Blue Dog Reaganite

Sotomayer, Ricci & Race

In my last column, I discussed the reasons why Judge Sonja Sotomayer should be confirmed for the Supreme Court. I have not changed in my mind, but today we'll look at the key negative that has arisen regarding her nomination. That issue is race.

The indictment against Judge Sotomayer is straightforward and is centered on the case of Frank Ricci, a Connecticut firefighter. Mr. Ricci, who is slightly dyslexic, overcame his obstacles and placed high enough on a placement test to merit promotion. However, none of the African-American members of the force scored high enough on this test. Based solely on this, Sotomayer threw out the test. And with it went Ricci’s hard-earned promotion. Frank Ricci had the misfortune of being Italian-American in a legal culture where being Italian—and any of the other European ethnicities all sloppily lumped together in the category called “white”—can be a hindrance rather than a help.

In a 2001 speech at Cal, Sotomayer piled on. She said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” The racial superiority in such a comment is self-evident, although if it leads Sotomayer to better legal conclusions than have been reached by white males Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Joe Biden and Dick Durbin, I won’t complain.

Whenever the subject of race comes up, Democrats get nervous. The party depends upon blue-collar people of various European backgrounds voting in alliance with African-Americans and Latinos. This is a gap that can be relatively easily managed—if you get away from the heated rhetoric of political activists, there’s common ground amongst common people. Most African-Americans or Latinos would acknowledge that what happened to Frank Ricci is wrong and an abuse of the system. Most European-Americans would agree that there needs to be legal recourse when obviously prejudicial practices are being followed. But there are two other divides that risk pulling apart when this happens, one large and one small.

The bigger divide is this—the Democratic Party relies on the Frank Riccis of the world to keep dutifully pulling the lever, while the party keeps raising money from wealthy left-wing interests, who remain predominantly of Euro background. The elites need affirmative action decisions like the one that screwed Ricci to assuage their own consciences. And this is the key wedge the Democrats fear being exploited.

Wealthy liberals are not the most politically courageous group in the world. Their tendency is to hide behind those who are less fortunate when making their arguments, while doing very little of substance to actually solve the problems. Thus you hear eloquent words about helping the poor and giving ethnic minorities a helping hand. What you rarely do is actually see them doing anything. You don’t find the children of rich liberals in the public schools in the Bronx. You don’t find a well-financed left-wing activist working for a promotion in a racially mixed police department or firehouse. You can find them vacationing in Cape Cod or skiing in Vale. (I was about to say you find them sitting in the $2,500 seats at the new Yankee Stadium, but you don’t see anyone in those).

This class of people has almost everything in life. But one thing they do covet is political power and to their great consternation, they can’t get their hands on it without the votes of those insufferable blue-collar Euro-ethnics, who can be found doing crass, unholy things like working overtime for a promotion, volunteering at their local church and/or worthwhile organization, and sitting in the upper grandstand at the ballpark.

So when issues are raised that threaten this arrangement, the voices of the well-funded Left come out ferociously swinging. They make it clear that anyone who dares think Frank Ricci has a gripe is pandering to racial prejudice. That the politicians who might point this out are appealing to the lowest common denominator in society. The wealthy Left is a small minority, but it controls key levers of influence in academia, Hollywood, the mainstream media and unfortunately the power buttons of the national Democratic Party. This group is represented in the Senate by men like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. They find their media voices through Kool-Aid dispensers like Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and New York Times writer Maureen Dowd. And they raise money heavily in Hollywood and through radical gay activists.

Giving Frank Ricci’s case more attention means calling attention to the fact that the agenda of these people differs radically from the agenda of working-class Euro-Americans. Just as calling attention to the issue of gay marriage highlights the divide between the well-populated African-American churches and Hispanic Catholics on one side, and the Liberal elite the other. Hence, the Left seeks not to win debate, but to suppress it via intellectual intimidation.

The question of race creates a divide in another area within the Democratic Party. It’s one that’s not nearly as consequential, but it’s of great interest to this particular site. It’s the divide between pro-life Democrats. One the one side you have liberals, predominantly Catholic, who are perfectly comfortable with the Left’s party line since the Revolution of 1968, with the one key exception of abortion. Other than being pro-life, these voters could read the Daily Kos and agree with all of it.

Then you have others, which include this writer. We have strong populist sentiment on economic issues and our hearts are with traditional, pre-1968 Democratic values. But the Revolution left us more displaced, as the Party drifted into radicalism not just on abortion, but on questions of law and order, national security and race. It began to believe that somehow government wasn’t useful in cracking down on crime, or taking out a despotic regime, but was when it could help favored political groups.

Racial issues inflame this divide too. They have been doing so since 1974 in Boston when a judge ordered that children in the Irish Catholic neighborhoods be bused into inner-city schools to achieve racial balance, while leaving wealthy liberal families in the suburbs untouched. They are still doing so today. That’s why even though Sonja Sotomayer is going to be confirmed to the Court, and rightly so, the Left has reason to fear an airing of Frank Ricci’s case in the Judiciary Committee’s hearings.

Sotomayer Is The Best Possible Pick

Barack Obama made his pick for the Supreme Court yesterday, nominating Sonja Sotamayor, previously a U.S. Circuit judge, to take the place of retiring David Souter when the Court reconvenes this fall.

I’m pleasantly surprised by this choice. With an undeniable left-winger in the White House, and the Senate overwhelmingly Democratic, I had expected a choice in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It may well end up that Sotomayer proves to be that too—in fact, smart betting money says she will be—but there’s precious little evidence of that in her previous judicial record.

It would be a mistake to describe me as a single-issue voter, but it would be understandable. I do believe that being right-to-life is a necessary prerequisite to getting my vote, and as it applies here, I believe the prospects for overturning Roe vs. Wade trump virtually all other considerations in evaluating a judicial nominee. I’m interested in a range of issues---from the global economy, to the international order to health care—and not all of them bracket me into the “radical right wing” category that the Left is so anxious to use on anyone who believes that fundamental human rights are not negotiable, nor as important as whether a government program grows by 5 percent or 8 percent. In that light, I’m also interested in judicial philosophy regarding how it applies to cases across the board, but there’s little point in denying that my primary interest is how it affects Roe.

Judge Sotomayer issued only one previous ruling on abortion, and actually came down on the pro-life side. It wasn’t an earth-shattering case, and it would be a mistake to presume she’d become the fifth and deciding vote to overturn Roe (after Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito). But it does suggest that she may not be as doctrinaire as previous Democratic-appointed judges (and regrettable, all too many GOP-chosen judges who had change of heart after getting their lifetime seat).

Pro-life groups are not buying into this, believing that it is unthinkable that Obama would pick anyone who did not share his belief in upholding Roe. The skepticism is understandable, and as indicated above, smart money would even bet on it. The issue is not whether Sotomayer is likely to overturn Roe—she’s probably not. But is she more likely than anyone else Barack Obama is going to appoint and a Democratic Senate is going to confirm? I think so. Let’s take it a step further—given the large Senate majority for the Dems, and his own half-hearted commitment to the issue, does anyone believe that a President McCain would have appointed anyone a whole lot better? I don’t think so.

Furthermore, a liberal Democratic judge overturning Roe is not as wildly crazy as everyone thinks it is. We have to begin with the fact that this case has to be the most misunderstood in the history of American politics. Overturning Roe would not outlaw a single abortion. It would merely return to the matter to the states. What this bizarre 1973 ruling did was to find a “right” to legalized abortion that was quickly elevated to the same constitutional status as the right to free speech. No state legislature can pass a law restricting your right to free political speech—it’s your constitutional right—and Roe vs. Wade declared abortion to have that same standing.

This is demonstrably insane, and even intellectually honest pro-choice thinkers will acknowledge it. One can support legalized abortion with all the radicalism of Barack Obama, who has voted against even the mildest restrictions, and even against protection for infants who survive an abortion, and still admit that it’s not constitutionally protected.

More cynical strategists inside both parties also recognize that the falling of Roe will create a changed political climate and there is a consensus that the change would benefit the Democrats. The logic is that once abortion is out there for states to decide, voters who are conservative on economics or foreign affairs, but liberal on social questions will rush to the Democratic banner. Whereas under the current landscape they feel Roe protects their social interests, leaving them free to vote Republican in support of their other goals. The strategists who hold this view believe that any defections the other direction, from socially conservative, economically liberal voters, have already taken place.

There’s something to be said for this, although I think it’s overstated. I think the Democrats would likely benefit for a cycle or two, but then the trajectory would start to turn back. The types of voters the Dems would gain aren’t going to vote against their economic interests forever, particularly when most pro-life legislation proposed is likely to be moderate and increment, and even more particularly that whatever their personal views on the topic, it doesn’t affect them directly. This line of thought also ignores the fact that even if the Democratic Party is the beneficiary, it could be conservative pro-life Democrats who gain in influence, and profoundly change the face of the political landscape.

That’s interesting speculation on the future, but the immediate point is this—there is nothing contradictory about a pro-choice person voting to overturn Roe, and there’s every reason for hard-headed Democratic strategists to want it overturned. The thought that Barack Obama would provide the final vote to make it happen is hardly what supporters and opponents were expecting. But when you consider the thin paper-trail Judge Sotomayer has left behind, she meets all the criteria of a “stealth” pick. These are the kind that broke Republican hearts for so many years. Maybe it’s time one of them can start breaking liberals.

If you would have asked me a week ago, I’d have been all for fighting this nomination. The actual selection has changed my mind. Judge Sotomayer represents the best possible hope for the pro-life community under the Obama Administration. She is qualified, as her 67-29 confirmation by the Senate in 1998 for Circuit Judge, demonstrates. Don’t do to her what the Left did to Clarence Thomas and make unnecessary enemies.

Dueling Over National Defense

It was quite a week on the national security front. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is refusing to answer further questions on what she knew, and when she knew about alleged torture tactics used at the Gitmo prison camp. The Senate rebuked President Obama’s plans to close the controversial prison. And last but not least, the nation was treated to a duel of words between Obama and former Vice-President Dick Cheney regarding the legacy of the previous Administration.

Going through the litany of topics, the Pelosi controversy is the one that seems to be the most cut-and-dried. All evidence clearly suggests the Speaker is lying when she says she was never informed of what was going at Gitmo. Knowing about waterboarding and other torture tactics is not, in of itself, enough to sink her. The American public is not going to demand the overthrow of a Speaker for supporting harsh interrogation methods against terrorists. However, the political Left is Pelosi’s base and they will demand that heads roll if it turns out the one they thought was their champion was in cahoots with the Bush Adminisration the whole time. And among the electorate at large, hypocrisy never goes over well, no matter the topic.

Making matters worse for Speaker Pelosi is that the CIA has directly called her out on her denials. This includes new intelligence chief Leon Panetta, a loyal Democrat, who once served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff. It is out of the question for the Democratic Party to tolerate a situation where two of its leading figures are calling each other liars (the term Pelosi applied to CIA). That there have been precious few—if any—voices raised in the Speaker’s defense, tells us which one will be expendable. I will be surprised if Pelosi is still Speaker on New Year’s Day 2010. Her usefulness to the party as a leftist mouthpiece and bombthrower against Bush is now used up. At this point, she’s more of a distraction to a party who has a reasonably popular president in the White House.

One way Obama could lose popularity though, is to get into a long drawn-out political battle where he defends the “constitutional rights” of terrorists. Hence, he didn’t raise too much of a fuss when Senate Democrats scuttled his plans to close Gitmo. Here too, the Left is getting impatient with their hero, but Obama cannot afford to die on this hill, particularly with Dick Cheney leading resurgent Republicans in a spirited defense of their record on national security.

Cheney unapologetically defended the tactics of the Bush Administration, including at Gitmo. The former VP noted that Obama released confidential memos detailing interrogation methods, but provided none of the memos that told of the terror plots that were averted with the information gained. All of which suggest that elements of the new regime are more interested in getting back at Bush than they are at defending the country. Obama has consistently kept himself distanced from such skullduggery. Whether that’s a sincere distance, or just a case of him giving the wink and nod to left-wing crusaders from afar, time will tell.

More Republicans need to stand up and imitate Cheney. Think back to the morning of September 12, 2001. If I had told you then, that there would not be a single terrorist attack on American soil, would you have believed me? I wouldn’t have believed it myself. Yet George W. Bush kept this country safe. He did it so brilliantly, that less than a decade removed from the worst attack in the history of the nation, homeland security was virtually removed as a political issue. Voters of both parties were free to air their grievances against him from troubles ranging from excess spending (for which he was culpable) to rising gas prices and a collapsing stock market (for which he was not). If the GOP avoids a fight with the Democrats over national security simply because they don’t want to be seen with the former vice-president, whose approval ratings are roughly on a par with the Washington Nationals’ position in the NL East, then they deserve to be a permanent minority. Defense of the homeland is an area where Republicans performed well on, and they shouldn’t be embarrassed to say so.

ON THE DOMESTIC FRONT

Barack wants attention focused on domestic policy, and in that light he had reason to be happy with the credit card reform legislation that was sent to him this past week and that he signed on Friday. The country had reason to be happy too. The new law cracks down “teaser” offers, preventing card companies from raising interest rates unless a customer has gone 60 days without making a payment. The credit card companies lobbied furiously against this bill, saying it would restrict credit more generally.

Well, that’s a good thing. The card companies have been incredibly irresponsible, as the raft of junk mail that everyone gets with new offers, attests. That more and more mailings have things like “Urgent Notice” or something to that effect, that compels one to open the letter just to make sure it’s not genuinely important, simply shows how far the card companies have sunk. They’ve become nothing more than legalized shylocks, only without the advantage of a bookmaking outlet attached. Kudos to Obama for signing the bill, and to Connecticut senator Chris Dodd, who spearheaded its passage.

Obama, Notre Dame & Catholicism

The controversy of President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame is over, and now its aftermath remains. What does it mean for the Catholic Church and American politics?

Notre Dame was wrong to invite Barack. Obama is in clear opposition to Catholic doctrine on core moral issues such as abortion, stem-cell research and gay “marriage.” Obama supporters within the Catholic community acknowledge this, but counter that he stands more in line with the Church on various social justice issues and on foreign affairs. The problem with this line of reasoning, is that there is no formal Church position on what the appropriate level of domestic spending on a welfare program is, or what the appropriate tack to take on foreign affairs questions, including those of war and peace are. There are principles, by which a Catholic who wishes to form his/her thought in good conscience must abide by, but the best means to apply them are left up for debate among Catholics in good faith.

For example, it would be a gross violation of Catholic principles to say “Screw the poor. Let them starve.” But if a Catholic evaluates the current conditions on American poverty and reaches the conclusion that government programs are at best a non-factor, and at worse a deterrent to people lifting themselves out of poverty, then that position can be held in good faith. And the reverse is also true. Another Catholic of more liberal bent might look at the landscape and see the need for increased government action.

On foreign affairs, there is no basis in Catholic teaching for arbitrarily making war on another country for specious reasons or for reasons which are not directly tied to the security of the homeland. But if one Catholic of conservative persuasion believes that the threat of terrorism has reached a point where the only option is to “fight them over there before they get over here”, that can be reasonably debated. Conversely, other Catholics might feel that rushing in to knock over every dictator in the world is imprudent and can’t justify the loss of life that comes with it.

This latter issue in particular has led to confusion on the distinction that exists between moral issues such as the right-to-life and domestic and foreign policy questions. Individual churchmen—including the pope himself—are as entitled to their own judgment and opinion as the rest of us and may use their position to forcefully advocate a particular view. Church bodies, such as the U.S. bishops conference may issue a document calling for specific policy solutions to current problems, but that does not make them “the Catholic position”, per se.

Moral issues—most prominently abortion—aren’t negotiable, because they are always black-and-white. It’s always wrong to take innocent life. The subjective guilt of the person involved—something known only to the mind of God—may be different in every case (can anyone really find it them to be harsh and unforgiving for a girl who was abandoned and scared? Certainly not anyone in the pro-life movement that I’ve ever met.), but the act itself always remains the wrong choice. The same black-and-white certainty stands in stem-cell research and gay marriage. These are truths that stand in every age.

Domestic and foreign policy issues have their own black-and-white certainty. But it must be reiterated that these lie in general principles, not policy conclusions. The latter are dependent on the historical context in which every age finds themselves. And none of us ever have a perfect grasp on our own age. As St. Paul teaches, we see “through a glass darkly”, and operate on imperfect information. George W. Bush found it out when the weapons of mass destruction he had every reason to believe were in Iraq were never found, and any of us who are honest will admit to having preconceived political ideas undone by a change in events or exposure to new circumstances.

Even within the context of moral issue themselves, there does remain some room for debate. Is it necessary to vote for the “purest” candidate possible, or is it permissible to vote for someone lesser on the grounds that the latter is a better hope for winning in a general election. Is it necessary to apply the same moral rigidity to a vote for president as it is to a county commissioner? All are conversations that I’ve been a part of among Catholics who want to vote and participate in political affairs with a clean conscience.

I would argue that the distinction that exists between moral issues and domestic/foreign policy questions is really not all that controversial. What makes it seem so is that the divide over these issues breaks down so sharply along party lines, and makes it seems like such a view is really an insistence that all Catholics must vote Republican, without being quite so crass as to put it that bluntly.

At least in presidential politics, that’s what it does seem to boil down to these days. The Secular Left may not have the raw numbers among self-identified Democrats, but they do control the financial levers of power in the party and hence the candidates. Conversely, the Protestant Right, with its insistence on a reasonably strong pro-life candidate has enough power in the Republican Party to at least get a minimally acceptable nominee every four years. As long as that landscape exists, the link between Catholic political doctrine and GOP presidential candidates is going to remain. Personally, I don’t think that’s healthy, for either the Catholic community or for the American political community in general. But until pro-life Democrats decide to assert themselves—and their pro-life brethren on the conservative side of the aisle decide to start helping them rather then denouncing them—it’s not going to change.

Catholic social and political doctrine represents an exquisite balance between certainty and humility. Like Faith itself, there’s core certainty on vital questions, with broad room for everyone around a few key principles right below that. Notre Dame’s actions contradicted that. It’s one thing to invite Barack Obama to speak in an effort to find common ground. But it’s quite another to make the commencement ceremony his venue and to bestow an honorary degree on him. Notre Dame sent the message that the issues they may disagree with the new Administration on are no more consequential then on whether they disagree with him on if Charlie Weis should be back as football coach. That’s why it’s not for nothing that many pray for the return of Catholicism to the campus that has Our Lady on the Golden Dome.

Considering The "Public Option"

As the health-care debate heats up anew in the halls of Congress, the "public option" is going to be the issue that draws the most fire. It is a government-offered insurance plan that those who do not have coverage available through their employer would be able to enroll in. To Republicans, it's the first step to socialized medicine. The logic being that once a public option is out there, employers will pull back their coverage and over time everyone will be in the government plan. To Democrats, any reform that doesn't have this option is no reform at all, but just tinkering with the system.

The devil will be in the details, so I reserve final judgement. But on the general parameters of debate, I think the GOP concerns, while legitimate, are overblown. A public option exists for car insurance, but that has not destroyed the private market. And employers offer medical coverage right now for a very market-based reason--they want to attract and keep good employees. Introduction of a public option is not going to change that, unless the government plan ends up more lavish than what private insurers are offering. Again, if the auto insurance precedent is any guide, there's not much likelihood of that happening.

Democrats are on the right track in pushing for a public option. Republicans would be wise to focus their concerns on other aspects of the coming legislation. They might want to make sure tax incentives that will enable people to purchase and own their own health care, rather than have it come through their employer, are written into the plan. This was an idea of George W. Bush's, and a good one. They will want to make certain that if Democrats try to require that things like abortions are covered under the public plan, that all moderate voters know about it. There's a lot at stake in how the final health care plan is actually written, and the GOP will find more listeners if they focus on issues like these, rather than contesting a principle that's already in force in other segments of the insurance industry.

Road Map For The GOP

Two men from divergent wings of the Republican Party's conservative movement have weighed in with their thoughts for putting life back into the party. Pat Buchanan, leading paleconservative commentator, one-time presidential candidate and vitally influential throughout the 1990s in forming the thought of this editor, says that GOP losses are easily recoverable, but the party must find some issues on which to stand and fight.  Bill Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice-President Quayle lays out five specific areas for the fight to take place. Buchananan and Kristol don't particularly like each other, so it's unlikely this was a collaborative effort. But read together, the pieces do come together as one to form a basis for a revived opposition party.

I think both are mostly correct. The death of the Republican Party is being greatly exaggerated. We seem to go through this every election cycle, where supposedly sober-minded political analysts rush in to read sweeping historical changes into every election result. As though it's a shock that a very telegenic candidate leading a party who'd been "out" for eight years in a mostly balanced country won. Now the GOP does have serious problems down the line, as there is a divide between their rank-and-file and the political leadership. But that problem is not necessarily more serious than the one Democrats faced in the aftermath of 2002, and we see how long it took them to recover--in spite of the same death notices being written for them by the same analysts now proclaiming the death of Republicans. It does seem mental stability is not a prerequisite for doing election commentary.

And in the short term, both Buchanan and Kristol are right that it will be easier for the GOP to unite in opposition to selected elements of Obama's proposals rather than formulate an agenda of their own. As cynical as it may sound, bear in mind that a party formulating an agenda is far different from you or I developing one. It involves bringing diverse members of a coalition together, first on issues, then on what issues should be priorities, then on how best to market those priorities. It has to be done, but it does take time, and as Obama lurches heavily to the Left in areas from foreign policy to the judiciary, to economic stimulus, he can't be left unopposed while the thrashing out takes place.

It still has to be kept in mind that Republicans do have a severe credibility gap with the American public, this voter included. Their elected leaders freely went along with the worst aspects of the Bush Administration--the massive increase in spending, often for little good reason, and were too cowardly to back the former president on the best of his agenda--Social Security reform and his sense of loyalty to the Iraq mission, even as it lost public support. Any opposition to Barack should be accompanied by a humble acknowledgement that they failed to act on their ideas when last given a chance, and to explain why this time around will be different. Such an approach would be unprecedented. But it would be change we can believe in.

Misplaced Empathy

President Obama has said that he wants "empathy" and "understanding" to be an essential part of the makeup of whomever he chooses for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of David Souter. But the president is not choosing a spiritual confessor, he is not choosing a teacher or a next-door neighbor, he's not even choosing a legislator. In any of these positions, empathy and understanding might indeed be a vital benchmark. But a judge really only needs to know how to learn to read the law.

It is this misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary that creates serious problems in American politics. What one person considers empathy, another considers out of touch. In the great city of Boston, in the mid-1970s, the Irish Catholic community came literally to blows over this. Judge Arthur Garrity decided that in the interests of "empathy" for the African-American population, he was going to hotwire the city's public school system, forcing students out of the Irish neighborhood in South Boston ("Southie") and busing in newcomers. But did he lack empathy for the people of Southie, who lost their neighborhood school and had to see their kids bused far away? Was Judge Garrity's empathy the kind that someone else--not him--would eventually bear the burden for? Indeed it was. And Southie was right to rise in opposition over it.

And because this so-called "empathy" came from a judge, not an elected official, it couldn't be handled by proper mechanisms of politics. People were shut out of the process, handed an edict.  Because of this, Judge Garrity's style of ruling became rightfully known as "judicial tyranny."

How would the Obama people respond if the next Supreme Court justice decided he had empathy for the unborn? Or for gunowners? Or for (gasp!) people who want the Ten Commandments displayed publicly? What if orders were simply handed in down in favor of these people and the Left was powerless to do anything about it, even at the ballot box? I think it safe to say they wouldn't be too happy.

Legislators can show show empathy. It's an even more desirable quality in personal relationships. But a judge only needs to interpret the law as it's written. It is that philosophy alone that should animate the search for a new Supreme Court judge.

Shortcomings Of The Market

It's funny what can spark your thoughts on philosophical political issues, but for me it happened reading College Football News' bowl predictions for the coming season. Aside from thinking that the authors of this column have way too much time on their hands to be doing bowl picks in early May, it also exposed some of the shortcomings of the capitalist system.

This is not a screed against business and wealth creation. I consider myself generally supportive of the free market and skeptical of government intervention. But--and this is where I part sharply with the libertarian thinking that increasingly dominates the conservative movement--I think it has to be acknowledged that letting everyone act in their own best interest can, at times, create results that are contrary to the public good. Since the actions taken aren't inherently immoral, you really can't condemn the individual entity for acting as such, but it does underscore the need for a central governing body to exercise a certain amount of control.

So what did this have to do with CFN's bowl picks? Well, college football has benefited over the years from having a clearly defined date and set of games as representing its showcase. That's typically been New Year's Day. Even as the number of games increased over the years, there was a certain prestige to playing on January 1 or later, and an average fan knew if they wanted to watch the best the sport had to offer, there was a clear benchmark to measure it by.

Without turning this post into a re-hash of the college football postseason structure, suffice it to say that showcase has been weakened. If you take a look at the link, there are increasing numbers of bowls pushing their games to January 1 or 2, most of them which cannot remotely claim to be representative of the best the sport has to offer. From the Papajohns.com Bowl, to the Alamo Bowl to the Liberty Bowl. Fun games to be sure, but we're a long way from the clarity provided by a an Orange-Sugar-Cotton-Fiesta New Year's Day. And the sport is damaged by this.

You can't condemn in the individual bowls for moving their games. They are seeking the largest possible audience, and it's not as though they're killing anyone to do it. They're just working out a TV deal that serves themselves, their sponsors and the teams that ultimately end up being chosen to play there. So it has to be left to a central governing body--a strong federal government, if you will, to step in and clean it up and be sure that the individual players in the game keep their actions confined to a certain framework that benefits the game as a whole.

This same logic can be applied to a host of issues in the political sphere. In global trade, I don't necessarily fault companies who move their operations overseas. And as a consumer I myself have bought imports based on no greater criteria than it's cheaper. But these individual actions, which are not morally objectionable, and if done within a limited context, even beneficial, can act as a drag on the overall economy if gone to an extreme. And it's up to the government to intervene and establish a standard.

Health care represents a similar shortcoming. Giving insurance to a person who is already sick and putting them in a pool with healthy people is a ridiculous business decision. But making sure people who need health coverage and are missing it through no fault of their own is a moral imperative. And a government must step in to either help directly or restrain free-market practice.

Free markets are the greatest foundation for economic prosperity known to man. It is where economic discussion ought to begin. It is in this belief that I would generally describe myself as conservative. But the market is not an end in itself. It creates wealth and makes no greater moral claims. It is up to society as a whole to best determine how all the actions of individual people creating wealth can best be geared toward making sure results meet the needs of the team as a whole.

Conservatives would argue to leave it up to charitable giving. And given that self-described conservatives have been documented as more charitable with their money than self-described liberals, perhaps that's understandable. But it will often be insufficient. Ironically, perhaps the best argument for Democratic domestic proposals is to save the country from the greed of their own party's yuppie class. But it's my own belief that there are situations where government has to act, that leads me to describe myself politically as a conservative Democrat, or a Blue Dog Reaganite, as the title of the blog says.

Whether its the global economy, health care or keeping the college football bowl system in line, sometimes just letting the market work its will isn't enough.

Obama's Court Challenge

It's been an active time in the first days of the Obama Administration, between the big economic proposals, the health care discussions, the apology tour in Europe and the release of CIA memos. The only area that was missing was the judiciary. With the announced retirement of David Souter earlier this week, it's missing no more.

Obama has mostly avoided stepping into contentious areas that would divide his constituency. He's kept public attention on the economy, where his voters mostly support him or will at least give his expansive proposals the benefit of the doubt. Such will not be the case with a judicial nomination, which opens up a host of social issues that divide not only the country, but the coalition the Democrats need specifically. Issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, the Patriot Act, will all be brought to the fore.

There is no question of heavily Democratic Senate is going to confirm the president's choice, and it will do so overwhelmingly. The question will be whether the process becomes contentious enough to cause political damage to the majority party. At the very top, the Democrats are completely dominated by the Secular Left, but up and down the party they rely on a more diverse group of voters to win. This includes voters who are pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-gun. It includes voters who would favor more conservative interpretations of various national security laws. In short, it includes voters who would not look kindly on an ACLU-approved judge, as Obama will surely pick.

The Left has historically made good use of the choices of Republican presidents. Their tactics have been repugnant to any decent human being--bracketing Robert Bork with segregationists, slandering Clarence Thomas, calling Sam Alito a racist, etc. Particularly pathetic has been the spectacle of Teddy Kennedy, he of the Chappaquiddick cover-up, pretending to sit in judgement of the character of another. But as appalling as their behavior has been, it's always served the purpose of energizing their base voters in preparation for the next battle.

Opportunities like this are potentially even richer for the opposition. Not only would a judicial fight energize the GOP's conservative base, something they badly need, but it would shift the focus to issues where the Republicans can appeal to a large bloc of swing voters, something else they badly need (I guess the GOP badly needs just about everything right now, as the political equivalent of the Detroit Lions).

Voters who are economically populist and socially traditional gave their votes to the Republicans in 2002 & 2004 when 9/11 put the focus on national security and a conscious campaign strategy focused on judges. They've shifted to the Democrats the past two cycles as the economy takes center stage. These voters haven't changed. Only the focus has. Smart Democratic operatives know it, which is why they don't want a public fight over a Supreme Court pick. Republicans should be just as smart and pick the fight. And conservative Democrats should seize the moment to start letting the party know they won't be pushed around any longer.