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.

What would Lincoln have done?

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.

Roberts, Rove, and Dead Iraqi Constitution Draftees: Can Americans (and Democrats) Handle a Three-Course Meal?

I was amused recently when I read the following quote online from a Washington Post column:

"It was not just Wilson, but Democrats, reporters and a few former officials who were publicly wondering if Bush had led the nation to war based on flimsy, if not outright false, intelligence."
source: Washington Post article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600106/.

Ah, the self-justification of the press corps; especially when they fail in their journalistic responsibilities.

This reporter, who manages to pen quite a few articles (with hopefully few grammar, spelling, and usage errors...LOL) despite working a full time and two part-time jobs, is bemused: I had not only been "wondering" whether the case to go to war in Iraq was "flimsy," I knew the premises on which the pitch for war was sounded were "outright false" and I said so. In fact, the case for war was so transparent, so weak, so incredible, and so misplaced it inspired me to pen my criticism out of frustration that the Congress, the media, and the electorate failed to properly question a decision by the Chief Executive to call on our nation's young people---some of whom sat in my classes---to answer this country's highest calling.

The President, Mr. Bush, has turned sophistry into an art form in his style of "honest" character-based governance. But what kind of man would send troops to die in battle based on untruths and false premises? That seems neither honest nor demonstrable of any kind of character I had learned in the Boy Scouts or Sunday school.

So it was interesting that this week---when Karl Rove---the mole who disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent (and there was nothing "muddy" about that) according to Matt Cooper himself, has come under fire for endangering a CIA agent's family, breaching national security by blowing the operative's cover, and exposing developed intelligence contacts around the world, was saved by a controversial Supreme Court nomination and a potentially contentious confirmation battle. It seems George W. Bush loves to play war when the going gets tough.

But Democrats need be concerned: the loyal opposition must recall it is in opposition. And they must not let the Rove story out of the steam cooker because, in the post-9/11 world---too much is at stake.

There will be a tough confirmation hearing over Roberts as indeed there should be considering the 50-something year old jurist will be auditioning for a lifetime appointment. That could mean a tenure of thirty or even forty years. So the Democrats need to be steadfast and ask Roberts the tough questions that need to be asked, providing the kind of oversight, or in the case of Roberts, "advice and consent," that the populace expects while simultaneously upholding their Constitutional duty to provide such questioning.

But that does not, nor should it, absolve the press, the people and their elected representatives from fully, and thoroughly investigating and acting on the Rove scandal. The idea that the senior advisors to both the President and Vice-President of the U.S. misused classified, top secret information to discredit an American citizen and in so doing compromised national security is dastardly and criminal. If the administration could not, and still can not, make a legitimate case for war on its own merits, then that decision---to go to war---ought better be postponed.

The Democrats have a tough agenda to triangulate: Roberts nomination, the Rove affair, and the ongoing civil war in Iraq (two Iraqi constitution authors were just killed yesterday: imagine if James Madison or Benj. Franklin had been killed during the run-up to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution: what would American democracy look like, or not look like, today?

If Americans can handle the Aruban teen disappearance and the Michael Jackson case all on the same plate, then surely they can contemplate the Rove affair, a Supreme Court nominee, and a war in which more and more are dying for a less and less clear goal all at the same time. And Democrats need to strategize, organize, and not apologize for taking the lead on all three of those issues.
tems.