I've always been baffled by those in the political world who claim the mantle of moderation by defining it as pragmatism and then bowing to conservative positions on issues. The life-blood of the "center right" political observer is more a reaction against liberalism than a technocratic aim for solutions... I plan on testing this opinion with New York Times columnist David Brooks tomorrow over lunch.

Although conservatives and self-proclaimed pragmatists often ridicule supporters of Barack Obama as being uniformed, frivolous and knee-jerk proponents of a candidate they understand little about, I find something eerily similar in the world of center-right commentators. It seems to me than instead of voicing support of pragmatism and sober solutions to national issues, these center-right commentators relish bunking liberalism in a high-minded fashion as opposed to actually offering some middle ground. Despite their stated disdain for religious or social conservatives, these so called unbiased observers find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place in the sense that knee-jerk opposition to liberalism (in my opinion) is, at the same time, reactionary opposition to pragmatic solutions. While the likes of David Brooks have come to the light on issues of gay marriage and the culture war, they still exhibit a disturbing propensity to operate with right-wing frames and clearly show more deference of right of center takes on issues. The funny thing is that most of these center-right commentators serve as the real epitome of caricatures of Democratic candidates propagated by conservatives. Northern, elitist, out of touch, socially liberal, unfeeling, arrogant. Who fits this description more, David Brooks or Barack Obama.

Today's Sartorialist. This is great. I adore the purple on white combination and the shoes are perfect. I can't wait until I'm five years older to be able to pull stuff like that off. Also, somewhat surprisingly, I kind of agree with this. Discuss.