Here's a somewhat rose-tinted glasses view of the movement's core rationale. And I agree with it, for the most part: people need to be held responsible for the consequences of their own actions or we end up in collectivized hell. On the banks, my heart agrees, but my head doesn't. Alas, their total implosion would have brought down everyone else. Ditto the pragmatic attempt to save the auto industry, which, amazingly, has not been a disaster. And health insurance? We already have socialized medicine in America because of the guarantee of emergency room care. And of all things people should not be held responsible for, and where, as Hayek noted, some form of social insurance makes sense, is poor health, which can hit the most responsible member of society, and without insurance, bankrupt her.

So the general principle I agree with. I oppose dependency on government; I support and have long internalized the karma Jonathan Haidt describes. Hence my support for means-testing social security, raising deductibles for Medicare for those who can afford more, opposing nation-building, etc. But I don't see Obama as the prime mover of these things - just a pragmatic manager of them. (On foreign policy, I think he's more TP karmic than the neo-imperial neocons). And I do not trust the GOP to really do what's necessary to get us back to fiscal responsibility, and reactionary on social issues.

The Cameron Tories on the other hand? Never been prouder ...

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.