Total blasphemy that I didn't love it, but I didn't love it. I didn't even like it. It's in a kind of macroFreudian style that I just don't think has aged well. I don't think it's wrong, and I think it's largely right. Maybe I discount it too heavily, the way no one credits Selten for subgame perfection or Plato for a syllogism. (That is stolen from Shepsle in his chapter in the Levi book on econ Nobelists and political scientists.) In other words, it's at least orthodoxy. Who knows?