UNSC Resolution 2334

The New York Times couldn't find any precedent for a lame duck President working as assiduously as this one to undermine the expected policy of his elected successor. The precedent President Obama is now establishing is as corrosive to our Democracy anything President-Elect Trump has (yet) done.

The resolution, itself, effectively argues that borders established in a war of self-preservation have no legal validity, but demographics established by, thankfully thwarted, attempts at genocide (the series of Arab massacres of Jews from 1920 through the 1948 war) do. If that is a continuation of long-standing policy, it is of a policy that should be changed.

The argument that the possibility of a two-state solution, which America has a strong interest in preserving, is in jeopardy, is a strong one, but is an argument for more active American leadership. Specifically: Proposing and building consensus around a stronger and more balanced resolution rather than lamely not-vetoing a (mostly) toothless one, which we don't even stand behind ("we did not agree with every word..."). A more balanced resolution would clearly re-affirm the "two-states for two-peoples" doctrine and could differentiate between the extremist, "one-state", settlers, and the "consensus" ones.

Naftali Bennett's boast ("The era of a Palestinian State is over"), which was quoted by, literally, every Resolution defender, was remarkably reckless. Those supporters of Israel angry at Obama and Kerry for their biases, ought to be equally, or more, aggravated at Bennett for foolishly providing this cover.

Supporters of Israel have the benefit of facts on their side in arguing that "The existing settlements... do not pose any danger to the two-state solution... Israel proved that in Gaza when it dismantled every single Jewish settlement and evacuated every single Jew from the Gaza strip... The primary barrier to the two-state solution remains the Palestinian unwillingness to accept the U.N. resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples." It is hard to imagine that Kerry (and Obama) are not well aware that, unlike the GOI, the Palestinian leadership, and perhaps population, is unwilling to accept the principles he laid out.

The "one-state" settlers do, even if Kerry lacks the ability to properly articulate, pose an existential, if indirect, threat to Israel. Israel greatly benefits from being, perhaps besides apple pie, the last remaining zone of bipartisan agreement. But while that support has firm conservative ground (the biblical resonance, the shared conflict with fanatic Islamicists, etc), it depends, among Liberal/Progressive Americans, on the perception of shared values. Liberal/Progressive American's can be drawn to support the "Shimon Peres" version of Israel, in which Israel, despite being under perpetual attack, heroically never loses faith in the shared humanity of its enemies, and its feelings of compassion for, and responsibility towards, the Palestinians. Unwillingness, today, to restrain the most ideological settlers, is perhaps the strongest signifier of the current Israeli mainstream opinion which has (after the attempts of Rabin, Barack and Olmert) given up on Peace and the Palestinians, and is perfectly happy to maintain the status quo, until the Palestinians come around. American conservatives will continue to support this Israel, but liberal/progressives, rightly or wrongly, will not.

The Iran Deal

When carefully considered, it should be clear that this deal sets us on an ineluctable path towards war.

In the short term, Iran is likely to appease extremists opposed to the deal by generously, and disproportionately, financing their internal institutions and regional adventurism from its windfall. The suggestion that Iran's youthfully skewed demographics foretell future moderation and reform seems dangerously naive. Dylann Roof, to take one recent high profile example, was 21. To take another: It appears to be largely young adults who are leaving middle class western homes to wage genocidal Jihad as part of ISIS. Bottom line: Iran is not likely to be, a reformed, more moderate, regime in 10 years than it is today.

Critics of the deal are probably wrong to fear this deal will allow an unreformed Iran to, with our blessing, reduce its nuclear weapon breakout window to a matter of weeks for the simple reason that future Presidents will likely consider themselves no more bound to its terms then they are to their own campaign promises.

President Obama and those in Congress who have supported this deal have been very clear: A nuclear armed Iran is an intolerable threat to American national security and all options must be on the table to prevent it. Should Iran fail to reform, which seems likely, this will be as true in ten years as it is now. In other words, whatever this deal may envision, should Iran fail to reform, the demands of national security will compel any future President to insist on extension of the restrictions on the Iranian program that preserve the one year breakout window.

The future President will have fewer options than might be available today. The Iranians would view any American attempt at diplomatic renegotiation as reneging, as proof of American perfidy and would be unlikely to engage. There would likely not be sufficient time to reinstate comprehensive, effective, sanctions. Given Iranian military development between then and now, any pinprick attack would be less viable. In other words, the future American President will likely find herself with the stark choice of allowing an unreformed Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or launching a war of regime change. As undesirable as the latter option is, no President will be able to allow the former on her watch.

America, would have likely had better options today. Our allies and partners may not have supported continued sanctions, but is hard to imagine that strongly enforced secondary sanctions which presented the choice “do business with either us or Iran” wouldn’t have held.

While time will tell whether those who argue that the pro-Israel community severely damaged itself in taking on a fight it couldn’t win were correct, there are reasons to hope they will prove wrong. The generally sympathetic-to-Israel members of Congress who backed this deal are more likely to work to repair, rather than wash their hands of, the American/Israeli relationship. Down the road, should Iran engage in destructive adventurism and fail to reform, and so pose an unresolved intolerable threat to America, those who vigorously opposed the deal will be strengthened (and should it reform, American political attention will turn elsewhere). In addition, given the broad Israeli consensus, this effort provided a rare opportunity for the deeply politically divided pro-Israel community to work, more or less, arm in arm. If built upon, there is opportunity for strengthening the community. Finally, while most Democrats did, in the end, line up behind their President, Democratic strategists may be now more sensitive to the danger Israel poses, as a wedge issue, to their party unity.

End of an Era

Mad Man was not only one of the best shows to [ever] appear on television, but, perhaps also, (and this goes hand-in-hand) one of the most deeply chewed upon. One perspective I have not seen discussed is, for me, the heart of the matter: Mad Men viewed through the prism of SciFi.

Mad Men dealt with, or was even "about", themes generally reserved for SciFi: Human nature and human reality. "Advertising" was used as the simulacrum, in place of robot overlords, clones or AI, to explore, and question, human agency and meaning. Don Draper's blunt "the universe is indifferent" resonates with the mountains of SciFi featuring small bands of isolated explorers struggling in, and against, cavernous space.

More fundamentally, SciFi has always used the conceit of "long ago and far away" to ease digestion of social criticism (Voltaire and Swift founded the genre as much as Shelley and Verne). At first light, of course, Mad Men flatters us, with our Sheryl Sandbergs and Hillary Clintons. But, in truth, it's sharpest critique, focused in the finale, is ultimately directed at the still present "sixties".

To wit: All the major characters are, throughout the show, miserable; They are narcissistic and irresponsible and, nonetheless, deeply unhappy. The show questioned the possibility of happiness. The finale ("person-to-person") leaves most of the major characters with some, provisional, happiness through responsibility and self-giving: Pete with his family, Joan with her son, Roger with Marie and, of course, Peggy and Stan.

Don's ending is left more ambiguous. For me, the Leonard scene feels crafted to recall the The Carousel. Don created advertising to invoke "the pain from an old wound", to remind us of a "place where we ache to go again" -- this obsession on what we don't, or can't, have. Or, as Leonard describes it "You spend your whole life thinking you're not getting it, people aren't giving it to you." To which he adds the insight: "Then you realize they're trying, and you don't even know what IT is" -- our self-centeredness is an obstacle to our happiness. Don hugs Leonard, in part, perhaps, out of some Dick-Whitman complex, but also out of a feeling of responsibility, as a sort of apology. The series concludes with a different sort of advertising, one firmly focused on what we (all) share.

#LoveWins

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges was, of course, correct: Marriage has "transcendent importance" is "essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations" and no-one should want to live in a State that deprives anyone of that liberty.

While I, generally, find Alito's opinions contain the clearest and most thoughtful analysis of what is most at stake, that is only somewhat true in this case:

1. The heart of Alito's dissent is a historical/technical argument:

   Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits... To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

   Alito's views are in-line with mainstream constitutional conservatism, which is, above all, afraid of unelected Justices imposing personal views. Kennedy seems generally more aligned with an ideological conservatism that would reject this relativistic dismissal of unalienable rights. As a political matter, the conservative surrender of unalienable rights to the more political branches (who are perfectly capable of enforcing claims of majorities against minorities) has not impeded the progress of government benefits, but has left us with a current court doctrine in which Religious Freedom seems entitled to about the same level of constitutional protection now as was once enjoyed by the Marranos.

   Roberts, consistent with Alito, argues that respect for the court, and by extension its legitimacy, flows from the perception that it exercises "humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law." Scalia, similarly, observes that "Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers" and darkly warns that this decision moves the court "one step closer to being reminded of [it's] impotence." However, the reaction here provides strong indication that this sort of judicial conservatism has lost out, and one, more like Kennedy's, willing to assert unalienable rights is called for.

2. Alito goes on to contrast the current "understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry" (which creates a right to same-sex marriage) with the traditional concern for providing "the best atmosphere for raising children" (which, for Alito, does not). He acknowledges that "this traditional understanding of the purpose of marriage does not ring true to all ears today" (a dramatic understatement) which "undoubtedly is both a cause and a result" of the fact that "more than 40% of all children in this country are born to unmarried women." Given this, he argues it is not irrational for states to fear that trading the traditional for the current understanding (by recognizing same-sex marriage) "may contribute to marriage’s further decay."

   He is certainly correct up to that it is too early to tell whether marriage divorced from family will be able to keep the promises that Hollywood, and now the Supreme Court, are making on its behalf. Should it fail, adherence to more traditional understandings will increase the privilege enjoyed by the upper class. However, even if this fear is not irrational, it hardly argues for denying people unalienable rights.

3. Alito's last section is concerned that this decision will be used to "vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy" as "some may think that turnabout is fair play". Both Alito and Roberts note that the democratic process, now shut down, was more likely to "tie recognition to protection for conscience rights."

   This is, of course, a secondary concern, with no certain outcome. It may turn out that, with this issue out of domestic politics, it may be easier for those with traditional views to portray their conscience rights as, mostly, harmless. Those committed to "stamp[ing] out every vestige of dissent" may find it harder to engage donors than was the case when more fundamental rights were at stake, especially as other civil rights issues come to the forefront. And as religious exercise is certainly also of "transcendent importance" and "essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations", perhaps its not too much to hope that, if challenged, the court will demonstrate that it's empathy is not just for-some.

As a final note, Thomas' dissent comes closest to asking, what to me is discomforting about this case. What does it mean to have a "Separation of Church and State" if the State is issuing licenses of "transcendent importance"?

#TeamWalt

An Antihero, according to the dictionary, is a protagonist who lacks traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage. While uncontroversially applied to Swearengen, Draper and, of course, Soprano, whether it fits Walter White (or whether he is a hero or villian) is a matter of vicious dispute.

As it is, of course, far from unusual that the bad-ass anti-hero has a fan club, it is the vigor of the haters that is unparalleled (literally desperately hoping WW's innocent CP son is killed to punish him). For them, there is disappointment in the ending, the perverse identification of psycopathic Todd with #TeamWalt, the longstanding, odd, demand that Walt recognize himself as they see him, followed by desperation to take Walt's ambiguous "admission" as an expression of unvarnished Truth. In part, this reflects a convert's zeal -- we all started out on #TeamWalt -- but it would also seem that he is more dangerous, seductive, than his parallels.

Or, what comes to mind is "Subversive": The Mr Chips into Scarface arc; The show's writing belying its creators' insistence that they condemn Walt -- as if they were afraid to acknowledge their allegiances openly. There is honesty in the confession scene -- Walter admits, despite appearances (and, well, how its all turned out), he feels great and that breaking bad gave him life. Re-reading early episodes reminds us of the degree to which he wasn't only performing when he snarled "You never believed in me!"

We are also reminded of the degree to which Walt is explicitly portrayed as re-masculating himself -- in the finale, at long last, he is allowed to die like a man. Rather than any modern sort of machismo (through it all, Walt basically stays sexually faithful to Skyler), it [ironically] almost feels classically heroic: He struggles for recognition; He eschews redemption, or second chances, instead accepting (embracing?) consquences; He evolves from belief in a scientific indeterminism (uncertainty?) to accepting Fate. And, of course, the settling of accounts -- leaving closure to Skyler and Marie, life to Jesse and an inheritance for Walt Jr. The last scene in the lab may have been less Gollum with Precious than Achilles with his Shield and Spear (or, maybe, Steve Jobs with his Macintosh). While it is impossible to write about Breaking Bad without acknowledging that Walt was, himself, a cancer, it's also worth mentioning Gilligan's suggestion that Walt became "irredeemable" the moment he refused to accept charity.

Women Lawyers and Gay Marriage

Vault.com's most recent survey of nearly 17,000 law associates found that women's satisfaction "lagged behind their male counterparts... Just as worrisome... for men, satisfaction rises quite a bit throughout the sixth and seventh years, while women remain stagnant at their fifth-year low point... why is it happening? First, many female associates feel that it is impossible to have a family and make partner... The male partners almost all have children."

There are two, obvious, reasons for this gender imbalance.

First, people who have children will often find that they far prefer to spend time with their children than their clients. Acting on that natural preference is far more socially acceptable -- and therefore viable -- for women than men. This naturally leads to greater dissatisfaction among women with children who find themselves compelled purely by economics to work. And it leads to women blessed with economic flexibility to prioritize family above the demands of big-law partnership.

Second, male associates are more willing (and able) to find spouses satisfied with the inequitable division of domestic labor that big-law partnerships demand. A male associate with children whose spouse demands an equitable division of domestic labor will face some of the same obstacles to partnership as his female colleagues. While there may be cultural influences directing ambitious men towards spouses that, practically, support their ambition, the reverse is likely true of ambitious women.

In other words, if, within our culture, the purpose of marriage was "refocused", away from "the emotional needs and desires of... adult couples" and to "the raising of children", talented and ambitious female law associates might have a much easier time finding spouses willing to assume an inequitable division of domestic labor, and so not have to make the choice between work and family, and find themselves far more satisfied than they are today.

Purim II

Another set of prominent themes in the Megilla is nature (there is nothing supernatural in the text) and subversion (9:1).

By nature, in the story, men use the power of government to oppress women (1:20) and minorities (3:8). The Megilla portrays this nature as being subverted by the power of love (of adopted father for daughter and husband for wife), family (4:14) faith/community (4:16) and, not incidentally -- it's the name of the holiday -- chance, or fortune. While the power of government can be used to oppress, it cannot, in the end, be used to protect. Only the assertion of something like "stand your ground"/second amendment rights (8:11) can do that.

The most subversive teachings of Purim come from the Rabbis of the Talmud. They teach that the story of Purim resulted in acceptance of Halachic Law. In other words, that fidelity to the Law is not properly ground in either miracles or rational reflection. And their teaching that Purim will be one of the few holidays celebrated after the ultimate redemption, may be a lesson less about Purim than the nature of redemption.

Human Nature

In his "State Of The Church", address, Pope Benedict described the institution of family under dual attack. First, there is the zeitgeist which questions whether lifelong commitment corresponds to man’s nature or is antithetical to freedom? More deeply, there is also the particular philosophy which leads people to deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. He argues that if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. In asserting the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God

According to Strauss, in thinking about "man’s nature", the classics, not concerned with establishing utopia, asked "what is best for man?", while the moderns, who are so concerned, ask "what can be expected of man?" The Pope argues that it is primarily a false understanding of the nature of human freedom (the true understanding is: "only in self-giving does man find himself") that makes lifelong commitment an unreasonable expectation.

Within American politics the argument for marriage equality, embraces, rather than denies, nature: Homosexuality is asserted to be part of nature. Moreover, the Jewish tradition, at least, can be understood to teach that the freedom to create oneself, far from denying the Maker, is the very definition of being created in the image of God. Denying that freedom calls into question whether or not we have a distinctly human nature.

A stronger variation of the Pope's argument is that the demand for marriage equality stems from marriage being understood as it is experienced -- an "emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction" -- rather than as its social, or higher, purpose -- establishing the best context for rearing children. This way of understanding can be seen to reflect our increasing individual self-centeredness, which, following Strauss, is the natural result of the "Hobbes-ian" project that sought to cultivate a good society without appealing to our best nature.

Science and Politics

When asked by GQ, Marco Rubio stumbled around the age of the universe, saying that how to reconcile the "multiple theories" including "recorded history" and "the Bible" "on how the universe was created" is "one of the great mysteries." After being widely mocked, he clarified that he actually shares Obama's view. According to Krugman, this is an illustration of a general Republican attitude: "If evidence seems to contradict faith, suppress the evidence."

The reality is, of course, that no one has first hand knowledge the age of the universe. Any answer is, structurally, an appeal to authority. On one side is the empirical materialism -- science -- that has given us cell phones and moon landings. On the other, for some of us, is the (biblical) faith that gives our lives structure, meaning and purpose. The evidence of religious faith, denied by Krugman, is powerfully experienced by believers. As Strauss taught, the attempt to reconcile "Athens" and "Jerusalem" -- what Rubio appeared to be doing in mixing "theologians" and "theories" -- bastardizes one or the other. For most of us, no longer 17 or 18, it is enough to understand that human truth is, by nature, limited and unstable -- an understanding shared, in other contexts, with liberals.

It is easy to note that conservatives have no monopoly on bad science. Beyond the obvious: While conservatives may deny global warming, progressives demand costly and by any scientific measure ineffective "solutions". When it suits them politically, liberals deny that science is capable of progress (and conversely..). In the end, Science mixes poorly with politics for the same reason it mixes poorly with religion: Politics in practice, as religion, requires tribal loyalty and fidelity to dogma.

Its important not to lose sight of the political issue at the heart of this: Whether, or to what degree, public schools ought accommodate the beliefs of parents.

Debunking Nate Silver

Despite what you might read on the internet, its actually quite easy to demonstrate that Nate Silver's election models where very possibly flawed.

According to Silver, September was a disastrous month for Romney. He started September down 47.9% to 50.9% to in the popular vote and a 26.9% chances of winning, and he ended it down 47.4% to 51.5%, and only 14.3%. Yet according to exit polls September was a fantastic month for Romney. He won the 8.7% of voters who decided in September 53% - 45.3%. In contrast, Obama won the 68.8% of voters who decided before 52.6% - 46.3%, and the 20.7% who decided after 49.7% - 46.3%. The last cohort, of course, includes some number of people who thought they had decided in September and then changed their minds, increasing Romney's implied September surge.

It may be that exit polls should be taken with a grain of salt or that masses of people mistakenly remembered the first debate as having taken place in September. But, at the very least, they call Silver's model into question.

The Next Four Years

As the parallels between 2004 and 2012 are striking and informative, it is worth recalling the Democrat's successful strategy.

They escalated, not moderated, their vocal criticism of the Iraq war, but did not block -- as they could have -- Bush's courageous and eventually successful "surge". At the same time they adopted positions -- on the deficit and corruption -- that Republicans once championed. One might say, on policy, they outflanked, rather than moderated. On the other hand, in 2006, they made a calculated effort to run moderate congressional candidates.

A similar G.O.P strategy would side-step the "big" issues like taxes and healthcare. The G.O.P. has no self-interest in negotiating Obama out of his job-killing gambits as they once did for Clinton. Instead, they would be well advised to focus on issues of government transparency and effectiveness and wait while core Democratic constituencies make it impossible for Democrats to deliver on their promises of good government (there is, in the end, a reason Mike Bloomberg ran as a Republican/Independent). A savvy G.O.P. might demand Obama propose a concrete deficit reduction plan, and then adopt it wholesale in exchange for a basket of items like ending baseline budgeting, closing campaign finance loopholes Obama exploited, auditing the Fed, requiring government adherence to standard, instead of Enron, accounting practices, an independent investigation into the shocking lack of criminal prosecutions following the financial meltdown, and constitutional amendments limiting debt-to-gdp in the long term to under 90% and banning future state bailouts.

On the other hand, what was new about 2012 should not be ignored either. In particular, the Obama campaign's retail organization. While our founding fathers may have envisioned a politics in which reason displaced passion, the reality is that voting choices are more more often driven by social dynamics than rational reflection. Obama's neighborhood campaign offices served as hubs for Obama-voting communities. If the G.O.P. wants to compete for minority votes, it will not be enough to, simply, communicate shared beliefs. Republicans must plant their own community centers in minority neighborhoods.

Very Good Debt to Have

Too much has been made of exit polls showing Obama won voters whose primary consideration was "cares about people like me" as that question is almost certainly a dog whistle for "will not vote for a white man".

More damning for Romney were exit polls showing voters believed Obama's economic policies, more than Romney's, benefited the middle class. For all the talk that the G.O.P. must moderate, this may indicate that a return to strong economically conservative policies that can demonstrate how progressive policies crush the middle class is now needed.

An illustrative case in point is the situation of recent middle-class college grads, entering a workforce with six figure debt, but without marketable skills or decent opportunities. Conservatives can convincingly argue that government subsidies have mostly served to increase middle-class indebtedness, while enriching college administrators who, in return, do their part for Democrats. A Conservative could point out that a college education is (alongside housing), the largest investment middle-class families make, and ought be treated as such: Colleges ought have the same basic fiduciary obligations to their student/clients and responsibilities to disclose/report (eg, on historical economic outcomes of students in particular majors or who have taken particular classes or Professors) that other financial service providers have. Democrats who would oppose this would plainly be selling out middle class families. In this light, the administration's assertion that this is "very good debt to have" could have been made toxic.

Similar avenues also resonate: Recent college grad's job-prospects are particularly sensitive to entrepreneur killing over-regulation and taxation, more than any other group of Americans, they understand the difference between making $250K one year and being a millionaire and, as Ron Paul has proven, they are receptive when one explains how inflation targets cloud their future.

But when asked, instead of drawing sharp distinctions, Romney rattled on about scholarships and Pell grants and allowed the President to draw him into a discussion of whether or not he wanted Detroit to go bankrupt and, perhaps, in that moment, lost the election.

Dependency Politics

Von Hayek taught that conservative principles are the tested product of an evolutionary social process. He taught that (libertarian) policies which support this trial-and-error progress serve society best. His teachings offer hope and direction to conservatives fearful that "dependency politics" are now permanently entrenched. In the end, truth can be counted on to prevail.

Strauss taught concern with the fundamental alternative: That western culture is the product of centuries of cultivating human nature and that America is exceptional because of the unusual alignment of history and tradition with libertarian principles (and the unlikely marriage of Virtue and Democracy). The classics, according to Strauss, taught that the best regimes came into being only by chance and that history is cyclical not linear. These teachings animate conservative fears that we are close to a tipping point where the culture of too many hyphenated Americans undoes that exceptionalism.

This blog has argued: "to believe in Freedom is to see in American history ample evidence of how malleable and ever-changing "culture" can be and how people, left to their own devices, lift themselves up." It is helpful to remember that Political Conservatism was a minority view for much of the twentieth century. In the end, what Strauss suggested -- and Reagan demonstrated -- is that a Conservatism that that confidently appeals to individual dignity can never be permanently suppressed.

Political (Game) Theory

If one wanted to apply game theory to national politics, as a first pass one could roughly model it as a "board" with N "issues", each issue has 3 positions: conservative, moderate, progressive. Each position has a payoff that is a function of the opponents choices, the rest of the board, what we seem to call "branding", and the "focus" the candidate draws to that issue. Candidates have limited "focus" to spend, and how they spend it determines the election.

On immigration, for example, the conservative position is deport all illegals, the moderate position is to grant illegal immigrants extended, or permanent residency, and a "back-of-the-line" path to citizenship, but stop future illegal immigration, the progressive position would grant illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and do nothing effective to stop future illegal immigration. Romney's position "self-deportation" was understood by the electorate as, effectively, the conservative one, which was helpful in the primaries. In the general, taking the moderate position would not have cost Romney many conservative voters -- who had higher priorities -- and would have forced Obama to clarify better where he stood -- forcing him to alienate some of his own voters. While there is good reason to believe the direct payoff would have been small, there would have been indirect "branding" payoff had Obama, or other Democrats, been cornered into clearly taking the progressive position.

On abortion, Democratic politicians mostly believe abortion should be always and everywhere legal, most voters believe it should be sometimes, or in some places (=federalism) legal and many conservative Christian voters believe it should be always and everywhere illegal. The Obama campaign spent a great deal of its focus and was successful in making an issue of the conservative Christian position taken by two Senate candidates, severely impairing the Republican brand. Almost more than any other issue, this buried Romney.

Romney chose, instead, to spend his focus on Obama's partisan lack of leadership, his unwillingness reach across the aisle to get things done for America. This choice was undercut, fatally, by Sandy and Christie. While its impossible to prove one way or the other, from the polls and the post-election reactions of both candidates, the notion that Sandy/Christie turned the election is credible.

Finally, the results reflected that in spending focus on "branding", Obama helped downstream democrats. Romney's focus spent on Obama's personal failings (and his success, in contrast) offered no such help.

Decisions

Depending on one's bubble, Romney is either neck and neck or has, basically, no chance. People are going to be bitterly shocked tonight.

Republicans' primary causes for optimism -- Obama's inability to pass the 50% threshold in many swing state polls and Romney's upward trend -- seem dampened post-Sandy. The Romney campaign's decision to sit that out, rather than have surrogates (accurately) screaming "Staten Island is as bad as New Orleans", may haunt them. This reflects the general tenor of the campaign in which the President wildly portrayed Romney as being an evil, corrupt man, and Romney, with great discipline and respect, portrayed the President as like-able enough, but, not the right choice. These strategies reflected the reality of the President's like-ability, now largely spent. Should he win, he may wish, in trying to govern, that he had sacrificed it less.

Romney supporters' last hope lies in the idea that the pollsters demographic-adjustments and likely-voter models are biased. Its certainly true that pollsters (like universities) are more concerned with fairly representing "under-represented" democratic leaning demographics than others. But the more one reads of the sophistication of Obama's turnout operation, the less likely it seems Romney is going to win the "ground game". Obama seems closer to the future, where campaigns use big-data to micro-target swayable voters and leverage affinity networks (including families) to deliver their votes.

If Obama wins the election, Tea Party voters can take heart in this: Republicans have nominated the most moderate voice in the room two elections in a row now and lost to a President from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." In 2016, Rubio or Christie may find themselves too moderate for Republican primary voters. How does "President Cruz" roll off the tongue?

Rape

Somehow, or another, rape has become a controversial issue this election. According to Democrats and their allied Media, it turns out that Republicans, especially those who oppose abortion even in instances of rape, are pro-rape.

Republicans, were they savvy, would have an effective stratagem to expose the truth of the matter: Propose the death penalty for rapists.

To My Democratic Friends...

Passing Health Care Reform was, for your team, a historical achievement. But the President has been mostly unable to sell it to the American people. Partisans left and right hope|fear that the reform will become much more popular once enacted, but that is not likely -- Health Care Reform was far more controversial at inception than either Social Security, or Medicare. More likely, it will become even more polarizing and more bitterly fought over every election cycle on the state and federal level. As such it will be, at best, unevenly implemented.

The tragedy is that there were no shortage of "good ideas" (for example: better aligning incentives by severing insurance from employment or promoting alternatives to fee-for-service), that could have more sustainably passed with some bi-partisan support and, in-turn, built credibility toward more ambitious reform.

To hear your economists, the Stimulus program was too small to possibly succeed, but just large enough to be a political disaster for its backers.

After the financial crisis, there was a national consensus that "too big too fail" and "public risk, private reward" had to end. It is really hard to argue that Dodd-Frank accomplished either. On the contrary, the largest banks today, control more of the economy than ever, and the Government is still subsidizing bankers' bonuses.

Obama argues he is pursuing a savvy, subtle, long-game, foriegn policy. Certainly, running around the Middle East trying to impose Democracy wasn't brilliant. On the other hand, there has to be some sensible middle ground between that and policy that seems oddly complacent in the face of a world that is, in many respects, more dangerous now than it was four years ago.

To take one example: Moderate Muslims, are fighting with Islamicists for the future of their societies. According to the New York Times, "One of the principal goals of the extremists... is to pressure these transitional governments to enact and enforce strict laws against blasphemy. These laws can then be used to purge secularists and moderates." With that in mind, it is hard to see the administration's response to the youtube video protests as either savvy or subtle.

Mitt Romney ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy and to the right of Gingrich and Perry. He is a tactician, not an ideologue. As a tactician, he tracked to the right in the primaries, and back to the center in the general. In the face of conservative pressure in the primaries, he refused to jeopardize his general electibility by dis-owning "RomneyCare". While that should have given conservatives pause, it should re-assure, moderates and liberals. As President, he can be expected to be more like Clinton than Obama: refusing to jeopardize his re-electability playing to the unpopular passions of his base (in Romney's case, for example by dismantling the safety net or bomb, bomb, bombing Iran).

Finally, a Romney win will strengthen moderate Republicans in the way that Clinton's victory strengthened, for a time, "Third Way" Democrats. This would be a good thing.

The Leopard and the Fox

Tonight's debate was a strange one. Romney, stuck precisely to the strategy he telegraphed, and the President had no response. It was like watching a great running back clinching a Super Bowl.

For Romney supporters, this debate was fun. "Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it" -- Zap! "you don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers." -- Pow! ": Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it." (after the Obama tried to get in the last word with "Jim, I — you may want to move on to another topic, but I would just say this to the American people...") -- Bam! "You've been president four years" -- Kapow! "we've gone on a lot of topics there, and so it's going to take a minute to go from Medicaid to schools... to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let's go through them one by one." -- Shazam! Obama supporters are critiquing Romney's lack of specifity, but he drowned Obama in a sea of First, Second and Thirds.

What is most strange, however, is that not long into the debate, neither the President, nor for that matter the moderator, seemed to want to be there. They seemed almost drugged. The President conveyed the clear sense that this debate didn't matter.

That may be the case. The debates closer to the election may matter much more or the number of votes sway-able by gaffe-free debates may be minimal. Or maybe Obama came prepared with a set of canned answers and was unready for the surprising level of back and forth the moderator allowed.

The First Debate

Strangely, Romney is being described as a strong debater. That hardly seemed to be the case in the primary debates, after which the anybody-but-Romney of the month received large bursts.

Romney's strength, and weakness, is that every word out of his mouth feels prepared and tested. Obama appears much stronger extemporaneously. In general, voters prefer boldness and authenticity. In this election, voters may appreciate a candidate who takes his homework seriously.

More strangely, Romney has telegraphed his debate strategy: "casting President Barack Obama as someone who can’t be trusted to stick to the facts or keep his promises". Unless the Romney campaign is more of a rolling calamity than suspected, this will prove to be a bit of psychological gamesmanship. Romney almost certainly understands that to win the debate he needs to visibly rattle the President.

In the end, the premise of the Romney's campaign is his competence and preparation. If an over-confident Obama veers off his own prepared script, a prepared Romney will be ready.

The Conservative Mind

David Brooks argues there used to be two kinds of conservatives: "economic conservatives" and "traditional conservatives", who sought "to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other". He believes Russell Kirk’s essay, “Ten Conservative Principles,” gives the flavor of this traditional conservatism.

1. The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription... that is, of things established by immemorial usage
4. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society

Brooks believes "traditional conservatism has gone into eclipse." He knows this because Republicans "almost always use the language of market conservatism" as opposed to "the language of social order" and because few conservatives would "be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class [or] use government to actively intervene in chaotic neighborhoods [or] who protest against... cut[ting] domestic discretionary spending to absurdly low levels."

His claims are mostly strange. For example, conservative politicians are probably not wrong to calculate that one wins votes by advancing personal freedom rather than social order. More fundamentally, there is a large jump from Kirk's principles to support for raising taxes to fund activist government programs. Or rather: it seems foolish to believe that the government we have is capable of pursuing activist policies in the spirit of "traditional conservatism".

A traditional conservative, in other words, would be less concerned with raising taxes and more concerned with school choice, federalism and de-unionizing government workers. Brooks reminds us that, by his own lights, he is not any sort of conservative.