Editor's note: For Thursday morning's post, the contestants were asked to revisit one of their earlier posts and respond to a commenter.

This has been a tough week. The Ivory Tower shields college professors in more ways than I realized. After all, on a daily basis, we rule our little fiefdoms with our own adoring subjects (I'd link to my Facebook fan club, but that's just too shameless). Even if students feel the urge to shout that the emporer has no clothes, fear of grade retribution probably keeps the critics silent. On occasions in which they do express a grievance, they typically observe the rules of common courtesy and basic civility. So this has been a whole new experience for me.

Many of the comments have been pretty mean spirited. There, I took the bait. Have at it once more. But know that anonymous jabs at my motives, character, and intellect make no difference to me. What bothers me about this kind of discourse is the long-term effect on our polity as a whole. Anyone who sets foot in the public sphere is immediately attacked and insulted, signaling to others that they enter the discussion at their own peril. As a result, sincere individuals of moderation and doubt are silenced before they are ever heard (a phenomenon vaguely similar to the Spiral of Silence). Consequently, the only voices left are shouting. I worry that our next generation of leaders will resist the call to service because they know that the bullies are waiting.

That said, I welcome the sincere criticisms. Early in the week, one commentor expressed dismay that I did not employ more social science here. I thought that was a fine point, and I have made some efforts to casually incorporate some academic research into subsequent posts. As a thanks, I'll include a link to his preferred site, the Monkey Cage. Bookmark it. You'll be glad you did.

But I'd really like to respond to a critique from one of the official judges, Kevin Huffman. On Tuesday, he joined in the chorus of boos:

My biggest beef is with William Cunion. In the morning, he said that O'Donnell is ridiculous and a terrible candidate but he would vote for her anyway because she's a Republican. Then in the afternoon, he defended himself against the well-deserved taunts from the peanut gallery. This was a tepid effort all around.

In the same post, he lamented that he was "hoping to see something feisty from the conservatives." Look, Kevin, no one is going to be able to defend O'Donnell on the merits in that debate. I bet even her paid staff chose their words carefully. But making a case to vote for her despite her deficiencies? I couldn't get any more feisty if I had sung "1,2,3,4, tell me that you love me more." I think elections are about the policies that follow more than the knowledge levels of the candidates. Ideally, I'd like to have both (I hereby curse the Republican voters of Delaware for choosing such a lousy candidate), but when I must choose, I'll take policies. Hooray for partisanship.

Huffman's criticism, though, is instructive for another reason. His incoherence is subtle but critical, leaving me to conclude that he isn't quite sure what he wants, which is a common theme in American politics. Consider: We want lower taxes and more services; we want perfect national security and no invasion of privacy; we want political candidates who stand on principle and who seek compromise with their opponents. Political leaders can't say so publicly, but every one I've talked with privately has expressed extreme frustration with the mixed and incoherent signals they receive from the voters. (And don't even get me started on voter knowledge.)

I'm sure you've watched American Idol. Same idea: one week, a contestant will be criticized for "playing it safe," and encouraged to try something new. The next week, they comply with the suggestion, only to hear, "That's not really who you are. Find your roots." What the what? I have a whole new respect for those contestants - and a much greater respect for anyone in public life. Until we decide what we want, elected officials cannot possibly deliver, and we will inevitably be disappointed. That's mainly our fault, not theirs.

Since I've already gone on too long, what's one more paragraph? Yesterday, one of my co-workers asked me how the contest was going. She politely listened as I ranted for a minute or two, and then told me a poignant story that I will never forget. She and her husband immigrated to the United States from China during the last decade. On election day 2004, they were eligible to vote - to make a meaningful political decision - for the first time in their lives. That morning, her husband suggested that she wear her "best dress," because it was such an important day: "It is the one day when every person is equal to the president. Me? Equal to the president." Her gentle rebuke to me was left unstated, but I got the message. The freedoms that make a democracy great also make it ugly and messy. It is worth the tradeoff. It is a republic worth keeping. That requires us to keep each other honest and accountable. That goes for the politicians and the voters, for the pundits and their critics.

Read more entries from this round. See what the judges think. And cast your vote on Friday. 

By William Cunion  |  October 21, 2010; 10:14 AM ET  | Category:  Blogging Challenge , response to readers
Share This: Email a Friend | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Learning to Love the USA | Next: The veterinarian and...