What would Lincoln do?

In rare moments through the ages figures emerge who through some force beyond comprehension overcome the ordinary obstacles that befuddle mere mortals and give us great wisdom. In American history Abraham Lincoln is such a person.

That Lincoln comes to mind is not so strange considering the famous quote attributed to the Sixteenth President of the United States:

"We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we would despise him."

Matthew J. Franck, Professor and Chairman of Political Science at Radford University, in an article in the National Review has taken exception to the quote citing problems with its attribution.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/franck200507060812.asp

But if Lincoln had said it, the quote wouldn't surprise me since Lincoln himself was a lawyer. He would probably thought that was the way he would have answered under questioning before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing considering a Supreme Court appointment. Lincoln was a good lawyer.

Professor Franck, if I am reading him correctly, takes issue with the premise that Lincoln would have ruled out ideological positions and philosophical debates; there are known Lincoln quotes whose sourcing is not in doubt that would suggest he, in fact, would have encouraged them.

And Professor Franck makes an excellent point: an honest, forthright, reasoned, and principled discussion of ideological issues is overdue in the nation.

Democrats shall engage Judge Roberts on these issues and indeed they should. If we stand for anything, it is our principles after all. The Democrats will need to be courteous, respectful, poised, and rational. But they will also ask the pointed, fleshy substantive and procedural legal and philosophical questions that perhaps Lincoln would have approved.

The Democrats shall also---short of something catastrophic---allow this nomination to reach the Senate floor where it shall be voted upon with a straight up-or-down vote. Despite philosophical and political differences, Democrats will support a floor vote because that is how they would want progressive nominees treated.

Ultimately, the political contest that seems so often to divide us will be won on ideological grounds; not on political maneuvering. There is a place for procedural strategies in serving as the loyal opposition (e.g. CIA leak investigation). This Supreme Court candidate---unless some cataclysmic revelation suddenly appears---warrants an ideological strategy including a straight up-or-down floor vote in the Senate.

If the Democrats disagree with Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy they shall calmly, but vigorously pursue an impassioned colloquy with the nominee in committee. The Democrats may even vote against the candidate in committee, although allowing the appointment to reach the floor as was done with the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

Democrats will take on conservative ideologue precepts, advocating the great cause of progressive democratic liberalism. Democratic people will advance the common cause of tolerance, pluralism, equality, opportunity, democracy, social justice, and respect for the law. Because ultimately, the Democrats will prevail in the war of ideas because of their principles, not because of politics.