful that our cultural prejudices don't dictate our theological inclinations, but that the relationship runs in the other direction.

If you do all that and you still come to the impossible conclusion that being a Christian Democrat is acceptable, well then, God bless you, and I pray earnestly and fervently that you are defeated at the polls regularly and egregiously.

The Top 10 Things of 2011

Keeping in the spirit of this blog -- in which I write about my haphazard interests as inspiration strikes -- I decided to simply do a "Top 10 Stuff of the Year" list, rather than a Top 10 books, films, or albums list. Another reason to approach it this way is that I haven't seen 10 films I loved, or liked 10 albums that much this year. Part of that is me just not keeping up, but another part of it is that it has been a somewhat lackluster year in film and music, for example, not withstanding some stellar stand-outs. This also frees me up to highlight things that didn't necessarily arrive this year, but which I discovered or appreciated this year. Many of these things I've already blogged about, and so I'll mostly just quickly describe what was great about each thing and link to other more in-depth posts. Without further ado:

The Top 10 Things of 2011

10. Lakers Meltdown

Though I don't expend much energy following sports these days, as an avid, lifetime Laker-hater, I felt compelled to include their getting swept earlier this year in the playoffs in the top 10. Not only did the Mavericks sweep them, they did so in spectacular fashion, blowing them out by 36 in the fourth game, sending the Lakers into a pathetic temper tantrum. Kobe humbled, Phil Jackson sent into retirement, the dynasty very likely reconciled to at least a near-future of mediocrity; the sound of that legacy crashing with a thud is sweet, joyful music to my ears.

9. Drive

Though the thrills are somewhat tawdry and cheap, this stylish flick by Nicolas Winding Refn is one of the better of its kind that I've seen in recent memory. Ryan Gosling plays a part-time mechanic, part-time Hollywood stunt driver, and part-time robbery getaway driver that gets embroiled in a situation with a host of shady characters which explodes into violence. There's not a whole lot to the film, especially with Gosling's playing it in such a stoic fashion, but what it lacks in depth it makes up for in flair and pizzazz.

8.  The Republican Primary Campaign 

This is something I imagine 99% of the populous won't understand -- and I fully sympathize with your antipathy or apathy, whatever the case may be, I assure you -- but as a political junkie I have enjoyed following the campaign. Whatever it says about me, I religiously watched every televised debate but watched almost no other television this year -- you might have noticed the conspicuous lack of anything television related on this list. From Cain's downfall to Perry's flub to Newt's late rise to Romney's steady presence it has been interesting and disheartening, compelling and disappointing.

7. The Expired Dictator

While I think the Obama administration has been a travesty, at least he gave the go ahead to kill Osama bin Laden. It's hardly a feat deserving of much credit -- any president that didn't sign off on it would be incompetent -- but he is a Democrat and conceivably could have backed off on the War on Terror altogether, but he didn't, so that's at least worth a small amount of recognition. Gaddafi and Kim Jung-Il also met their demise this year. Of course, the rate at which evil replaces evil in this world is often astonishing, so these developments may not have any significant, lasting impact, but the passing of these wicked men is something to be thankful for.

6. Google (Google+, Google Currents, Google Music etc.)

I'm not really much of a tech guy, and while I'm sure there were probably much more significant developments in the tech world, I mostly enjoyed the rolling out of these excellent Google products. I just finally got a smartphone this year, so these products having Android apps to go with them made Google a noteworthy contributor to my universe this year. Google Music? Upload your entire MP3 library and have it accessible from any browser anywhere. Delightful. Google+? The best social-networking experience available (though it still doesn't have enough of an active user base to be the runaway best, it is the most enjoyable to use). Google Currents? A slick, aesthetically and functionally pleasing way to read online news, blogs, articles, and essays. Total cost? $0. The technological age has a lot to be said for it, and Google is near the top of that list for me.

5.  The Attributes of God by Shai Linne

Highly related to entry number three, Shai Linne's Holy Hip-Hop album The Attributes of God was released in November of this year, and is by far the best rap album that I have heard this year. Titled and patterned after the book by A.W. Pink, The Attributes of God is an album-length meditation on just that: the attributes of God. His goodness, faithfulness, justice, wrath, love and grace, to name a few. Each attribute is addressed in a separate track (though there is some cross-pollination, of course). Shai Linne spits creative, incisive reformed theology of such high quality it's somewhat unfair to classify the album as "just" a hip-hop album. It's a legitimate theological treatise and an intense act of worship. Provocative, wise, and relentlessly christcentric, the album was unlike anything I had ever heard (though it led me to Lampmode's back catalog, where there were other similar gems). To add to the revelation that the album was, even aside from the content, the beats and rhymes themselves are more impressive than anything the secular rap world currently has to offer, and it isn't even really close.

4. Tim Tebow 

Try as I might, I was unable to resist the magnetism of the Tim Tebow phenomenon. A strange confluence of events on and off the football field led to one phenomenal football story as Tebow led the Broncos to a 6-1 streak while winning in bizarre, seemingly miraculous fashion week after week, and praising Jesus while doing it. How could this story not send me into fits of rapturous ecstasy, especially when Tebow's humble glorifying of the Creator of the universe actually raised the ire of critics? What's not to love here?

3.  Holy Hip Hop / Lyrical Theology / Reformed Rap

I've said almost all that I can say on this topic in my previous post. To summarize: I discovered Lampmode records -- most notably the rappers Shai Linne, Timothy Brindle, and Evangel -- along with the whole Holy Hip-Hop movement this year, opening up a new dimension of hip-hop to me, as well as providing a tool for spiritual education and edification. Not only are these guys making extremely intelligent, Christ-centered, theological music, but they're doing it with a very high level of skill, making the exact kind of hip-hop music that I enjoy. Hallelujah!

2. David Bentley Hart's Writings

If I make a similar list to this in years to come, I expect this to be a mainstay right near the top (especially with him having at least two big projects coming up soon). The Eastern Orthodox theologian's massive erudition as it relates to history, culture, language, and religion, and his penchant for being a delightfully acerbic polemicist are some of the reasons he's my favorite living writer. Not content to merely excoriate Christianity's facile critics and make significant contributions to high theology, he also displays a great amount of literary creativity, humor, and wit in many columns which may fully blossom in his upcoming short story collection.

1. The Tree of Life

I've written more about this film than any other subject this year, so I'll spare you too many more adjectives of adulation. But the gulf that separates The Tree of Life from every other film released this year is titanic. The scope and ambition of the film is gargantuan as it tackles the subjects of the universe, humanity, death, sin, family, existence, and God deftly and without pretension. Through the prism of the life of one family, as remembered by one man, the mystery of the exquisite savagery, grace, and beauty of the universe is explored and unraveled. I will be marveling at this work of art for some time to come.

The Shared Blame Fallacy

In these politically tumultuous times you will often hear it asserted, in reference to certain problems, that "both parties are to blame". Very often this is a true statement. Sometimes it's not, but my interest is unpacking those instances when it is true. Does it then follow that some "sensible", centrist, non-partisan stance is optimal?

Not at all, and most often the opposite is the case; when there is a problem where both parties are to blame, it is usually a result of Democrats and Republicans both behaving like liberal Democrats. A good example is the housing market collapse, caused and underwritten by decades of federal government interventions in the market, starting with the Carter administration and spanning the course of several Democratic and Republican administrations that did nothing to stop the ruinous policies.

Were both parties at fault? Yes; they were equally guilty of behaving like liberals.

The solution, then, is obviously not  modest centrism, but calling on conservatives to actually act like conservatives, while voting liberals out of office. Yet the rhetoric of "blame both parties" obscures this fact for those who don't bother to think through the implications.