The Relationship Between Secularism and Human Rights: Solid Lineage or Frayed Thread?

by Andrew M.

            From the beginning of human history, the rights of human beings have often lacked a voice. Early ideas, such as the Cyrus Cylinder, were concepts in their infancy and were thus limited in scope and development. It is in the last century that human rights have found a voice, acceptance, codification, and concern amongst the nations of the world (Donnelly 496).

            As human rights have become more broadly accepted they have also been more broadly discussed. One such discussion revolves around the relationship between secularism and human rights. Some argue the idea that human rights (and thus also the lack of human rights abuse) stem from creating secular governments, free from religious interference and ideologies (Centre for Secular Space). However, this viewpoint assumes that a government of a secular nature is friendlier to human rights, and more over that there is in fact a positive correlation between secularism and human rights. The question then arises if such assumptions hold up to the test of reality. Given a survey of countries, governments, and human rights offenders from recent history, it quickly becomes clear that such a link is, at best, difficult to establish.

            For the sake of clarity, it must be noted that “human rights” in this paper refers to rights defined and recognized in the International Bill of Human Rights. This list is not universal by any means, but in the interests of brevity and a definitive argument it is a reasonable starting point for a discussion on human rights.
            Likewise, the term “secularism” also demands definition. The Centre for Secular Space argues that secularism or more specifically “secular space” is defined as, “a separation between religion and the state” (Centre for Secular Space). Their argument revolves around the idea that the state must not be controlled by religious influences. While this can lead to further debate about the nature of influence and religion, for the purposes of this paper the definition of secularism is thus: a government, theory, or figure known to be free from religious influence, that is, an entity removed from the impacts of religion. Such a definition is somewhat of a broad brush to paint with, but further detail would demand exhaustive research and detailed reckoning with all aspects of what may be implied by the term, “secularist”.

            First, it must be determined what a few of the key documents are in the earliest history of human rights, and if those documents are in fact secular documents. United for Human Rights (UHR) NGO, lists the Cyrus Cylinder, the Magna Carta, and the US Bill of Rights as foundational to modern human rights (“History…” 1). While this is not a complete and universal list, it does represent a significant portion of the foundations for modern human rights. This is notable because each of these sources is by no means purely secular. The Cyrus Cylinder originated from King Cyrus the Great in ancient Babylon. The Cylinder is a record of Cyrus’ decrees for religious and racial rights and equality, and thus one of the earliest records of codified human rights law (“History…” 1). Cyrus himself was known to be quite tolerant of other religions (“The Cyrus Cylinder”) and even encouraged the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and religious system (ibid). While it may be fruitless to argue which religion Cyrus practiced (Briant 94), it is well known that Babylon itself was highly religious society and cultural center. This makes the argument for Cyrus and his Cylinder as purely secular entities very difficult at best.

            The Magna Carta is another example of early rights documentation. King John enacted (albeit briefly) the document nearly 800 years ago, which established rights and limits between John and some of his subjects (Hirsch). In 2010 the UK Minister for State of Justice, Lord McNally referred to the Magna Carta as the “most influential secular document” in the world (Hirsch). But the language of the document itself, as well as those present at the signing creates doubt regarding the extent of its secularist nature. Those present included not only King John, but also a list of bishops, archbishops, and “reverend fathers” (“Treasures…"). At the very least, the company of the creators and signers was anything but purely secular. Furthermore the language includes phrases such as, “John, by the grace of God, King of England . . . know that before God . . . to the honour of God . . . the exaltation of the holy Church”, as well as additional language about the freedom of the church (“Treasures…”). Whether or not John was a highly religious man is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that the religious authority of the day had influence in politics and the creation of the document, and the language of the Magna Carta reflects this. These origins strongly imply religious influence, and yet the document would go on to be highly regarded in the eyes of human rights history.

            Likewise, the Bill of Rights was not constructed in a purely secularist vacuum either. James Madison and George Mason authored the document, and while the details of their religious views may not be fully known, what is known leaves much to be desired for the secularist argument. Madison is thought to have believed in deism, and author James Brieg says that Madison, “defended belief in God as a moral necessity to man” (Brieg). George Mason, was also a religious man, who wrote that, “Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator . . . And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other” (Dreisbach). As it is, both men held their belief in God as a serious conviction. It is reasonable to assume that these beliefs were of some influence as they crafted the Bill of Rights (a codified law of human rights), and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.

            The presence and likely influence of religious beliefs in the creation of each of these documents or belief systems is problematic to wholly disprove. Each of these influential sources shows evidence of religious influence and a lack of evidence for a secularist argument. They contain either religious language, or was written by such a person or in such a way that it is impossible to purge religious influence from them. Thus, from a beginning it is impossible to declare human rights as an entirely secularist entity. Modern human rights as seen by the United Nations and Declaration of Human Rights may be somewhat secularist in nature, but the origins of such concepts are far less one-sided.

            This is an important theme as the issue of human rights violations and abuses are also considered in light of secularism. One the one hand, religions have historically been notorious for their abuse of those who did not join their cause, and this is seen even in modern human rights history. The 2013 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report names the top 15 worst human rights offending countries—ten of which are governed by Islamic totalitarian regimes (Blankely). While the report does focus on religious freedom, it is important to note that the top 15 countries on the report are regarded as Tier 1 countries, that is that they routinely engage in acts that violate basic human rights such as “torture, prolonged detention without charges, [and] disappearances” to name a few (Liben 3). The report also suggests that an additional number of countries be added to the Tier 1 list, as “CPCs” or “countries of particular concern” (ibid). The majority of these countries are also Islamic totalitarian regimes. Issues such as women’s rights, and the rights of religious, ethnic, or sexual minorities are often endangered at best, and all-out persecuted at worst.  Additionally other historical events such as the Crusades have brought wholesale torture, threats, and death to the general populace in the name of religion. The history of religion reveals that some religious movements have thoroughly trampled on human rights.

            On the other hand, however, this is not a wholesale endorsement of the secularist viewpoint. The Centre for Secular Space argues that, “human rights cannot thrive in an atmosphere of religious intimidation” (“Frequently…), and argues also that the State should not have abusive power over religious institutions (ibid). Yet it is clear from a survey of history that human rights have been abused in a secularist vacuum—and perhaps worse than their religious counterparts. University of Hawaii Professor R.J. Rummel conducted research suggesting that Soviet Russia saw the death of 61 million people during its tenure as communist regime (Rummel). The official stance of the Soviet government was decidedly secularist: atheism was the only acceptable belief for citizens (Kowalewski). Many of those killed, tortured, or oppressed were so abused because of their own religious beliefs by a secularist authoritarian government. Likewise, many of the top countries of concern for human rights abuses are also secularist regimes: China, Burma, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and so on (Liben 3,4). In these countries religion is not the aggressor—secularist regimes are. Some are merely oppressive, others are vehemently anti-religious in nature, such as North Korea which is arguably one of the most repressive regimes of the modern world. As the CSS argues, human rights cannot thrive under religious intimidation. But neither do they flourish de facto under secular rule, and the secularist leadership of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot made this point with tens of millions of secular state murders (Rummel).

            Each of these factors reveals a few simple truths. First, secularism has no corner on the market of the creation of human rights. Arguably the involvement, and codification of human rights at the UN is somewhat secularist, but by no means is secularism the overwhelming force behind the initial concepts of human rights. Many of the concepts were espoused or theorized by religiously practicing peoples, and possibly with religious basis or intent. Separating the religion from these theoreticians is a challenge grossly lacking in hard evidence, and instead, evidence may actually suggest the opposite (Freeman 399).

            Secondly, while secularism has no monopoly on the origins of human rights, neither has religion a monopoly on the abuse of human rights. While radical Islam is the most current and oppressive religious factor regarding human rights there are other oppressive forces in the world. There are multiple countries guilty of egregious crimes against humanity not in the name of religious beliefs, but in the name of secular control. It could be argued that secularist religiophobia has proven every bit as deadly as religion itself.

            From this then there is an answer for the correlation between human rights and secularism: it is a theory stretched thin by the lattice of history. Human rights concepts and milestones such as the Cyrus Cylinder, Magna Carta, and Bill of Rights have been crafted in something less than a secularist vacuum. Yet human rights have been violated on the steps of cathedrals and in atheists’ gulags, showing that the case for pointing fingers at one side or the other is a difficult one to make at best. Religions and the non-religious have oppressed themselves and each other in every possible permutation throughout human history. In the secularist union of the United Nations human rights has found a stage by which to make a plea for reasonable treatment for people around the world. This setting modern era is fertile soil for the ideas of human rights to be promoted abroad. This is the best reasonable correlation; even so the secularism of the U.N. may not be the cause of such fertile soil, but merely a bystander in the right place at the right time.

Works Cited

Blankley, Bethany. "Report: Two-Thirds of 'Worst Violators of Religious Freedom' Are Muslim Countries." CPWorld. Christian Post, 07 May 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-two-thirds-of-worst-violators-of-religious-freedom-are-muslim-countries-95381/>.

Briant, Pierre, and Peter Daniels. From Cyrus to Alexander: History of the Persian Empire. N.p.: Eisenbrauns, n.d. Google Books. Google. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC>.

Brieg, James. "History.org: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's Official History and Citizenship Website." Deism : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site. History.org / Colonial Williamsburg, Apr.-May 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring09/deism.cfm>.

"The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning." The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning | Exhibitions | Freer and Sackler Galleries. Smithsonian Institution, 09 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/cyrus-cylinder.asp>.

Donnelly, Jack. "Human Rights." The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. By John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Dreisbach, Daniel L. "GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS." GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS. GunstonHall.org, 1997. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/dreisbach_essay.html>.

Freeman, Michael. "Project MUSE - The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory." Project MUSE - The Problem of Secularism in Human Rights Theory. Human Rights Watch, 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v026/26.2freeman.html>.

"Frequently Asked Questions." Centre for Secular Space. Centre for Secular Space, 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/about-us/faqs/>.

Hirsch, Afua. "Magna Carta: Honouring the World's 'most Influential Secular Document'" The Guardian. The Guardian, 12 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theguardian.com/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/nov/12/magna-carta-800>.

"History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights." History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights. United for Human Rights, 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2013. <http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html>.

Kowalewski, David. "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences." JSTOR. N.p., Oct. 1980. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/128810?uid=3739552>.

Liben, Paul. Annual Report of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Rep. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.

Rummel, R. J. "How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder?" Www.hawaii.edu. University of Hawaii, 1993. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM>.

"Treasures in Full: Magna Carta." Treasures in Full: Magna Carta. British Library, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html>.

Reasoning

We told kids they came from animals

And then watched in shock

As the stronger slew the weak in bestial violence

We told a God of love, morals and reason

To get the hell out

And then we watched befuddled as hell took over

We raged against the sword

Because we would rather point the finger

Than look in the mirror at the evil

Holding the sword to our own throats

Write-in Throw Outs: A Conservative Christian Perspective of Third Party Votes

Often when I write, I write with a political perspective and I leave the spiritual out of it. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this is one time I’m making an exception to the rule.
    There are more than a few Christians making the argument for a third-party or write-in vote. Usually this is morally justified as being the best option and not voting for someone who they believe to be morally inferior—or by avoiding the “lesser of two evils” situation. While this sounds fine there’s a few truths that aren’t generally taken into account.
    First, we’re electing a president not a pastor as one minister put it. The leader we are electing is a secular, governmental, leader. For reasons not discussed here, God consistently differentiates between spiritual and governmental authority. (See also Uzziah).
    Additionally, Christians talk a lot about stewardship. The idea of stewardship is that one is responsible to God for the things one can control. The truth is that electing a write-in candidate or a third party candidate is not within the control of the believer. Nearly any traditional Christian would argue that Barack Obama has been a model of bad stewardship on nearly every front. The question is whether said Christians will exercise their own stewardship to oust a bad leader when God gives them the option. I argue they should.
    Given that Christians are typically more conservative, the argument is easily made that a third-party write in does not deny Barack Obama support—rather it denies him opposition. The conservative Christian vote was never for Obama, but it could be against him. Voting third party takes away that opposition, thus a conservative or libertarian write-in vote helps Barack Obama, the epitome of the very mindset conservatives and libertarians despise. Shouldn’t Christians instead oppose a leader with godless and bad stewardship habits when God gives them the legal authority to do so? Again, I argue they should.
    “Well I don’t like Mitt Romney, and I don’t like Barack either. I’m voting 3rd party to voice my discontent!” This is no doubt a tempting route for many. But the truth is that such a vote is, a) a complaint (see Phi 2:14), and b) a vote that doesn’t change anything. Christians are called to be salt and light, that is to stand against darkness and corruption. The corruption in the current administration is easily demonstrable—look no further than Libya, Solyndra, or another 50 companies that were invested in because they were pals to the president—not because they were an honest deal for American taxpayers. Again, the question is to stand against Obama's corruption or not.
    “I don’t like voting for the lesser of two evils!”
This fallacy is predicated on the assumption that the desired candidate (third party/write in) isn’t evil, when in fact, they are. Ron Paul is an evil man. So is Gary Johnson. So are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They’re all men. To be evil is their nature aside from grace. The truth is there is no perfect candidate and to get caught up in this trap is to deny that all men are evil. No matter who runs, the choice between two humans will always come down to the lesser of two evils.
    As far as the "cause" is concerned, the libertarian cause isn’t completely justifiable biblically, and neither is the GOP cause. Their particular blindness is to suggest that America can be restored to its early 1800s greatness. But this simply isn't possible. America is a different country demographically. American is also a different country governmentally. Ronald Reagan said that government never voluntarily reduces itself. It simply grows till, like a morbidly obese person, it collapses under its own weight and ceases to move. The simple ingredients for a 1776 America are long gone. The Americans of the past wanted to build their lives from the ground up. Today, they want their lives subsidized from the top down.
    The time has come to face the facts: we’re not going back. Simply put, we can’t go back. Mitt Romney isn’t ideal, and he’s not perfect. But he isn’t Barack Obama, and he is the only alternative at this point. Talk about Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or whichever candidate all you wish but realize this: God has let only these two choices fall before us. The only question to answer is “will you stand against the corruption of Barack Obama?” If not, please don’t complain about the next four years.
    (Post-Note: The other issue with the grand “Restoration of America” is that it is ultimately is blind to the issue of Biblical prophecy. The words, “In the last days…” are rarely if ever followed by a description of humans getting more godly. The last days are not described as a time when people return to sanity and reason—rather it is a time when they depart from both. The grandiose “Restoration of America” from a libertarian standpoint is not generally preceded by the idea of revival. But unless hearts change the nation will not change. But the Bible is clear that the last days are filled with cold hearts. Cold hearts will not return to 1776, nor anytime near it. Only hearts aflame follow in the footsteps of Jonathan Edwards, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and all the other great americans we admire. Those hearts are dying off. The good news is that they are being collected, and kept, for the Day when all things are set right. Thus we set no hope in Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson. We set hope in Christ alone, for that Day alone.)

Write it in and throw it out: Third Party Futility

-->

            As we’re down to two candidates many people aren’t happy about their two choices. Many on the right side of the aisle are writing in votes for candidates like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. They claim it’s their right, and it is. However, they usually justify it with a statement such as, “I’m voting with my conscience and with my morals. I just can’t justify voting for Mitt Romney.” But there’s another factor to consider, and possibly an untended outcome to boot.

            Any self-respecting libertarian or conservative-minded independent despises Barack Obama. Libertarians are about less government, and less heavy-authority from DC. Barack is the epitome of both—a power-wielding figure with more executive orders than the last dozen or more presidents combined. Grab any 10 people from the right side of the spectrum and while they may disagree on a plethora of issues, the one they would all unite on is this: Obama is a bad president. And all would agree that he’s got to go.

            The truth is though that when a third-party candidate gets the vote it doesn’t further the cause of firing Barack Obama. Consider this: if you are a Johnson/Paul/other fan and/or voter, you were never in the 45-49% that will almost certainly vote for Barack Obama. Obama never had your vote, and he never will – you never counted as a possibility for him. You can’t take away from him that which he never had. Your vote, and the vote of those like you never counted towards Barack’s hope of reelection. A far more conservative candidate had your vote from the word go. Which candidate is another story, but you are in the pool of voters who are right-of-center—a pool that desperate wants to stop Barack Obama.

            But a write in/third party vote takes you out of that same pool. If 52% of the nation is willing to vote GOP/right wing/conservative, any vote for a third party is to remove oneself from that 52%. In other words, you remove your support from stopping Barack Obama at a second term. You remove yourself from the pool of voters that want to stop his agenda. Your vote becomes useless, and worthless in a practical sense. Sitting out based on conscience only serves to further the agenda of the mindset you find most offensive. It’s a statement falling on deaf ears. It is to refuse to fight against the thing your conscience hates most. Refusing to fight might as well be a nod of silent assent.

            “But Romney is just Bush III!” No, no he’s not. That’s a sweeping generalization—a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a very different man, from a very different background. Making the case that Romney = Obama is equally an argument from ignorance. It misses the true nature of who Obama is, what he’s done, and what he will do during a second term.

            The truth is that Romney is not The Great Fixxer—he’s more like the Great Delayer of Trouble. To my libertarian friends I say this: there is no going back. America is demographically different than it was in 1776. America is governmentally different than it was in 1776. We are not the same nation. Our borders, language, and culture are not what they were—even 65 years ago much less 200 years ago. Ronald Reagan and the Second Law of Thermodynamics essentially tell us the same thing: governmental mess cannot be unmade. The government simply cannot and will not be reformed to those ancient (and appropriate) levels. But taking a stand for nothing is not the answer. Voting third party is to lodge a complaint against Mitt Romney, but then to do nothing about it. It’s a complaint that offers no answers, and no solutions. Standing with Gary Johnson or Ron Paul is not standing against Barack Obama—it’s standing against Mitt Romney. Standing against Mitt Romney is standing for the incumbent President. You aren’t denying Obama support—you are denying him opposition.

Is that really what your conscience wants?

Much to Gain, Little to Lose: Debate Three

            Mitt Romney and Barakc Obama square off for the third time on Monday night. Sorry Monday Night Football, but there’s a bigger fight in town. The debate will air live from Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida and focus solely on foreign policy. Truth is, this one is a boon to Mitt Romney.

            The last three debates have all been interesting. This one should be no different. Mitt Romney has a golden opportunity to hammer the President on this subject, and take little damage himself. Barack Obama bungled the Arab Spring, Egypt, and now Libya. The beauty of the situation for Mitt is that he can play offense all evening long. He can attack Barack on Iran, Afghanistan, Benghazi and so on. Mitt’s offensive attacks have the potential to make Monday a devastating evening for Barack Obama’s polls numbers, which are sinking daily.
            The dirty little secret here is of course that Barack doesn’t have many offensive options. In fact, he’s only got one: Mitt Romney’s lack of foreign policy experience. The parry to this attack is simple: “Neither did you Mr. President, and you’ve made a mess. Who are you to tell the American People that I’ll be worse?” Obama can and will at least try to attack Mitt Romney, but the truth is that Mitt has next to nothing to defend—and he’s got lots of attack options. It wasn’t Mitt that blew the last 4 years of foreign policy—it was Barack Obama. Mitt doesn’t need to give an account for anything. Barack needs to give an account for everything.

            In short, this debate it Mitt’s to lose. He stumbled a little last debate on Libya, but with some good prep time and newly minted attacks he could leave the viewers marveling at the mistakes Obama has made. Mitt needs to own the counter attacks, destroy excuses, and use the verifiable truth. He also needs to be prepared to push back at the moderator should it come down to it. For Mitt, the facts and data that have been uncovered since September 11 are all the ammo he needs. If he blows this, he’ll have no one to blame but himself. If he wins it handily Barack Obama better hope for a miracle. He’ll certainly need it.

Where Did the 47% Go?

 Mitt Romney’s little gaffe involving a remark about 47% of voters he supposedly “doesn’t care about” was MIA during Wednesday’s debate. It was supposed to be Obama’s biggest bullet and it was noticeably absent, which came as a shock to O’Reilly, Rasmussen, Gutfeld, Krauthammer, and other pundits. Everyone's got a theory as to why this didn't happen. My thoughts on this are because maybe:

-       Obama didn’t use it because it was a clean fight and he didn’t want to be the first to bring the mud…(“look who just got nasty first”)

-       And/or he felt like starting the mud-slinging meant that more would come back and he didn’t want to answer for his own mud… (“Let’s talk about your video at Jeremiah Wright’s church”)

-       Obama felt like Mitt was doing well enough that he could defeat the attack on the 47%, and Obama would have attacked in vain. Mitt was on his game and could simply roll right over it, and thus render future “47%” usage pointless. ("Didn't we talk about this last time?")

-       Obama felt like the first debate was a wash anyway, (and historically this is true), so why waste a good attack on a lost cause?

It's possibly that many of these reasons come down to a conscious choice on Barack’s part to leave it alone. If so, why? Because it would have hurt him more than it helped him. Whether this is by means of missing the mark entirely, starting a fight that was more damaging than successful, or wasting a good attack…well, who knows? But the honest truth is that it’s potentially a great attack. Given Obama’s position, the urge to use it next time has got to be pretty strong. Obama needs to perfect the attack (simply mentioning “the 47%” won’t cut it), and Romney needs a killer deflection and an even better counter attack. So expect to see attempts for each of these strategies from each contender next time in Kentucky—because after that the shelf life may leave the issue a bit stale. If Obama mentions it on the 16^th it will be three, maybe even four weeks old at the time—which is an eternity in our ADD culture. Obama has to use it or lose it, and it’s possible that the expiration date is looming for him. Either way, Mitt should be beyond prepared for the question and Barack better make it a good one. Odds are, you’ll see it on the 16^th or not at all.

It’s a win but...

            Mitt Romney scored big against Barack Obama in the first of three rounds of presidential debates. Even between libs and the GOP the general consensus is that Romney won. There needn’t be any huge argument about it—simply follow a lot of big democrats on Twitter and the blogosphere and the answer is obvious. Even the DNC painted that this could very well happen and Obama himself alluded to such a possibility a few days ago.

            Notable points, both verbal and non-verbal include:

-       Mitt using humor more successfully

-       Obama’s constant (though not complete) refusal to look at Mitt Romney

-       Mitt’s focus, versus Obama’s tangents

-       Obama’s stutter and slow moments (which is characteristic of his speech—not a slight on him, but this mannerism certainly didn’t help)

-       Mitt handled the moderator well (refusal to be bullied) while Obama did not—some are arguing that Obama snapped at Lehrer once or twice.

-       Obama tried to invoke the power of math, Romney invoked actual numbers—often and with relevance.

-       Mitt owned the counterattacks.

-       Obama is not a great speaker under pressure, off the cuff.

-       Mitt was on offense all night, and Barack never got a chance

-       Obama was more general. Mitt was more specific.

-       Romney was having fun. Barack was not.

All this being said, there’s some notable things to discuss. First, as the DNC put it (and yes it’s spin, but it’s got some truth), Romney was historically in a good spot to win this one—which he did. Barack was ill-prepared—as one Reuters commentator told Greta van Susteren: “I recognized the President’s performance tonight—the same one I had in college when I felt like I didn’t need to study for an English exam because I already knew English.” Perhaps Obama prepared the wrong way, and expected the wrong attacks. Perhaps. But it’s highly arguable that he won’t make that same mistake twice. Conversely, Romney knew Obama’s playbook and had done his own research and study. When Obama called upon the power of the almighty Independent Study, Mitt knew which one and had 4 more that said something different. Love him or hate him, Mitt wasn’t lucky—he was prepared.

Also of note is how clean the fight was. Romney didn’t mention Barack’s newly surfaced videos, or questionable friends (Wright, Ayers, etc), and neither did Obama mention the “47%” remark or Bain Capital. Some of these attacks might have fit into the debate context, but the two seemed to be quite content hitting each other above the belt. Again, this may not happen next time. Obama likely feels the need for an “edge” and the “47%” or Bain might be appealing as a way to get that edge. (Of course this opens the possibility that Mitt could do that exact same thing to keep his edge). Either way, Romney should be prepared—Obama never really got his offense going tonight, and he’ll want to taste blood during the next debate. Mitt should be ready to dodge some fast punches in 13 days.

Now that Obama knows how Mitt will fight, he’s going to work on his technique. First round to the challenger—certainly…but there are two debates to go. If Mitt wants to keep this up, he needs a decisive victory over the next two debates. While Obama has prep time to analyze Mitt’s attacks and plan his own, Romney has to plan his deflections and counterattack.

Among other things here’s a shortlist of points not pressed, not touched upon, and possibly to be used and considered for next time:

-       Romney ran a terrific offense—he was at his best. Can he keep being his best?

-       Lehrer was honestly a weak moderator. Compared to Obama’s own flat performance and a helpless moderator, Romney couldn’t help but look strong. The moderator next time may not be such a push over.

-       Obama should hit and even belabor the points where he feels strong—this may help keep Romney out of the groove and run the clock down.

-       Mitt’s 47% and Obama’s little race video might pop up. Both need attacks and both need parries and deflections.

-       When ObamaCare resurfaces (as it will) Mitt can easily win the point with one line: “ObamaCare needs to be repealed because the people want it repealed and the majority of Americans don’t support it—even though the President and a democrat congress rammed it through.” In this way Mitt can defend RomneyCare and attack ObamaCare.

-       Mitt should use Libya as evidence of a failed foreign policy. This is going to be a tough plot of beans to defend for Obama—because Libya has “botched” and “scandal” written all over it like obscene words in a bathroom stall.

-       Neither one can afford to let the other get in the groove first. Obama was on his heels 97% of the night. He doesn’t like that feeling—so he’s going to try to "return to sender". Mitt’s job is make sure Obama stays on his heels.

All in all, the debate definitively went well for Romney, and the win was certainly needed. But his excellent performance needs to be repeated, and then repeated again. Obama must go on heavy offense now, but with the additional topics coming up Mitt has little to lose on foreign policy and Barack has little to gain. Additionally Obama is a bit behind on financial issues as well. Even so, it’s arguable that the advantage is still to Obama, as the safe alternative to Mitt Romney. If Mitt wins next time Barack will definitely be behind the count—and he may not recover. It’s still anyone’s game, but Romney made a decisive point to be everything he needed to be. If he keeps it up he’ll likely have two more wins—and possibly a presidency in his pocket. Still, it’s not a one-man show and Obama wants to retain his seat of power for as long as he can. Part of Mitt winning involves Obama losing, and that’s something the president won’t give up easily.