As you know, one of our principles here at PolicySphere is that we try to cover as little of the horse-race politics stuff as we think we can get away with. But the debate yesterday wasn't just a lot of fun to watch (though it was—and how), it was also the most substantive policy debate we can recall seeing, since at least Romney-Obama in 2012. It was also the best performance by a Republican nominee for national office on a debate stage in your correspondent's lifetime. By far.

So here are some of our takeaways from the debate:

DEI. (We are grateful to Tucker Carlson for reminding us of this.) When Tim Walz was elected, a lot of left-wing journalists and pundits dared conservatives to continue to oppose DEI when it applied to a white guy. Let's not forget that Tim Walz is a DEI candidate: he was picked because he's a white guy. The DEI wheel turns around, and it even helps white guys once in awhile, so what's bad about it?, the crowd disingenuously asked. Well, now hopefully the Democrats know why. It was apparent to anyone with a brain that Tim Walz was out of his depth on the stage last night, and the Democrats set him up to fail, and now they will reap the consequences. 70 million Americans got an illustration of the perils of DEI last night. Let's hope we all collectively learn from it.

First Amendment. By far the most important policy news of the debate last night, one which went almost unremarked, one which would be the top news item on every newspaper and every morning and evening show in a sane country, is that a major party nominee for national office, on live television, rejected the Anglo-American tradition of free speech as embodied in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Of course, we have heard this rhetoric out of the left for many years (many, many, many years if one includes academia). But to our knowledge, it is the first time that it has been explicitly endorsed by a nominated candidate for national office. The official position of Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz (and presumably the Harris-Walz ticket, unless the campaign issues a retraction or clarification) is that freedom of speech in the United States should be abolished and that (again, presumably) unelected bureaucrats in league with Big Tech platforms should be in charge of policing the political speech of American citizens. We try to stray from hyperbole, but this is not hyperbole, it is mere fact. This is, literally, an unprecedented moment in the history of the United States of America. We can't think of anything else to say. Future historians may note this moment.

Healthcare. We finally got a clearer sense of what Senator Vance's view on healthcare is (or his interpretation of the ticket's view). And, as he described it, we would summarize it this way: keep Obamacare, keep the protections for preexisting conditions, but make targeted deregulations to make it more efficient. It's definitely a pragmatic and realistic approach given the political realities and the realities of Congress.

The Le Pen response to climate change. Republican candidates are inevitably asked about climate change, and inevitably they give a bad answer. Vance gave the first good answer we think we've heard, one which is both very smart politically and unarguably correct on the merits: the US has one of the cleanest economies in the world; most of the world's carbon emissions come from China; so if you want to reduce overall carbon emissions, send less economic activity to China and put more of it in the US. The first politician anywhere we can recall making that argument is France's Marine Le Pen (with added crowing about French nuclear energy, although of course the US's shift to natural gas has also helped it dramatically reduce the amount of carbon emissions per unit of economic output). As we say, it's a very good answer both politically and on the merits and we would be happy to see more of it.

Policy News You Need To Know

#Immigration — Of course, our wonk hearts sang when Tim Walz dared JD Vance to provide evidence for the proposition that unchecked immigration drives up housing costs and, without missing a beat, Vance referred him to a study by the Federal reserve. Here's the study in question, which Vance tweeted out after the debate. He also tweeted this study by the Journal of Housing Economics, and this CBO report on the economic effects of the immigration surge.

#Infanticide — Here's an important fact-check you didn't get during the debate: what JD Vance said about the bill Tim Walz signed as Governor of Minnesota on children born alive after botched abortions is true.

#TaxPolicy — Speaking of Marine Le Pen, one of her tax policies that we've always been very enthusiastic about has been her proposal that people under 30 should pay no income or capital gains tax. Famous adman Rory Sutherland has a similar idea, we discovered: make taxation progressive, not (only) by income slice but through time. In other words, the first (say) $100,000 you make are tax free, no matter when you make them, but after that you pay tax. A way to get young people a start in life. As Western countries age and slide asymptotically ever closer to gerontocracy, it will become even more important to discuss policies that give young people a start in life.

#DEI — If you ask smart people what comes "after" trans, they'll say: disability. In colleges (where, for some reason, these things are always incubated first) disabilities (including more-or-less invented ones) have become the new identity to be adopted and used to claim victim status and agitate for benefits. For the first time, the Chronicle of Higher Education breaks the law of silence and asks whether colleges' "maximally inclusive approach" might not "hurt those it attempts to help."

#DEI — Speaking of DEI, the ever-resourceful Chris Rufo has just unveiled a new investigative journalism project aimed at "unmasking" what he calls, undoubtedly correctly, the current Administration's "whole-of-government DEI agenda." Talk about journalism in the public interest.

#Productivity #Jorbs — We recently wrote an article on how this or a future Administration should address the ILA strike. What's important to note here is how bad US ports are relative to their international peers, because of union-driven resistance to automation. The difference is truly staggering. Which is why it's important to get this situation sorted.

#HigherEd — FREOPP has a big new whitepaper out on higher education, mostly focusing on making college more efficient: fewer student loans, fewer garbage colleges and majors that ensure graduates can't find work.

#Entitlements — The American Institute for Economic Research's David C. Rose has a new paper with the intringuing title: "How to Make Social Security Reform a Winning Campaign Issue." Consider our curiosity piqued! The idea is to shift Social Security from wage indexing to price indexing. Why would this be a winning campaign issue? "Most young people will happily support this reform because it provides strong assurance that they will get something they value greatly (a credible guarantee of not being impoverished in old age) in return for giving something up they don’t care about (getting more than their parents and grandparents did per dollar contributed)." Color us skeptical about the politics, but it's still good to see the issue being thought about in this way.