 In presidential elections, I think the money will make some difference but the fact is Obama and Romney will be close enough in money that I think in the end money will not be the decisive factor. I think what we're worried about in the United States is the effect on other elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives where I think this concentration of money could have an effect. So should we lose all confidence in our democracy? Well no, because ultimately the voters still make the decision. But does it threaten to undermine everybody's confidence in our democracy? I think the answer is yes and I'm hoping after this election we try to change this system so money isn't quite so important. I think it is a sharp clash of philosophies over the role of government, over the role of the individual relative to the community and how the market should be run and regulated. And I think more than in any time since really our gilded age, which is the period from about 1865 to 1900, you have the Republicans committed to a, in principle at least, to relatively low levels of taxation and a sharp reduction in the regulation of the marketplace. You have Democrats really still running as a kind of party of balance between government and the market. If you look at how we are to cure our deficit, the Democrats are talking about a mix of tax increases and cuts. Republicans are talking about cuts and no tax increases and, in Romney's case, an increase in the defense budget. So this is very fundamental and I think it also goes to this question of the individual and the community. My own view is that from the beginning the United States, and I think is the true most of the Democratic societies, has always been a balance between individualism and community. Indeed, a belief that liberty is best protected in a society where community is strong and where we come to the defense of each other's liberties. I think that on the conservative side of politics, conservatives have a strong communitarian impulse, but right now I think it's American conservatism has been overtaken by a kind of individualism. Paul Ryan, the vice presidential candidate, spoke early on in his life of his devotion to Ein Rand, who is sort of pre-year individualist philosopher. And so I think you saw it in the two speeches that Romney and Obama gave at their conventions. This is a very fundamental choice. And that probably helps Obama some, because if this were just a referendum on the state of our economy, whoever was in power would probably lose to the extent that it actually is a debate over fundamental differences. That probably helps Obama some when election time comes. I think we're going to have a moment of truth after the election. There's a famous economist called Herbert Stein, a Republican economist, who said if things can't keep going on like they are, they won't. And I just think that most Americans, including a lot of people in power, including some of the people who have been blocking President Obama, know that our democracy can't be sustained if we have this kind of gridlock and an inability to address fundamental problems, including our deficit and the economy more broadly. And so you like to hope, President Obama's phrase is that after this election the fever will break. And you like to hope that after an election result people might sit back and say, okay, let's figure out how we fix some of these problems. I think some, if Obama wins, I think there'll be some Republicans who will want to pull back from the position they've been in. But I think the more difficult news is that it could take us a couple of elections to resolve this big fight. I mean, when you have parties operating within a consensus, they can have differences but find ways to resolve them. I think for now the consensus that's governed us is broken and we need to re-establish where the boundaries are of the consensus in order to govern ourselves again. I think like a lot of Americans, I hope this election will do it.