The last entry, showing Julia at 67, really annoyed me:

Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she’ll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.

Really? We’re going to let Social Security remain unsound actuarially and allow it and other benefits for the elderly to bankrupt the country so “Julia” can volunteer in a community garden? I think that if “Julia” is healthy enough to be down on her hands and knees digging and weeding in the Summer sun, “Julia” can retire a couple of years later and help stave off national bankruptcy. [Note that the average sixty-seven year old woman has a life expectancy of eighteen years. "Julia" perhaps a bit longer, given her apparent health. Eighteen-plus years is an awfully long time to promise a healthy person he or she can retire on borrowed public money--which is probably why the president has said the age for social security should be on the table.]

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

I’m sure Clinton didn’t mean it the way it came out, but it’s embarrassing nevertheless.  As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, the country is in the best of hands.

UPDATE: Several early commenters suggest that Clinton’s comments were directed at GOP rhetoric in this campaign season.  That makes sense [better put, it makes Clinton's comments more comprehensible], but the questioner wasn’t asking about what one commenter suggested was the GOP’s “belligerent” rhetoric. Rather, he was clearly asking about both sides‘ rhetoric–I’ve now highlighted the “both sides”  in the original question so it’s clear what the questioner was saying: every campaign season we see both Republican and Democratic candidates [including, obviously, Pres. Obama] appealing to pro-Israel constituencies,  and then when they get into office we see they aren’t as hostile to Arab individuals as we thought, even though they still support the Arabs’ “enemy”.  “Don’t believe what you hear in campaigns” isn’t even the beginning of an adequate answer to that.

FURTHER UPDATE: Some commenters are also insisting that Clinton’s comments are directed at GOP rhetoric on Iran.  I don’t see any indication in either the question or the answer that Iran is under discussion.  Moreover, Iranians are not Arabs–I’m sure Clinton is aware of this–and the questioner references only Arab countries (Tunisia and Egypt) and the “common Arab on the street.” Indeed, it’s kind of odd that Clinton segues into a discussion of Muslims in the U.S.; the questioner didn’t suggest that the U.S. is hostile to Muslims, but to Arabs because the U.S. supports Israel.  I’m guessing that Clinton had some talking points she wanted to express, and tried to awkwardly shoehorn them into an answer to a question they weren’t responsive to.  So awkwardly, in fact, that when she tried to circle back to answer the question she wound up saying “don’t pay attention to anything American politicians say during campaign season.”

FINAL UPDATE: Even for those inclined to read Clinton’s comments in what they think of as charitably–I’m not inclined to think it’s “charitable” to suggest that rather than simply misspeaking, she,  in her capacity as Secretary of State in a foreign country, was actually implicitly attacking Republicans, one of whom may be the president soon–she still failed to address various nefarious ideas embedded in the question, including the idea that Israel is an enemy of the “common Arab citizen”, that American support for Israel implies a hostility to Arabs, and that U.S. support for Israel, rhetorical or otherwise, reflects the power of “Zionist lobbies” as opposed to a widespread consensus among Americans. Indeed, she seemed to (but I doubt meant to) suggest that Obama administration policies are actually a lot less pro-Israel than that might appear at first glance.

There was once a time when it was considered unseemly for even the most ambitious candidates to announce before the calendar year of the election. That’s one reason that John F. Kennedy waited until Jan. 2, 1960, to formally announce. George McGovern broke the mold by formally announcing on Jan. 18, 1971, which turned out to be the right strategy for a long-shot who needed plenty of time to organize. Jimmy Carter studied the McGovern campaign assiduously, and used its tactics, including the very early announcement, to win his own long-shot race in 1976.

So now, with almost everyone practicing McGovernism, the presidential campaign has been going hard for much of the pre-election year. If you want to know the history thus far, the just-published Election 2012: The Battle Begins is a strong choice. It’s written by Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon, and published by RealClearPolitics.com, the world’s best political website. Election 2012 is e-book only, and costs just $2.99. The ideal reader might be someone who lives abroad, is very interested in American politics, and only gets the limited coverage available from the International Herald Tribune, or foreign papers. In the United States, readers who are so fascinated with politics as to want to read a history of the election the year before the election will probably already know most of what’s in the narrative. Yet even those readers will find interesting details about the behind-the-scenes strategizing and the battles within the campaign staffs, especially for Gingrich, Bachmann, and Pawlenty. And the story of how Huckabee looked very seriously at a run, and then backed away. Readers will also learn about the inside of the Romney campaign, but not about behind-the-scenes turmoil, because this time around Mitt’s campaign is as smooth and unflappable as is Mitt himself while on a debate stage.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Obama is “anti-Israel.” But I think the NY Mag piece misses some significant elements of the puzzle. Obama made it clear during the 2008 campaign that he was anti-Likud. Likud happened to be the Israeli party in power when he came into office. This created several problems for Obama, some substantive and some for “optics.”

On the optics side, it’s pretty hard to be anti-Likud when the Likud is in power and not look like you are exhibiting some hostility to Israel.

Relatedly, on the substantive side, it’s pretty clear to me that the Obama Administration wanted to topple the Likud-led government so they could get a more dovish government more to their liking in power.

This led the Administration to publicly demand that Israel initiate a full settlement freeze, something the Palestinians themselves had never demanded [as a precondition to negotiations]. The strategy, as I see it, was that with a new extremely popular president Israel wouldn’t be able to say no, but Netanyahu’s coalition was too right-wing to say yes. So the government would have to fall, as Shamir’s did in the early ’90s in part because he couldn’t get along with the Bush Administration.

This proved a spectacular miscalculation. Netanyahu had a much broader coalition than Shamir’s, including the Labor Party. And Israel has become a major issue in conservative politics, which is was not twenty years ago. Pressure on Netanyahu invited pushback from the Republicans, leading Democrats to tell the president to ratchet it down. And again optics-wise, how often does the U.S. try to undermine the coalition governing one of its democratic allies?

Meanwhile, the Palestinians couldn’t demand less from the Israelis than Obama demanded, so they refused negotiations in the absence of a full settlement freeze. In interviews I’ve seen, Palestinian officials have been quite explicit that this is the reason they have been unwilling to negotiate with Israel. So Obama not only came off as anti-Israel to many friends of Israel, he also undermined what was left of the peace process.

Finally, with regard to domestic politics I pointed out repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that one of Obama’s weaknesses was that his entire adult life was spent in circles in which liberal/left views were taken for granted. In Obama’s circles, publicly pressuring Israel and using “evenhanded” language to refer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (while favoring Israel beneath the rhetorical surface) seems perfectly reasonable, even a bit “right-wing.” The JStreet types that are Obama’s natural constituency would certainly think so. (The mistaken assumption, pushed by JStreet itself, was that the average pro-Israel American was the equivalent of a JStreeter. This isn’t true, and to the extent it applies to some Jewish voters, the JStreeter types are almost all hardcore Democrats, not the swing voters/donors Obama is having trouble with.)

But in mainstream pro-Israel sentiment, especially among the more traditional Jewish communities on the East Coast, “evenhanded” sentiment sounds extremely suspicious, especially (lest we forget) given that Obama still faced suspicion thanks to his longstanding membership in a church with an arguably anti-Semitic and certainly anti-Israel minister. (Remarkably, Rev. Wright never comes up in the NY Mag piece).

In short, I think the Obama Administration took it for granted that pro-Israel Americans would understand Obama and his administration were pro-Israel, but were simply willing to pressure Israel for its own good, at the expense of the Likud and its allies but not Israel. Instead, what a lot of Americans thought they saw was the Administration pressuring Israel publicly but coddling the other side. The NY Mag piece suggests that the Administration was also pressuring the Arabs, but much more quietly. Perhaps, but you can only get away with that if folks trust your pro-Israel bona fides, which they did not with Obama.

The candidates’ answers were as follows:

Bachmann: Yes.

Cain: Yes.

Gingrich: Yes. Cooper v. Aaron‘s assertion of judicial supremacy was wrong. Following the precedent of the first Jefferson administration, I would abolish some federal judgeships. But I am not as bold as Jefferson. “I would do no more than eliminate Judge Barry in San Antonio and the ninth circuit. That’s the most I would go for. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE). But let me say this. That’s part of the national debate. That’s not a rhetorical comment. I believe the legislative and executive branches have an obligation to defend the constitution against judges who are tyrannical and who seek to impose un-American values on the people of the United States.”

Paul: No. Violence and murder should be dealt with by the states. The federal police are already too numerous. I support a bill to deprive lower federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion cases, so that state restrictions on abortion would be immune from judicial review.

Romney: No. I would focus on appointing judges who would return abortion regulation to the states. The George proposal “would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it’s reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That’s not something I would precipitate.”

Personally, I agree with the Romney approach. Moreover, the next President is going to have to address a fiscal crisis that will devastate the United States economy soon if it is not solved. Dealing with the fiscal crisis is going to be quite difficult politically, in part because there are many millions of people who benefit from the current, and unsustainable, levels of federal spending. The tax consumers may be very highly resistant to any reduction in the amount of money that flows to them. So there will be no shortage of national division and acrimony. Thus, 2013 would be an especially bad time to precipitate a constitutional crisis over a social issue. The answers of Romney and Paul displayed prudence, which I think is a very important characteristic for a President, and the answers of Bachmann, Cain, and Gingrich did not.

As for the Ninth Circuit, Gingrich has been saying the same thing since March, according to Politico. I have not found anywhere where he has provided details on this plan, but perhaps it would involve merging the 9th circuit states into the 8th and 10th circuits, since they border the 9th. The Politico article is not entirely clear, but it appears that Gingrich has claimed that he could get rid of the 9th circuit by signing an executive order. This would be plainly unconstitutional, a usurpation of power worthy of impeachment. Article III gives Congress, not the President, the power to “ordain and establish” the inferior federal courts. During the Jefferson administration, the Judiciary Act of 1802 repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, in which the lame duck Federalist Congress had created many new federal judgeships, to which President John Adams had appointed Federalists in the waning days of his administration. As President Jefferson recognized, the choice to eliminate federal judgeships belongs to Congress, not the President acting by himself. [Update: a commenter says the video (for which a link was not provided) shows that Gingrich was not claiming that he could abolish the 9th Cir. by executive order. I looked on the Internet, and did not find a video of the March 25 Iowa speech by Gingrich. There's a video of a speech earlier that month in Iowa, in which he criticizes the 9th cir. but does not call for its abolition.]

Unfortunately, answering this question is a lot tougher than the previous one about liberals. Libertarianism and liberalism are fairly coherent ideological movements. By contrast, “conservatism” is a hodgepodge of different ideologies united mainly by their opposition to the political left. George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, and Mike Huckabee are all considered conservatives. But they differ greatly from each other on both empirical issues and values. So too with neoconservatives, religious right social conservatives, and Burkean conservatives. Moreover, some conservatives are quite close to libertarians on most issues because they have a assimilated a great many libertarian ideas.

To make the question more tractable, I’m going to focus primarily on social conservatives who generally support free market policies on “economic” issues, while also supporting a high degree of “social” regulation. I recognize that this is far from the only type of conservatism out there. But it’s probably the most common one in the United States, especially among conservative intellectuals.

As with some libertarians and liberals, some social conservatives are purely utilitarian in their values. They support conservative policies because they think that will maximize human happiness. If a utilitarian libertarian and a utilitarian conservative could agree on empirical issues, their policy differences would disappear. They would then agree on both values and the best way to implement them. But pure utilitarianism is even less common among conservatives than among liberals and libertarians, possibly because many social conservatives are strongly religious and the major religions all incorporate many non-utilitarian values. Here are some issues where non-utilitarian conservatives will continue to disagree with libertarians even if the two groups could come to a consensus on empirics:

I. Nationalism.

Many, though not all, conservatives are nationalistic. By contrast, most libertarians are hostile to nationalism, usually for the kinds of reasons I outlined here. Some of these differences are traceable to disagreements over the empirical effects of nationalism. But not all of them. At the level of fundamental values, many nationalistic conservatives are willing to impose severe costs on foreigners for the purpose of securing significantly smaller benefits for members of their own polity.

This has important implications for issues like trade and immigration. Let’s assume that greatly expanded immigration creates huge net benefits for immigrants, but inflicts much smaller net costs on native-born Americans. Most libertarians would accept that tradeoff. After all, the freedom and utility of immigrants is, in their view, no less valuable than that of natives. And the majority of libertarians see immigration restrictions as infringements on liberty, not just utilitarian harms.

Not so with nationalistic conservatives. For example, conservative Harvard economist George Borjas wants to greatly reduce immigration in order to prevent what he estimates to be fairly modest wage reductions for low-skilled Americans, even though he realizes the enormous harm that would inflict on potential migrants. In a recent book, conservative scholar Edgar Browning explicitly states that immigration policy should be determined entirely without reference to the welfare of the immigrants themselves (which he views as an uncontroversial premise). Views like Borjas’ and Browning’s are quite common among nationalistic conservatives, though admittedly not universal.

What is true for immigration also holds for trade. The only difference is that fewer conservatives believe that free trade inflicts net harms on Americans than believe the same of immigration. Those who do believe that trade inflicts net harm on Americans tend to support protectionism entirely without reference to the impact on foreigners (Pat Buchanan is a good example).

Agreement on empirical issues surrounding immigration, trade and other such issues would eliminate libertarian-conservative differences only if conservatives came to believe that fully laissez-faire policies in these fields create net benefits for current American citizens.

II. Social Regulation.

Much of the libertarian-conservative disagreement over social and “morals” regulation comes down to disagreement over the empirical effects of such regulations. Elsewhere, I have criticized conservatives such as Robert Bork for ignoring the ways in which their empirical critiques of economic regulation apply to social regulation as well.

But empirical disagreements are not the only source of the conflict. Many conservatives believe that some forms of “immoral” behavior are intrinsically wrong even if legalizing them would increase happiness on net. For example, some argue that it is intrinsically wrong to gamble, take mind-altering drugs, engage in “unnatural” sex, or consume pornography. Conservatives who believe this might still be willing to support legalization if the harms of prohibition are great enough. That accounts for William F. Buckley’s and now Pat Robertson’s opposition to the War on Drugs. But the threshold level of harm needed to persuade social conservatives to support legalization is a lot higher than for libertarians.

The flip side is that many libertarians might still oppose social regulation even in cases where they agree that it creates net utilitarian benefits. They, after all, value social freedom for its own sake, not just because they think it increases happiness. Most libertarians might be willing to support regulation if they thought the utilitarian benefits were extremely large. If banning pornography were the only way to prevent a massive epidemic of rape, I would be in favor of it. But the threshold level of benefit would, for most libertarians, have to be pretty high. Certainly much higher than for most social conservatives.

III. Retribution.

Conservatives generally favor harsher punishments for criminals than libertarians do. This difference reflects various empirical disagreements between the two groups. But there’s also a difference in values. Conservatives are, on average, much more committed to the value of retribution than libertarians are. That’s a key reason why many libertarians, but almost no conservatives, favor moving the criminal justice system towards a model based on restitution rather than punishment (see this article by co-blogger Randy Barnett). Personally, I’m much more of a retributivist than most of my fellow libertarians. But my view is definitely in the minority among libertarian intellectuals.

I have not mentioned war and foreign policy in this post, largely because the issue deeply divides libertarians among themselves. I think that the internal division among libertarians (people who mostly share the same values) suggests that the divide between dovish libertarians and hawkish conservatives on these issues is also largely about empirics rather than values. However, it’s possible that the conservative commitment to nationalism also plays a role here.

Overall, a social conservative who came to agree with libertarians on empirical issues but not values would be more supportive of free trade and immigration and more skeptical of social regulation. But she might still differ with libertarians on these issues because of the conservative commitment to nationalism and nonutilitarian justifications for social regulation. Full convergence with libertarian policy positions would only occur if the conservative came to believe that social regulation inflicts very great harm and that free migration is a net benefit to Americans. Even then, we would still have the disagreement over retribution.

A libertarian who came to agree with social conservatives on empirical issues would endorse higher levels of social regulation and lower levels of immigration. But we would only see full convergence if the libertarian came to believe that the harm caused by laissez-faire was great enough to outweigh the nonutilitarian value he assigns to freedom.

UPDATE: For readers who may be interested, here’s a post I wrote about F.A. Hayek’s classic libertarian critique of conservatism that focuses on some of the same issues as this one, though it does not try to distinguish empirical issues from differences in values.

Fernando suggests that disagreement between liberals and libertarians would largely disappear if the two sides could agree on empirical facts. I think there is a lot of truth to this, but it’s not the whole truth. Agreement on empirics would greatly narrow the range of disagreement between libertarians and liberals, but some important differences would remain.

As I explained in this post, some libertarians are actually utilitarians: they support libertarianism purely because they believe that libertarian policies maximize happiness. Some liberals are utilitarians as well. If a utilitarian liberal and a utilitarian libertarian came to a consensus on empirical issues, they could also come to agreement on policy as well. The only thing that separates them is a disagreement over how best to achieve a common goal: maximizing happiness (I set aside, for the moment, the fact that there are different schools of utilitarianism that disagree over the definition of happiness).

Most libertarians and most liberals are not pure utilitarians. Similarly, few if any care only about alleviating poverty, the issue Fernando focuses on in his post. Here are some issues that would continue to divide libertarians and liberals who aren’t pure utilitarians even if they overcame their empirical disagreements:

I. Economic Liberties.

Most libertarians assign at least some intrinsic value to economic freedom over and above its instrumental benefits. Thus, they would be willing to sacrifice at least some utilitarian gains in order to preserve it. For example, I would oppose mandatory national service even if I were convinced that it would create substantial utilitarian benefits. Economic freedom is valuable enough to sacrifice some happiness for. Obviously, there are limits to the tradeoffs I and most other libertarians would accept in this regard. If a draft were the only way to prevent the conquest of the United States by a totalitarian dictatorship, I would (reluctantly) support it. However, most liberals assign little or no intrinsic value to economic liberty, and therefore would be reluctant to sacrifice even small utilitarian benefits to preserve it.

II. Income Inequality.

Just as most libertarians assign intrinsic value to economic liberty, many liberals assign intrinsic value to restrictions on income inequality. And they are willing to sacrifice at least some utilitarian benefits to achieve it. If, for example, we could greatly reduce income inequality at the price of a 1% reduction in average income for the middle class, many liberals would take the deal. Virtually no libertarians would, since they assign no intrinsic value to income equality at all.

III. Dignitary Wrongs.

Much liberal opposition to libertarian ideas such as organ markets and abolition of the minimum wage and minimum housing standards is due to disagreement over empirics. But not all of it. In discussing such issues with liberals, I often hear arguments such as the following: “Even if organ markets would make the poor better off, I still oppose them because it’s morally wrong for anyone to have to sell parts of their body in order to avoid poverty. It’s wrong to exploit the poor in that way.” Or this: “Even if abolishing minimum housing standards would improve the situation of poor tenants by enabling them to rent cheaper apartments, we as a society shouldn’t do it because such inadequate housing is morally unacceptable.” Liberals who reason in this way believe that some mutually beneficial economic exchanges should be forbidden because they create some sort of dignitary harm that outweighs their utilitarian benefits. Libertarians either discount such considerations entirely or at least believe they aren’t important enough to justify restricting individual freedom.

IV. Multiculturalism and Group Solidarity.

On average, both libertarians and liberals are much less nationalistic than conservatives. This is one of the points that unites the two groups. Nonetheless, many liberals do believe that membership in an ethnic or racial group can create some moral obligations, especially if that group has been the victim of oppression or discrimination. Liberal political philosophers such as Will Kymlicka argue that government should subsidize and otherwise promote minority cultures. Not all liberals assign intrinsic value to such group membership, but many do. To the extent that this is true, it’s a point of disagreement with libertarians that would persist even if the two groups agreed on empirics.

In sum, a liberal who came to agree with libertarians on empirical issues would favor a major reduction in the role of government in society. But he would still probably support more taxation and redistribution than libertarians do. He might also still favor banning some mutually beneficial economic transactions that create dignitary wrongs and support some government subsidization of minority cultures.

A libertarian who accepted the liberal view on empirical questions would come to endorse a lot more taxation and regulation. But he or she still would not support as much regulation as liberals do because of the countervailing intrinsic value of economic freedom. He also would still oppose government intervention in cases where the goal is purely to alleviate dignitary wrongs or subsidize some ethnic group’s culture for its own sake.

We could probably add a few other items to the above list. But I doubt that there would be many more that are of great importance. If so, this suggests that empirical disagreements are by far the most important points of dispute between liberals and libertarians, even if not the only ones. I would be thrilled to form a political coalition with the hypothetical liberal who retained his left-wing values but came to agree with libertarians on empirics. And I bet most liberals would be happy to ally with his libertarian analogue (the libertarian who adopts liberal positions on empirical questions while retaining his or her libertarian values). Empirical disputes, not values, are the main obstacle to a liberaltarianism.

That, however, does not mean that a liberaltarian alliance will be easy to forge. The empirical disagreements in question are extensive and deeply held. Moreover, most people don’t evaluate evidence on political issues with anything approaching unbiased objectivity. Worse, many have a tendency to believe that those who oppose them on empirical issues are actually motivated by abhorrent values or narrow self-interest. That makes agreement even more difficult to achieve than it would be otherwise.

UPDATE: Some of what I say about economic liberties in Point I above also applies to property rights. However, as I noted in this essay, many liberals do attach at least some intrinsic value to property rights, so the disagreement here is more focused on empirical questions than that over economic liberties. Liberals support more restrictions on property rights than libertarians do in large part because they disagree over the empirical effects of such restrictions.

Further, it has been interpreted extremely narrowly in the past. Indeed, there is a 1971 Opinion of the Wisconsin Attorney General that determined that a bill changing collective bargaining rights was not a fiscal statute under the constitution and did not require a three-fifths quorum. Thus the Republican senators do not need the presence of the Democrats to pass the most controversial parts of Wisconsin Senate Bill 11.

Here is the abstract:

Super Quorums under the Wisconsin Constitution

This essay takes a brief and preliminary look at the remedies available to the Wisconsin Senate to enact its 2011 proposed budget legislation without Democratic senators who fled the state in February 2011. Article VII, §8 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires a three-fifths quorum only for statutes that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state. Even then, these categories have consistently been interpreted in the most limited form conceivable.

For example, in State v. Stitt (1983), the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the issuance of short-term debt was not debt under Article VIII of the constitution and thus was not “fiscal” so as to trigger the three-fifths quorum and roll call requirements.

The Wisconsin attorney general in 1971 gave a formal opinion to the legislature that a bill that changed collective bargaining rights substantially was not fiscal in nature and was not subject to the three-fifths super quorum provision. Because collective bargaining rights and that very statutory chapter (ch. 111) are at the heart of the proposed Senate Bill 11, the most controversial portions of the bill could be passed constitutionally with just a simple majority of elected members present, without a three-fifths quorum.

Though some provisions in Senate Bill 11 are clearly fiscal – e.g., increasing appropriations for needy families, health care, and corrections – much of the bill is not fiscal. Even provisions that observers might reasonably assume to be fiscal are probably not fiscal under Wisconsin law, such as the rule that in the future employers can agree to pay no more than 88% of health care costs.

Because much of Senate Bill 11 is not subject to the three-fifths quorum, these portions could be separated from the rest of the bill and passed by majority vote in the presence of a simple majority of the elected Senators. With Republicans holding 19 of the Wisconsin Senate’s 33 seats, Republicans thus constitute a quorum to pass much of Senate Bill 11 without any Democratic Senators present or voting. The rest of the bill would have to await the return of the wandering Senators and the return of a three-fifths quorum.

Unless things change today, I will probably have an op-ed on this issue online within the next few hours.

UPDATE:

My op-ed on this issue is up at NRO.

The District Court’s decision has been extremely controversial. According to fans of the new decision — a group that happens to consist entirely of political opponents of the law — the new decision is a scholarly and profound application of longstanding constitutional principle. It is a masterful work that reflects a deep understanding of the core ideas on which our Constitutional order rests. To many opponents of the new decision, however, the District Court’s decision was simply political. The judge is basically a hack. His decision is a political position masquerading as a legal opinion, and it was written to try to fuel a political movement that the judge obviously supports.

Anyway, everyone seems to think the case is headed to the Supreme Court, so we’ll have to see how the Supreme Court rules. Stay tuned.

Post Script: Whether this post is about Judge Vinson’s decision this week striking down the new health care law, or, alternatively, Judge Walker’s August same-sex marriage decision striking down Prop 8 — or, perhaps, both — is left as an exercise for the reader.

19 of 25 U.S. Senate candidates endorsed by the NRA-Political Victory Fund won their races. The net gain is +7 votes (Ark., N.H., N.D., Oh., Penn., W.V., Wisc.) with no offsetting losses. 

After the 2008 elections, there were 43 Senators with an A rating from NRA, 2 with a B, 9 with a C, 12 with a D, and 34 with an F. The changes in the new Senate will be +7 A, +1 C, -7 D, and -1 F.

The 12 pro-gun Senate freshmen are:  John Boozman (Ark.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Rob Portman (Oh.), Pat Toomey (Penn.), Mike Lee (Utah), Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Ron Johnson (Wisc.).

In the U.S. House, 227 of the 283 endorsed by NRA-PVF won. 

After the 2008 elections, there were 226 Representatives with an A rating, 18 B, 14 C, 22 D-rated, 151 F, and 4 ? (had refused to answer questionaire). The new House will be +36 A, -7 B, - 1 C, -9 D, -16 F, – 3 ?.

There were 29 districts where the grade improved: AZ-1, AZ-5, AR-2, FL-8, FL-22, FL-24, ID-1, IL-8,IL-10, IL-14, IL-17, KS-3, MI-7, NV-3, NH-1, NJ-3, NY-13, NY-19, NY-24, NY-25, NY-29, NC-2, OH-1, OH-15, PA-3, PA-7, PA-8, SC-5 and WA-3. In 3 districts the grade declined: AL-7, HI-1 and LA-2.

The NRA identifies 86 pro-gun House freshmen:  Martha Roby (AL-2), Mo Brooks, (AL-5), Paul Gosar (AZ-1), Ben Quayle (AZ-3), David Schweikert (AZ-5), Rick Crawford (AR-1), Tim Griffin (AR-2), Steve Womack (AR-3), Jeff Denham (CA-19), Scott Tipton (CO-3), Cory Gardner (CO-4), Steve Southerland (FL-2), Rich Nugent (FL-5), Daniel Webster (FL-8), Dennis Ross (FL-12), Allen West (FL-22), Sandy Adams (FL-24), David Rivera (FL-25), Rob Woodall (GA-7), Austin Scott (GA-8), Raul Labrador (ID-1), Joe Walsh (IL-8), Adam Kinzinger (IL-11), Randy Hultgren (IL-14), Bobby Schilling (IL-17), Marlin Stutzman (IN-3), Todd Rokita (IN-4), Larry Bucshon (IN-8), Todd Young (IN-9), Tim Huelskamp (KS-1), Kevin Yoder (KS-3), Mike Pompeo (KS-4), Jeff Landry (LA-3), Andy Harris (MD-1), Dan Benishek (MI-1), Bill Huizenga (MI-2), Justin Amash (MI-3), Tim Walberg (MI-7), Chip Cravaack (MN-8), Alan Nunnelee (MS-1), Steven Palazzo (MS-4), Vicky Hartzler (MO-4), Billy Long (MO-7), Joe Heck (NV-3), Frank Guinta (NH-1), Charlie Bass (NH-2), Jon Runyan (NJ-3), Steve Pearce (NM-2), Michael Grimm (NY-13), Nan Hayworth (NY-19), Chris Gibson (NY-20), Richard Hanna (NY-24), Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25), Tom Reed (NY-29), Renee Ellmers (NC-2), Rick Berg (ND-AL), Steve Chabot (OH-1), Bill Johnson (OH-6), Steve Stivers (OH-15), Jim Renacci (OH-16), Bob Gibbs (OH-18), James Lankford (OK-5), Mike Kelly (PA-3), Pat Meehan (PA-7), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8), Tom Marino (PA-10), Lou Barletta (PA-11), Tim Scott (SC-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Trey Gowdy (SC-4), Mick Mulvaney (SC-5), Kristi Noem (SD-AL), Chuck Fleischmann (TN-3), Scott DesJarlais (TN-4), Diane Black (TN-6), Steve Fincher (TN-8), Bill Flores (TX-17), Quico Canseco (TX-23), Blake Farenthold (TX-27), Scott Rigell (VA-2), Rob Hurt (VA-5), Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Jaime Herrera (WA-3), David McKinley (WV-1), Sean Duffy (WI-7) and Reid Ribble (WI-8).

It is simply not tenable for public officials to portray themselves as courageous voices for fiscal sanity while simultaneously fencing off cuts and reforms for entitlements. This doesn’t argue for recklessness or doing everything all at once. And it certainly doesn’t mean promoting austerity at the expense of pro-growth economic policies. But it does mean one should not declare entitlement programs off-limits. We have to deal with them; there’s no way around it. So there’s no point in making things more difficult or making commitments that are contrary to the national interest. Those who do open themselves to the charge that they are fundamentally unserious on this matter.

We make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican party.  What they are is a second chance, a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.

Rubio’s right, but I fear many Republicans won’t view yesterday’s results this way.

House: +18.75

Governors: +.5

Constitutions: +4

Hawaii Gov. Dem. Abercrombie wins open seat, vacated by Linda Lingle. -75.

Undecided Governor races: Connecticut (potential +1), Repub. Foley leads by 3%, with 87% in. Florida (potential -1), Repub. Sink leads by 1% with 99% in. Minnesota open seat (potential -1), Mark Dayton leads by 1% with 90% in. Oregon (potential +1), Repub. Dudley leads by 2% with 81% in.

Undecided Senate races: Washington (potential +1), Murray (D, F) leads by 1% with 60% in. Colorado (potential +.5), Bennet (D, C) trails by 1% with 77% in. Alaska, Murkowski leading, with 51% in; all candidates are A-rated, but Republican Miller would probably be a more energetic activist.

Ill. Gov. Anti-gun incumbent Quinn hanging on, with 99% counted. Will make passage of licensed carry difficult.

Colorado State House of Representatives: Repubs. take control. So re-districting will be bi-partisan. Bad news for U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D, F), who needs a carefully-drawn district to win in 2012.

From Ben Smith @ Politico: Repubs. now fully control redistricting in Ind., Penn., Ohio, Ala., Mich, Wisc.  My view: RKBA effects unclear, because all those state have lots of strongly pro-2d Amendment Dems. But probably a net plus for RKBA.

Wash. 2. John Koster (R, A) unseats Rick Larsen (D, B-).

Big race on the cusp. Less than 8,000 votes separate Illinois Gov. candidates, with 97% in. If Republican Brady wins, Illinois will get concealed carry.

Ariz. right to hunt and fish: Nearly 90% of precincts in. Losing by 13%. I project defeat.

Minn. 8. Chip Cravaack (A, R) unseats long-term incumbent Jim Oberstar (D, B+). +.25

Conn. Gov. retraction: With 81% of precincts reporting, Republican Tom Foley leads Dem. Dan Malloy by 3%. Possible pro-gun pickup.

Colo. Atty. Gen. Repub. John Suthers re-elected. Fends off challenger who attacked him for filing amicus briefs  against gun control and health control.

Ohio Atty. Gen. Former U.S. Sen. Repub. Mike DeWine wins. Setback for 2d Amendment.

Ariz. 5. David Schweikart (R, A) beats incumbent Harry Mitchell (R, C-). +.5

Mich. 7. Tim Walburg (R, A) ousts Mark Schauer (R, B-).  +.25.

N.Y. 19. Nan Hayworth (R, A) defeats incumbent John Hall (D, F). +1

N.Y. 13. Mike McMahon (D, F) ousted by Mike Grimm (R, A). +1

The official name of R.I. is the “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.” Voters defeated a proposal to remove the second half of the name. As Brunonian, I am delighted.

N.H. 2. Charlie Bass (R, A) wins open seat vacated by Paul Hode (D, A-).

R.I. Gov. Independent Lincoln Chafee wins open seat. -1

Wash. 3. Open seat of retiring Brian Baird (B in 2008). Won by Jaime Herrera (R, A). +.25 

Nev. Senate: Reid wins. Given a Democratic Senate, very good new for gun owners. Without Reid, the Majority Leader would have been Charles Schumer or Richard Durbin, either of them would be the first Majority Leader who was not only anti-gun, but strongly motivated and well-informed on the issue. Presuming that Reid is re-elected as Majority Leader, this means that both houses of Congress will have pro-gun leadership.

Ill. Sen. Mark Kirk (R, F) wins. Sponsored an “assault weapons” ban in the current Congress. Will be only strongly anti-gun Senator in GOP caucus. At least he’s a staunch critic of United Nations malfeasance.

Right to hunt and fish trailing in Arizona, 56-44. One million votes counted so far.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R, B) ousts Ted Strickland (D, A+). Kasich voted wrong on the “assault weapon” ban in 1994, now claims to have seen the light. -.25

Ark. 2. Tim Griffin (R, A) takes open seat vacated by Vic Snyder (D, F in 2008). +15.25 

 Ohio 15. Steve Stivers (R, A) takes the seat from Mary Jo Kilroy (D, F). +1

 Ohio 1. Steve Chabot (R, A) ousts Steve Driehaus (D, D). +1

 Kan. 3. Dennis Moore (D, F in 2008) is retiring. His wife, Stephene Moore (?) was defeated by Kevin Yoder (R, A). +1

 Conn. Gov. Dan Malloy (D, F) wins. Replaces term-limited Jodi Rell (R, F).

Penn. Senate. Pat Toomey (R, A) wins. Replaces inconsistent Arlen Specter. +.5

Great idea now circulating on Twitter: Replace Eric Holder with Russ Feingold.

Mo. 4. House Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton (D, A) defeated by Vicky Jo Hartzler (R, A).

Fla. 8. Allen West (R, A) unseats Ron Klein (D, F). +1

 N.C. 2. Incumbent Bob Etheridge (D, D) narrowly beaten by Renee Ellmers (R, A). +1

 Cal. Gov. Jerry Brown (D, D+) defeats Meg Whitman (R, C+). No net change from outgoing Gov. Schwarznegger.

Ill. 14. Randy Hultgren (R, A-) vs. unseates Bill Foster (D, D). +1.

 Penn. 8: Repub. Mike Fitzpatrick (R, A) ousts Patrick Murphy (D+). Congratulations to the Snowflakes team! +1

 S.C. 5: House Budget Chairman John Spratt (D, D) defeated by Mick Mulvaney (R, A). Good for 2d Amendment, and the public fisc. +1

Ill. 17. Bobby Schilling (R, A) takes the seat from Phil Hare (D, F). +1

Louisiana. Joseph Cao (R, C) unseated by Cedric Richmond (D, F). First net loss of the evening. -.5

Republicans take State House of Representives in Pennsylvania. Good news for RKBA.

South Carolina and Arkansas Constitutions: Right to hunt and fish amendments have been declared winners. Still awaiting results from similar amendment in Arizona.

Penn. 7. Joe Sestak’s open seat is taken by Pat Meehan (R, A). +1

Kansas Constitution: ”Shall the state amend its Constitution to include an individual right to bear arms?” With 19% of precincts reporting, the question leads 87% to 13%. I project that it will win.

Wisc. Sen.  Ron Johnson (R, A) unseats Russ Feingold (D, C). Feingold has been a great leader on many civil liberties issues. I hope he finds a way to stay on the national scene. +.5

N.J. 3. Jon Runyan (R, A) unseats John Adler (D, D). +1

Wisc. Gov. Scott Walker (R, A) wins open seat. Very important. Means that Wisconsin has a very good chance of enacting licensed carry next year.

Penn. 3. Kathy Dahlkemper (D, C) unseated by Mike Kelly (R, A). +.5

Tennessee Constitution. With over half the precincts in, the right to hunt and fish amendment to the state constitution is leading 90% to 10%. I hereby declare it a winner.

Penn. Gov. Tom Corbett (R, A) wins, replacing the retiring Ed Rendell. +1 

N.H. 1. Frank Guinta (R, A) unseats Carol Shea-Porter (D, F).

Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick re-elected. Unfortunate.

Kan. Gov. Sam Brownback (R, A) wins. Replaces the Lt. Gov. who succeeded Sebelius and who did not run. +5.

Fla. 2. Alan Southerland (R, A) beats incumbent Alan Boyd (D, D).

N.D. Sen. John Hoeven (R, A) takes seat held by retiring Byron Dorgan (D, D+). +1

Mich. Gov. Rick Snyder (R, refused to answer NRA questionaire) defeats F-rated Dem.

Tenn. Gov. Mike Haslam (R, B-) defeats Mike McWherter (D, C-).

Ark. Gov. Incumbent Mike Beebe (D, A-) beats Jim Keet (R, B+).

Fla. 8. Daniel Webster (R, A) defeats Alan Grayson (D, B). +.25.

W.V. Sen. Manchin (D, A) wins. Takes the seat of the late Robert Byrd. +1

Conn. Sen. Blumenthal (D, F) wins, replacing Chris Dodd. Will be even more of an anti-gun leader.

Ark. Sen. Boozman (R, A) defeats Blanche Lincoln (D, D+). +1.

Fla. 24. Suzanne Kosmas (D, F-rated) loses. +1.

N.H. Gov. Lynch (Dem, C-rated by NRA) re-elected.

Fla. Rubio (R) win. Keeps seat pro-gun.

Missouri. Blunt (R) defeats Carnahan. Keeps seat in pro-gun hands.

N.H. Ayotte (R) wins. Improvement over retiring Judd Gregg (R). +.5

Ohio: Portman (R) defeats former Handgun Control, Inc., board member Lee Fisher. Will replace usually-anti George Voinovich. +1

Kentucky: Rand Paul wins. Replaces retiring Jim Bunning. Will probably be more of a leader on the issue than Bunning was.

Indiana. Dan Coats (R) wins. When previously in the Senate, was sometimes good, but not always. Dem. Brad Ellsworth would have been better. Retiring Sen. Evan Bayh was always bad. +5.

Vermont. Pat Leahy (D) re-elected. Much better to have him as chair or ranking member of Judiciary than Herb Kohl.

Besides the candidate races, there are five important ballot issues. Kansas will be voting on whether to restore the individual right to keep and bear arms to state constitution, undoing the judicial nullification in Salina v. Blaksley (1905). Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee will decide whether to give explicit constitutional protection to the right to hunt and fish.

The Washington Examiner has this useful guide to some of the key races, organized by when the polls close. Some early races to watch, all of them with poll closings at 7 pm. eastern time:

Peninsular Florida, eastern time zone: 22d district (incumb. Dem. Ron Klein) and 24th (incumbent Dem. Suzanne Kosmos), both terrible on gun rights, and both facing pro-gun opponents. 8th District, where incumb. Dem. Alan Grayson has a B rating from the NRA, but his opponent Daniel Webster has an A (and Grayson’s outrageous incivility provides a non-ideological reason to hope for his defeat).

Indiana, central time zone (polls close at 6 p.m. locally). Open seat, with Dem. Brad Ellsworth (perfect record on Second Amendment) vs. Repub. Dan Coats (uneven record). Either would be superior to retiring Evan Bayh, and Coats has a huge lead in the polls.

South Carolina. 5th District, House Budget Chairman John Spratt. By far the most senior and powerful anti-gun congressman who is at serious risk, among the early poll closings.

Virginia, 11th Dist. Incumbent Dem. Gerry Connolly appears to have a tighter race than expected. Michael Bloomberg has been spending heavily on Connolly’s behalf recently. Conventional wisdom says that Connolly survives a wave, but not a tsunami.

Further information on the gun issue in the 2010 election is available in my guides to the House races and the Senate races.

The explanation is simple. “Americans United for Safe Streets” is not a grassroots organization of united Americans. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, of the $502,000 which the group raised in 2008, $500,000 came from Michael Bloomberg.

By the way, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” The laws for selling guns at gun shows are exactly the same as for selling guns anywhere else. The gun show bill which Bloomberg has been pushing in the current Congress is loaded with provisions unrelated to background checks at gun shows–such as authorizing the federal government to create a central registry of sales by federally licensed dealers from those dealers’ retail storefronts.

NRA Senate endorsements in 2010: 23 Republicans, 2 Democrats.

NRA House endorsements in 2010: 197 Republicans and 61 Democrats.

There were 251 Congresspersons who signed the pro-Second Amendment incorporation congressional amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago. Of the signers, 81 were House Democrats, and 19 were Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid.

A top NRA priority in Congress is H.R. 2296, to reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.  Of the 243 cosponsors, 76 are House Democrats.

Another NRA-favored bill is H.R. 442, the “Veterans’ Heritage Firearms Act,” would create an amnesty period to allow the registration of war trophies (e.g., an automatic rifle captured from the North Vietnamese Army) that were brought into the United States between 1934 and 1968. There are 211 cosponsors, 66 of whom are House Democrats.

The bill that would have the most significant practical effect for most gun owners is H.R. 197, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act .” Sixty-five House Democrats are among the 209 cosponsors.

Early in the Obama adminisration, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the 1994 ban on so-called “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which sunset in 2004, should be re-enacted. Sixty-five Democratic Congressmen signed a letter to the Attorney General, opposing a new ban. In addition, Ike Skelton, the Missouri Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, sent a separate letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer expressing his opposition to the Attorney General’s remarks. The show of Democratic opposition demonstrated that there was no chance that a ban could pass Congress.  Since then, Attorney General Holder has not made any public statements in favor of gun bans. 

As the numbers above illustrate, Democrats constitute an indispensible part of the pro-Second Amendment majority of the current Congress. Without the NRA’s strong working relationship with so many Democrats, 2009-10 would have seen the enactment of destructive legislation for gun rights, rather than the constructive legislation which has become law.

Some typical examples of the claim: The 2006 book Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run ‘em Out, written by Democratic political strategists Steve Jarding, Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, and Bob Kerrey (p. 258 “The NRA–Now Republican Altogether,” part of long attack on the NRA with numerous factual errors). From the head of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, approvingly quoted in The American Prospect. From the head of the Kentucky AFL-CIO. In a column on the Lew Rockwell website. From Handgun Control, Inc. (which later renamed itself “the Brady Campaign”).

But this year, the NRA is endorsing Democrats all over the country. Ohio’s major pro-Second Amendment organization is the Buckeye Firearms Association, and both BFA and NRA have endorsed Ohio Democratic Governor Ted Strickland for re-election. As they should, since he compiled a perfect voting record when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives, and as Governor, has taken a leadership role in protecting the right to arms and promoting the shooting sports. The Republican nominee, John Kasich, provided the crucial vote in 1994 that resulted in the enactement of the Clinton ban on so-called “assault weapons” (19 guns by name, 200 more by generic definition, and all magazines holding more than 10 rounds).

Likewise, many of the Blue Dog Democrats who hold the balance of the power in the current U.S. House of Representatives have perfect or near-perfect voting records, and have helped enact positive legislation–such as allowing firearms carry in National Parks under the same conditions that carry is allowed in the rest of a particular state, and changing the federal statute on switchblade knives so as to thwart the Obama administration’s proposal to administratively ban the import of about 3/4 of folding knives.

So now, some Republican activists are furious that the NRA is endorsing Democrats. (The Sept. issue of The American Spectator covers the controversy, and includes some quotes from me.) Well, if you follow the advice of people who insist that the only candidates who can be endorsed are hard-right Republicans, then when you face (as in 2009) a Congress with an overwhelming Democratic majority, blocking anti-gun legislation will be extremely difficult, and passing constructive laws will be close to impossible.

From the very earliest days of the NRA, which was founded in 1871, the Association has understood that preservation of Second Amendment rights depends on broad support across the political spectrum. Shortly after Republican Ulysses Grant finished serving his second term as President of the United States of America in 1877, he was elected President of the National Rifle Association of America. In  1880, another Union hero of the Civil War, General Winfield Scott Hancock, became the Democratic nominee for President. Had he won the swing state of New York, he would have been inaugerated President of the USA in March 1881. Instead, in 1881 the NRA chose Hancock as its own President.

Civil liberties organizations which tie themselves exclusively to one party put liberty at risk. In a two-party system, it is inevitable that each party will dominate some of the time. Civil liberties are safer in the long run when they have friends in both parties, and when those friends know that civil liberty organizations will reciprocrate their support, especially during tough elections.

New Hampshire, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota are guaranteed gains for Second Amendment supporters, regardless of which party wins.

The most important races, from a right to arms viewpoint, are Connecticut, New York (Gillibrand), Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Washington, and California.

A Democratic-controlled Senate in 2011 with a Majority Leader other than Harry Reid could well be more problematic for Second Amendment rights, even though the total number of pro-rights Senators would have increased.

It’s an amazing result given the history of Delaware politics. The contrast couldn’t be more stark. Mike Castle is a very popular politician statewide, and he has been in office for decades. Like Bill Roth, Joe Biden, and Tom Carper, he is a politician that Delaware general election voters decided they liked and were happy to keep reelecting pretty much forever. In contrast, O’Donnell has been a considered a bit of a comic figure in Delaware politics. Just two years ago, she ran unopposed for the opportunity to lose to Biden in the Delaware Senate race and was trounced 65% to 35% in the general election. And since then, it has been increasingly clear that she has, um, personal integrity issues.

But the voters have spoken, and the message seems clear enough. Given Castle’s popularity statewide, and O’Donnell’s lack thereof, this seems to be a case of Delaware GOP primary voters deciding that they would rather very likely lose the general election with a candidate that they identify with than very likely win with a candidate too moderate for their tastes.

UPDATE: I’m reminded of this very funny Mike Castle appearance on the Colbert Report. Worth watching.

ANOTHER UPDATE: In the comment thread, Leo Marvin raises the significant possibility that O’Donnell supporters see O’Donnell as a viable candidate in the general election. That’s certainly possible, and I should have made that clearer in the post. In support of that hypothesis, there’s a very interesting poll result from an April poll of Tea Party enthusiasts in which they were asked this question:

Do you think the views of the people involved in the Tea Party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans, or not?

84% answered “yes,” and only 8% said “no.” (see page 32)

The article goes on to argue that such panic is unwarranted, as the recent polls merely reflect the movement of swing voters from the Democrats to the GOP, not a fundamental shift in political alliances by the great bulk of voters.

Maybe the DNC had some other reason to want survey voters in my district, but if, as the call suggests, the Democrats are worried about whether Moran is vulnerable, panic must be really setting in.

I see a few positives in a Thomas candidacy. As Hill and Lat point out, Thomas is smart, eloquent, and has significant libertarian leanings. A black Republican presidential nominee might also have great symbolic value, even despite (or perhaps because of) Obama’s historic breakthrough.

Nonetheless, there are very strong arguments against a Thomas run that easily outweigh the positives. First, it would surely reopen the whole issue of Anita Hill’s sexual harassment charges. Whether you think that Hill was telling the truth or not, there is no doubt that the press and public opinion would focus on this issue. It would quickly become an immense distraction, and greatly reduce Thomas’ chances of winning.

On this point, Hill and Lat say only that Thomas “has already survived the nasty political attacks that marked his 1991 confirmation hearings.” He survived them in the sense that he (just barely) got confirmed. But the charges continue to dog Thomas to this day, and a presidential campaign would surely reopen this can of worms. It would have an immensely polarizing effect, and make it more difficult for Thomas to appeal to constituencies that aren’t already predisposed in his favor. We got a foretaste of what might happen when the Hill issue resurfaced three years ago when Thomas published his memoir. That controversy, of course, was nothing compared to what would happen if Thomas became a serious presidential contender.

The second argument against a Thomas run is even more important: he would have to resign from the Supreme Court and Barack Obama would get to pick his successor. I have been very critical of Thomas’ positions on several issues (e.g. – here). On balance, however, he has been one of the most libertarian and originalist justices, and I would be sorry to lose him.

Right now, the Court has a narrow 5-4 conservative majority. If Obama replaces Thomas with a liberal, the balance would flip. Hill and Lat (who is a conservative himself) try to minimize this risk by arguing that “[t]hus far, Obama has not nominated hard-core liberals to the court; his recent choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan disappointed many on the left.” I remain unpersuaded. Obama’s first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has turned out to be a reliable liberal vote. Given her previous record, this should not have been a surprise; on several key issues, such as property rights, she was actually somewhat further to the left than the rest of the liberal bloc on the Court.

Elena Kagan may turn out to be slightly less liberal than the other potential nominees Obama was considering. Still, she is likely to vote with the liberal bloc on most major issues, and is certainly far more liberal than Thomas. The same is likely to be true of any justice Obama nominates to replace Thomas. That nominee may be a bit less liberal than Sotomayor. But he or she will still support the liberals on most issue and will still be very far from Thomas’ positions. This is especially likely if, as expected, the Democrats retain control of the Senate after the November elections.

Hill and Lat also contend that Thomas could make up for the loss of his seat by appointing conservative justices to replace liberal ones if he wins in 2012. However, the combination of an improving economy and the Anita Hill issue will make it difficult for Thomas to beat Obama that year. If circumstances arise that do make a Thomas victory possible, they would also make a win by a different Republican nominee at least equally feasible. If any Republican other than Thomas wins in 2012, he could both hold Thomas’ seat and replace whatever liberal justices happen to retire during his term.

There are other aspects of Thomas’ record and personality that might impede his candidacy. For example, he does not seem to be a person comfortable with the constant glare of media attention that surrounds a presidential campaign. Quotations from his many forceful Supreme Court opinions would probably provide good fodder for clever attack ads (especially if taken out of context).

In sum, a Thomas presidential candidacy strikes me as a bad idea. The only people likely to benefit are liberals who would welcome the opportunity to replace Thomas with an Obama nominee, and anyone who would enjoy relitigating the Thomas-Hill controversy.

On the House Agriculture Committee, which holds sway over farm policies and subsidies, members had farming and agribusiness investments worth five times on average the amount held by other colleagues in the House. Many of the committee members’ holdings were in family farms. Nothing prevents those members from also receiving farm subsidies, and in the past, some have.

Likewise, House Energy and Commerce Committee members, who routinely hold hearings about telecommunications and computer issues, had heavier than average investments in companies such as Oracle, Nokia, AT&T and Verizon.

House Homeland Security Committee members also had more communications and electronics holdings as a group than the House as a whole, and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members as a group owned almost six times more holdings in transportation firms.

In the Senate, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee had on average almost twice the value of holdings in finance, insurance and real estate as that chamber as a whole. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members had almost three times the value of agribusiness holdings as their colleagues on other committees.

As the story notes, judges must recuse themselves from cases involving any firms in which they hold investments, even if the investments are quite small. No equivalent rule applies to legislative officials.

First of all, the annual meeting grown from “large” to “enormous.” This year’s convention drew 72,128 NRA members. It’s now so big that relatively few US cities have convention facilities that can accommodate it. The 2010 meeting was the largest event ever held in the city of Charlotte, and the people of Charlotte were very welcoming, and the facilities were well-run.

The Exhibit Hall, where manufacturers of firearms, hunting gear, and related accessories show off their products to consumers, was a three mile walk, if you went through each row. The shooting industry’s annual trade show (SHOT — Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades) is even bigger, but you have to be a firearms retailer, or otherwise engaged in the firearms business, in order to be able to attend SHOT. So for most persons, the NRA exhibit hall is the best opportunity ever to examine products close up, talk to manufacturer’s representatives, and so on. As has become the norm in recent years, the exhibit hall was so full most of the day Saturday that it was difficult to walk at more than a slow space. (Friday and Sunday were easier.)

Traditionally, the highlight (at least for me) has been the annual members’ banquet on Saturday evening. Last year in Phoenix, the banquet set the record as “the largest meal ever served in the state of Arizona.” Even then, there were many people who wanted to attend, but could not get tickets. So this year, the banquet was replaced by an evening event at the nearby basketball arena (the Time-Warner Cable Center), which drew 11,754 to hear a Charlie Daniels concert, plus speeches by Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich, as well as by NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre.

A notable addition in recent years is the Friday afternoon “Celebration of American Values” leadership forum. This too took place at the basketball arena. As Jim Geraghty of National Review Online reported, the event now serves as a cattle call for politicians who may have national ambitions.  Speakers this year included Sarah Palin, John Thune, Haley Barbour, and Mike Pence, plus North Carolina Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler. The CAV is a relatively recent addition to the Annual Meeting. Because the Saturday banquet can only accommodate one or two headline speakers, the CAV provides NRA with an additional opportunity to build relationships with leading political figures.

New media were present, with NRA staff twittering the convention for the first time, plus the now-established events for the dozens of “gun bloggers” who attend. The most prominent “new media” at the convention was NRA News, the NRA’s satellite radio program which airs three hours every weekday on Sirius (and, starting today, also on XM) as well as on the Internet. NRA News had a studio on the convention floor, and broadcast nearly round the clock over the weekend. [For NRA News video of the weekend's speeches, go the NRA News website, and then look in the video archives for May 14 or 15.]

The Continuing Legal Education seminar at the Annual Meeting has been in operation for about a decade and half, a Friday program that provides hundreds of lawyers with eight hours of low-cost CLE, and greatly helps to expand the number of lawyers who have the knowledge to handle firearms cases–whether the case is an administrative law issue for a licensed firearms dealer, or a constitutional defense.

Among the interesting presenters at the CLE was Stephen Halbrook, discussing his draft article for the Northeastern Law Review symposium, in which he commented on this passage in Chicago’s brief (p. 19, n. 9) in McDonald: incorporation “would raise questions whether a weapon generally in common use for lawful purposes in one locale (such as a high-powered hunting rifle with precision sighting equipment popular in rural Illinois) must be allowed elsewhere, precluding a ban on use by Chicago gangs seeking to assassinate rivals.”

Stated another way, Chicago wants the legal option to ban ordinary rifles used for hunting deer and other big game. Rifles which, by the way, are currently owned by Chicago residents, and are lawfully used by them for hunting and target shooting. Chicago’s argument certainly refutes the notion that nobody in the gun control movement wishes to ban hunting long guns.

Throughout the three days of the convention, there are seminars on all kinds of topics, from hunting to self-defense to firearms history. The one I attended was Sniper: Myths and the Media & Winning the Sniping War in Iraq. Major John Plaster gave a very interesting presentation on the sniper war in Iraq from 2004 to 2008, perhaps the most extended sniper conflict in the history of warfare. He explained how the Iraqi insurgents nearly won that conflict in 2005-06, and how the U.S. forces finally turned the tide by changing their tactics, and bringing in substantial additional resources, including forensics teams who could lift fingerprints from recovered insurgent guns.

But the main reason I went was for the other speaker, Stephen Hunter, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist from the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. Now retired from newspapers, Hunter is a novelist, and in his most recent mystery-adventure novel, I, Sniper, I am a very minor character. It’s the first time I have ever appeared in a novel, so like a Pirandello character in search of his author, I made sure to say hello to him, and get him to sign my book.

In sum, the NRA Annual Meeting showcased an organization that is strong and getting stronger, largely because of its increasing ability to mobilize the grassroots. Twentyfive years ago, if you joined the NRA, you got a monthly magazine, plus direct mail requests for additional donations, and occasional legislative alerts. Now, the NRA is in touch with its members daily (at least the members who want daily updates) via NRA News, the website, e-mails, blogs, and so on. As the Annual Meeting continues to scale up, the organizers are doing a solid job of giving members the opportunity not only to be part of very large crowds, but also to participate in smaller events with one-on-one conversations.

Throughout the meeting, at event after event, the key word was not “rifle” or “gun.” In Charlotte, as at every convention for at least the last ten years, the word was “American.” This is reflected in part in the genuine veneration which the NRA, at all levels, has for the American armed forces. The NRA membership and staff have a high proportion of military veterans, and at any convention event, a call-out to the active duty soldiers typically leads to a standing ovation.

But more broadly, the NRA considers itself the embodiment of American patriotism, as the direct descendant of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. This isn’t a point about constitutional originalism, but it is a point about four million people who have never thought that it was uncool to be patriotic, and who very much see themselves as carrying forward the sacred flame of liberty that was lit in 1776, was fought for on the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal, and which is based on eternal truth.

Like any social and political movement, the NRA at times defines itself as oppositional–as resisting “the anti-gun mainstream media,” or Bill Clinton, or Michael Bloomberg. But the National Rifle Association of America is incapable of being oppositional to America itself, or of imagining itself to be countercultural. Founded in 1871 by Union army officers, and led in its early days by bipartisan Union Generals (such as retired U.S. President U.S. Grant, a Republican; and Winfield Scott Hancock, “the hero of Gettysburg” and the 1884 Democratic presidential nominee), the NRA has always defined itself as the mainstream of America. Probably the only civic organization whose membership has included more U.S. Presidents than the NRA is the Boy Scouts–and that’s because the Boy Scouts make every U.S. President into their honorary President. In short, Whig history is alive and well at the NRA, and based on the present and past successes of NRA in shaping American culture as a gun culture, that view of history cannot be said to be inaccurate.

As Politico‘s Ben Smith comments,”This isn’t lobbying, technically, but from PhRMA’s perspective, it’s an interesting way to reward a powerful legislator for furthering your corporate interest.”  I think the ad also suggests that analysts should not be so quick to assume that Citizens United will benefit Republicans more than Democrats.  Heavily regulated industries have tremendous incentives to curry favor with their regulators (and those who hold the regulators’ purse strings), so one should not assume that corporate political spending will tilt right.

Asked about what areas the President’s deficit reduction commission should focus on, the bloggers split. A hundred percent of the Left, and 50% of the Right (including me) wanted the commission to consider defense budget cuts. Huge majorities of the Right, and 36-46% of the Left wanted consideration of cuts in domestic discretionary spending, social security, and medicare. (I was for considering cuts in all these.) Eighty-seven percent of the Left, but only 37% of the Right, wanted consideration of tax increases. I favored an alternative approach: “Instead of tax increases, elimination of corporate welfare could raise a great deal of new revenue.”

p.s. Readers looking for good ideas on corporate welfare cuts could start with this collection of materials, from my colleagues at the Cato Institute.

Since the 1990’s, the Christian Right has sought to replace the traditional American separation of church and state with the notion that the U.S. was actually created as a “Christian Nation” in which Christianity was intended to receive favored treatment by government policy. The most startling recent expression of this view was last month’s decision by the Texas School Board to remove Thomas Jefferson—the symbol of America’s tradition of religious freedom and tolerance—from the states’ history curriculum.

The report is accurate in that some (although hardly all, or necessarily most) supporters of the “Christian Right” believe that the government should favor Christianity over other religions. Most of the Christian Right does believe, as did Chief Justice Rehnquist, that in some circumstances the government may favor religion over irreligion. See Wallace v. Jaffrey (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from decision to declare moment of silence in schools unconstitutional).

The report’s description of the Texas State Board of Education (not the “Texas School Board”) is inaccurate. Under the new  proposed standards, Jefferson is part of the required curriculum for 5th grade American History, 8th grade American History, and the high school class in U.S. Government. He was removed from the standards for World History class, because the Texas State Board thought that he should not be included among “European Enlightenment philosophers.” In the 8th grade American History class, not only is Jefferson required, so is his good friend, the famous enemy of organized religion, Thomas Paine. Only George Washington appears in the Texas curriculum standards more often than does Jefferson.

Item 2 in The Democratic Strategists’ parade of horribles is the lawsuits against Obamacare:

The basis for such suits—typically a denial of the power of Congress to legislate economic matters under the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the U.S. Constitution—is automatically and unavoidably a collateral attack on the constitutionality of a vast array of past legislation, including most New Deal/Great Society programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

The word “basis” has a footnote cite to an article by Matthew Yglesias. The Yglesias article criticizes the notion that  Commerce “among the several States”  should be “understood as basically about transporting goods across state lines.” Yglesias points out: “the Louisiana Purchase, the Bank of the United States, Henry Clay’s ‘American System,’ a transcontinental railroad, land grant colleges, etc. And in particular since the New Deal the commerce clause has always been understood as granting wide-ranging authority to regulate the national economy.” True enough in a broad sense (although most of Yglesias’s 19th century examples do not involve the interstate commerce power). So if the lawsuits were premised on the idea that the federal power over interstate commerce extends only to the sale of goods across state lines, The Democratic Strategist’s warning would be apt.

However, if you read the complaints filed by Virginia and by the 18-state coalition led by Florida, there is no argument against the interstate commerce power as it existed on March 1, 2010. Rather, the complaints argue against an unprecedented expansion of the interstate commerce power: namely the purported power to force an individual to purchase a product he does not want to purchase, and an unprecedented use the tax code to punish someone for choosing not to purchase a product.

While the cases do complain about changes in the state funding formula for Medicaid, they never question the constitutionality of Medicaid itself. Thus, an attack on Obamacare is not “automatically and unavoidably a collateral attack” on even an iota of the New Deal and the Great Society. As I have previously detailed, finding the Obamacare mandate and its associated tax to be unconstitutional does not require overturning, or even questioning, a single precedent in existing Supreme Court law.

The third and final item in the parade of horribles:

The Republican revolt against any cooperation with Democratic legislation and initiatives has carried an extraordinary number of conservatives into a general attitude of defiance towards the rule of law itself and flirtation with constitutional doctrines of state nullification and succession. These doctrines were developed as arguments for state sovereignty by the Confederacy in the civil war era and as 1950′s and 1960′s era segregationist strategies to thwart desegregation and civil rights for African-Americans. [And, later in the document:] Let them bring it on with all the segregation-era legal strategies of succession and nullification.

Well, not exactly accurate. First, the doctrine of “succession” describes how Barack Obama became President after George W. Bush. One of the first uses of the constitutional doctrine of succession was when John Adams became President after George Washington.

The doctrine of “secession” long predated the Confederacy. It was advanced by, among others, some New Englanders who wanted to leave the Union during the War of 1812, by Southerners who advocated the right when objecting to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, and by some persons at the very end of 18th century who feared that President Adams was moving the country towards dictatorship. Thomas Jefferson, in his 1798 letter “Patience and the Reign of Witches,” counseled against secession as response to “a temporary superiority of the one party,” notwithstanding the “oppressions of enormous public debt. . . . Better keep together as we are. . . If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, & then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost . . . .”

The Democratic Strategist rightly reveres the great Thomas Jefferson, so it is surprising that TDS does not know (or, at least, does not acknowledge) that the constitutional doctrine of nullification was first articulated by Jefferson himself, in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798. As Jefferson put it, “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, articulated the milder doctrine of Interposition, in the Virginia Resolution, declaring that the states “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

The Democratic Strategist affirms “that the Democratic Party proudly upholds the traditional American view of the constitution—the view of the founding fathers of this country—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.”  The Democratic Strategist then accuses its imagined enemies of being anti-american for allegedly trying “To establish the right of individuals or states to ignore and disobey any laws that they happen to interpret as impinging on their freedom or natural rights”  and the right of individuals “to ignore any laws they choose.”  This is straw man. As far as I know, no employee of The Federalist Society ever said that any individual could ignore any law he chose. All of the Founders, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Adams, did believe that in cases of great urgency and necessity, disobedience was a moral duty–which is why they helped to remove one government and replace it with another in 1776. Even under that new government, Jefferson and Madison thought that states had a duty to protect their citizens from federal laws which violated both natural rights and the Constitution–as did the Sedition Act, in the view of Jefferson and Madison. And of course many great Americans in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s refused to obey racially discriminatory laws which they believed to be contrary to natural rights and the Constitution.

Americans in the 21st century are free to disagree with Jefferson and Madison, just as did many Americans of 1798, since other some other state legislatures voted to reject the call to support the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.

Near the end, the TDS memo announces: “Let them bring it on with all the attempts to write Thomas Jefferson and the separation of church and state out of American history.” May people of every political persuasion resist every attempt to write Thomas Jefferson out of our history. May everyone extol, as does TDS, ”the traditional American view of the constitution—the view of the founding fathers of this country.” And so in our modern debates on the Supreme Court and judicial policy, may everyone be free to disagree with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but let no-one who espouses the constitutional doctrines of these great Americans be maligned as unamerican.

For the moment, let’s put aside the question of whether the Obamacare tax is an Article I tax, or a 16th Amendment income tax. Does Congress have the infinite power to control people’s behavior (such as by ordering them to engage in commercial transactions) via the tax power?  I suggest not. When the Bill of Rights was being debated in front of Congress, the skeptical Rep. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts asked if there should also be an enumeration that “declared that a man should have a right to wear his hat if he pleased; that he might get up when he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper.” 1 Annals of Congress 759-60 (Aug. 15, 1789). Sedgewick’s point was that national laws about bedtimes and hat-wearing were self-evidently beyond the authority of Congress.

However, if the tax power means that Congress can order citizens to buy something they don’t want to buy, why does Congress not have the power to assess taxes on people who get too little sleep, or too much sleep, and thereby harm their own health and the public fisc? Or who wear hats so little that they increase their risk of skin cancer? Or who wear hats so often that they dangerously reduce their levels of vitamin D? In Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court declared that it would not inquire into hidden regulatory motives that might have motivated a tax. But in Sonzinsky, the underlying activity (running a for-profit commercial business selling machine guns) was unquestionably within the scope of commercial activities that might be subject to an excise tax.

In contrast, not buying health insurance is not in its nature a commercial taxable activity. Neither is wearing a hat, or getting up when you please, or going to bed when you think it proper.

Sonzinsky is deferential to congressional motives, but it does nothing to support the claim that non-commercial activity may be taxed. Construing the tax power as less than infinite–as not encompassing the power to tax bedtimes or the decision not purchase a product–is strongly supported by the Ninth Amendment. This is so whether one agrees with Randy Barnett’s view of the Ninth Amendment (as an enforceable guarantee of natural rights) or with Kurt Lash’s (as a rule that enumerated powers should be narrowly construed so as not to violate natural rights, including the right of self-government in the states).

Finally, as Jack Balkin has ably argued, “Constitutional change occurs because Americans persuade each other about the best meaning of constitutional text and principle in their own time. These debates and political struggles help generate Americans’ investment in the Constitution as their Constitution and they create a platform for the possibility – but not the certainty of its redemption in history.”

Americans today are not bound to meekly accept the most far-ranging assertions of congressional power based on large extrapolations from Supreme Court cases that themselves come from a short period (the late 1930s and early 1940s) when the Court was more supine and submissive to claims about centralized power than was any other Supreme Court before or after in our history. American citizens, in the political process and in their personal lives, will ultimately have the final word on the Constitution.

A large and permanent majority of the American people immediately accepted Social Security as a constitutional solution to poverty among the elderly and to massive unemployment (since Social Security would open up jobs by encouraging people to retire sooner). The American people have not accepted Obamacare as a constitutional solution to health insurance problems. If the American believe that there is a “crisis” about the high cost of health insurance, then the American people can also believe that the solution is not to punish people for refusing to buy overpriced insurance that they don’t want. The American people can reject the notion that our Constitution should be contorted and distorted to accommodate such a destructive and intrusive scheme.

It is eminently within the authority of We the People to act politically on our constitutional beliefs that the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to forcing people to buy a product which Congress has forbidden to be sold across state lines; that the power to regulate interstate commerce is not the power to compel a person to participate in instrastate commerce; and the that power to levy income or excise taxes does not include the power to impose punishment in the form of punitive taxes on persons who choose not to buy something–or who choose whether to wear hats and when to sleep.

p.s. PENNumbra had a good debate on the topic last fall, featuring Jack Balkin vs. Lee Casey & David Rivkin.

I voted for 5, and wrote “In May 1994, President Clinton used the full force of his office to convince House Democrats to drive their majority off a cliff, by enacting a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ (ordinary firearms with cosmetically incorrect features). President Obama and House leadership seem determined to repeat a similar mistake, except on a much greater scale.”

Question 2 asked the Left “Is Tim Kaine an asset or a liability as DNC chairman?” The Right was asked about Michael Steele and the RNC. On both sides, only 31% voted for “asset.” The only writer who had anything good to say about Michael Steele was me: “Probably some of each. Still having trouble understanding that his job is to help the team, not to be the star.”

Finally, the bloggers were asked if Obama would be a one-term President. Thirty-one percent on the Left, and 71 percent on the Right thought so. Of course it’s far too early to predict with any confidence, but perhaps it would be accurate to say that his current chances for re-election are in the 30-70% range. He’s far from doomed, but not looking particularly solid right now either. I guessed the one-term would be the more likely result: ”He will have plenty of opportunities in 2011-2012 to change his current self-destructive course. But it seems more likely that he will double down on his failures and his policies, which alienate the majority of the American people.”

The critical theory journal, Telos, returns to one of its earliest themes, the critique of what its editors in the 1970s and 80s termed the “wholly-administered society” and “New Class” analysis.  It shifted away from those themes and modes of analysis for a long time, but it has re-opened that discussion with a bang.  Editor Russell Berman, Stanford comparative literature and European studies professor and Hoover Institution senior fellow, introduces a short special section of articles on the New Class with a first rate introductory essay that offers the backdrop to New Class categories and defines their relevance today.

This is a marvelous short essay.  Telos is a difficult, intellectually challenging journal; it is not for everyone.  But its editors – who break along many intellectual, ideological, political, and other lines; there’s a Left Telos and a Right Telos and many others besides – are ferociously intelligent and never suffer fools gladly.  (Its founding editor, the late great Paul Piccone, never suffered fools at all.)  Beneath a tough intellectual language that many will find incomprehensible, Telos is that rarest of things, an intellectual journal of the highest order beholden to no academic department, no academic politics, intrigue, budgets, tenure decisions, careerism, or anything else.  No one’s academic career ever flourished on account of writing for Telos, so far as I know.  On the other hand, its alumns over the decades include a remarkable number of great scholars in social theory.

Berman makes a persuasive case for the relevancy of New Class theory and the theory of the wholly administered society in today’s urgent circumstances.  This will almost certainly not be Telos’s last venture into this terrain in today’s times.  This essay is highly readable; Telos is not.  Be warned.  But it needs to read and debated by intellectuals looking for new ways of exploring contemporary society, and its difficult language and insights deployed into wider intellectual thought.  Pop sociologists on the Left like David Brooks or Thomas Friedman – and many journalists on the Right, too – are instinctively and correctly drawn to these kinds of knowledge class categories.  They have some terms but no theory; and theory is sometimes necessary to understanding, social theory, and not just surface theories of economic rationalism.

To talk of a “new class,” then, conjured up the unquestionable epistemology of class analysis, while simultaneously challenging the notional outcome: instead of the end of the state and classlessness, one was stuck with police states and a new class that, while eminently cooler than the Bolsheviks of yore, still exercised a dictatorship (of the not-proletariat) while skimming off the benefits of unequal power. The phrase turned Marxism against Marxism during those decades when the fall of the Berlin Wall was not even imaginable.

Migrating across the Atlantic, the term took on a new meaning in the last third of the twentieth century as a designator of the rise of a new post-industrial professional class, the cohort of the student movement after 1968 on its trajectory into social, cultural, and political power. At stake was the gradual displacement (if not disappearance) of the old markers of class distinction and the alternative privileging of sets of linguistic and intellectual capacities, combined with the assumption that greater intelligence implied a de facto natural claim on greater power: meritocracy means that the smarter should rule. Yet this trope just reiterated, in a new context, the problem of intellectuals and power, a curious echoing of East European rhetoric. As the best and brightest claimed power in order to rule better and with greater radiance, their critics came to dub them a “new class” in order to draw attention to their sanctimonious aspirations to pursue their own interests by remaking society in their own image. Paradoxically, the conservative critique of the new class could make the “Marxist” move of pointing out how universalist claims masked particularist interests. What ensued was a decades-long conflict between, on the one hand, advocates of more enlightened and ever more expansive administration of society, and, on the other, proponents of reduced state oversight, defenders of society against the state, and the deregulated market against the long reach of political power. The political wrangling of our current moment still takes place within this framework. The complexity of the new class and its culture, however, is that while it sets out to administer society and establish bureaucracies to regulate social and economic life domestically, at the same time it attempts to ratchet down the political and military power that might be projected externally: a strong state toward its subjects, a weak state toward its enemies!

The new class transition to linguistic, cultural, and technocratic expertise unfolded during the profound shift toward a symbolic service economy—new class ascendancy took place during the era of the dramatic decline of manufacturing and the concomitant shift of unionized labor organization primarily into the public sector—and it privileges capacities of semiotic manipulation over material production or even military prowess. Its signature contribution to foreign policy is “smart power,” a term that nobly implies that boots on the ground are dumb and that some—still elusive—strategic rhetorical eloquence will make enemies vanish without ever firing a gun, since language is its ultimate power. The corollary economic policy is negative, defined by discourses of environmentalism that imagine achieving greener national spaces by exporting dirty manufacturing and energy consumption to the developing world: not in our backyard. This is not to deny environmental concerns, but rather to recognize them as laden with implications for traditional economic sectors. Most importantly, the transition to the culture of the new class has, in complex ways, taken part in the revolution of the new technologies, with the new class at first benefiting from them, thanks to their advantaging the educated and wealthy—that social inequality known as the “digital divide.” But the new technologies, especially the new networks of communication, have undermined the former concentrations of media power and opinion-making, allowing for the emergence of new populist forces, decidedly not new class in their character and programs.

As contemporary as these developments may seem, it is equally important to recognize how traditional, indeed classical, is the question that lurks inside the problem of the new class: intellectuals and power, enlightenment and politics, conceptual thinking and lived life. From one point of view, the rise of the new class involves the priority of thinking—not any thinking, however, but a technocratically foreshortened, instrumentalist, and administrative thinking—over the lifeworld of everyday interactions, communities, and traditions, and the orders of human nature. It is the assertion of the primacy of logic against the complexity of living, and it runs the risk therefore of collapsing either into an irrelevant ineffectiveness, an idealism incapable of grasping the real, or a destructiveness, when it tries to refashion ways of life into its own invented programs. Human communities frequently show resilience and creativity, and they can survive more than one expects; but those existential resources are not infinite, and aggressive programs of social engineering can eventually destroy the patterns of living, the structures of meaning—the families, communities, faiths, nations, cultures, traditions—when they try to control them. Dismantling those patterns of familiarity leaves a world less familiar—not more open and freer, as modernists believed, but colder and less welcoming, perhaps the real new class agenda. It lays claim to a higher morality; it wants to make the world better; it wants to make us better, but it may only make us more alone.

The second question asked: “Would the Obama administration be better off if these individuals [David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel]  had more influence, or less influence?” On the Left, 64% favored more influence for Axelrod, and 100% wanted less influence for Emmanuel. On the Right, 93% wanted less influence for Axelrod, and 50% wanted more influence for Emmanuel. I wrote: “Rahm is politically brilliant, and has a sense of the possible. Imagine how much stronger Obama might be right now if he had followed Rahm’s advice to pass a variety of discrete fixes for health care rather than investing his entire presidency in a huge omnibus bill.” In contrast, “Axelrod’s recent interview in the N.Y. Times indicates that he is among the Obama devotees who have wrongly convinced themselves that the only problem with Obamacare is messaging, rather than substance.