This post gave me a chuckle.  

I married a lovely left-winger just days before the election in 2004, and had to watch tense election returns from a honeymoon suite at a resort.  I have to admit, that night was a little awkward.  And, as my bride took Kerry's loss far more personally than I would have expected, she was blue for part of the next day as well.  

I think Fred Cole (above) offered the best concrete advice.  If we win, don't gloat; if we lose, don't mope; and keep Ricochet and your other right-leaning brethren nearby via the electronic device of your choice. 

But I wanted to write separately tell remind you to take heart in the fact that others have been in your situation and survived. We've been married eight years--happily--and have measurably improved the world by adding two beautiful children. 

Congratulations and best wishes for a wonderful marriage. 

Gov. Romney is smart, and he understands economic nuts and bolts, but he does not appreciate the limits of technocracy.

So I like Prof. Rahe's approach--to direct Gov. Romney's perspective away from technical minutiae and toward a broader understanding of society and its governance. Along the same lines, I offer the following suggestions, which are made with an eye toward a more business-minded reader with limited time and limited patience for nuanced political philosophy.

Charles Murray, In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government. Murray argues that a limited government, by encouraging personal responsibility, also makes people happier. The book draws from his earlier Losing Ground, and can appeal to data-nerds. But it also evokes Burke and his "Little Platoons."

Mark Levin, "Liberty and Tyranny." This is not a great book, but it is a good one. Intentionally or not, Levin rewards the reader with 45% of the value of Prof. Rahe's "Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift," while demanding 10% of the effort. What a bargain! (We can expose a President Romney to Prof. Rahe's work after his election!)

Hayek, The Fatal Conceit. This book has many critics, but it is the briefest, most accessible statement of Hayekian thought.

Wow, Professor, this is wonderful. I am wondering if you have ever read Harold Berman's magisterial "Law and Revolution."Berman's argument--presented in great detail--is that the western legal tradition is the product of competition between and among various secular jurisdictions and church canon law. He traces the starting point to the papal reforms of Gregory VII. Berman's analysis is consistent with your well-constructed argument, and adds even more flesh to the bone. Highly recommended for you and anyone else interested in legal history or in the relationship between the church and emerging European states from 1000 to 1500. (There is a sequel that covers the Protestant reformation, but I haven't yet read it. Prof. Berman had planned a third volume, but alas, did not live long enough to complete it. Such a loss.)

I've been practicing meditation for over half my life--since I was 17 in the late 1980s. My experience has been similar to Rob's. It really helps to settle the mind, ease concentration, and increase my comfort in social situations. I'm a fan, and I recommend giving it a whirl.

Agreed!  There's been some talk--to which I'm somewhat sympathetic--of the need for a "conservative NPR."  If such a thing were to emerge, I like to think that James would be the natural anti-Garrison-Keillor.  But, in a good way.

We may not know what a Government-designed mobile phone would look like, but we've go a pretty good idea what a government-contractor-designed mobile device would look like.

A few years ago, the federal government sought contractors to design and build a handheld device to use in the 2010 census. The final product, which apparently was introduced long after Apple introduced the iPhone, was a disaster--a buggy piece of junk on which more than half a billion dollars had been wasted, and which the census bureau ultimately rejected in favor of clipboards, pencils, and paper.

Here's what it looked like.

And here are the details.

Very interesting post, Peter.  I want to press you, however, on your view that derivatives ought not be subject to more regulation.  

You rightly point to the utility of derivatives in managing risk, which certainly ought to be a consideration.  But you do not mention with the prospect of purely speculative derivative trading, which does not (to my eyes) appear to serve any similarly constructive purpose.  Such speculative trading certainly factored into the 2008 crash.

Your AEI piece on derivatives (CDS)--which I read some time ago--was somewhat unpersuasive for the same reason.  Basically, you assume that the holder of swaps was always using them to hedge against a risk to which they were already exposed, and you do discuss trading that is merely speculative.

With that context, here are my questions for you:  (1) Does speculative derivative trading serve a constructive purpose?  (2) if not, and in light of the risks involved, oughtn't it be subject to greater regulation; (3) if so, is there a way to regulate speculative trading that would not inherently undermine the "positive" use of derivatives as hedging tools?

Thanks!

David Bernstein of GMU Law School soon will publish his book on Rehabilitating Lochner.  I'd be interested in Professor Epstein's and Professor Yoo's assessment of Bernstein's project--ought Lochner be "rehabilitated?"  

It might be best to wait until the book comes out, but perhaps a preview would be an appropriate way to whet the appetite.