Blue Dog Reaganite

The 2014 Senate Campaign & The Tea Party

We’re in the last few days of calendar year 2013 and turning the corner into an election year, with control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate up for grabs. Blue Dog Reaganite initially planned to explore each of the Senate campaigns, but after dipping a toe in the water with early looks at some of the races, I’ve had a change of heart, and here’s why…

*My purpose was to use the Senate races as a window into the American political soul, in the hopes that I might find something different at the state level than what we see at the presidential level. I suppose there are some differences, but my early look was disappointing.

The reality that the Democratic nominees are completely subservient to Planned Parenthood, while Republican candidates are beholden to Wall Street’s corporate agenda is as true in the Senate races as it is in presidential politics.

Consequently, I’m almost always going to support the Tea Party candidate in the Republican primary, and failing that, bite my tongue hard and vote for the GOP nominee in the general election. And if the Democrat wins, I’ll hope against hope that they’ll at least be true to their economic populist platforms. The track record on all of the above is that I end up disappointed.

Even voting for the Tea Party candidate in the primaries brings with it trepidation. I support the Tea Party because it’s the only movement in American politics that’s even remotely serious about addressing the national debt, without which we can’t reform our trade policies in a pro-worker fashion (you can’t stand up to China when they bankroll your deficits).

The fact the Tea Party is regularly castigated as “wild-eyed” and “irresponsible” by the very people who ran up a $16 trillion debt is testament to the movement’s seriousness about the debt.

But the trepidations come from the reasons I outline in this blog’s mission statement and have alluded to in various posts and it boils down to two words—extreme libertarianism. The Tea Party movement seems to have adopted the late atheistic libertarian author Ayn Rand as their spiritual and intellectual mentor.

 I read Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged, the one that’s been made into two movies that have become to the right wing what The Godfather is to the mafia. As a literary experience, I enjoyed it. As a political experience, I found it repugnant. It’s the glorification of acquiring wealth at the expense of all else.

 I subscribe to the Catholic Church’s belief—that acquiring wealth is not bad, and that the market economy is just, but a society’s sense of morality has to lead them to a just distribution of the fruit of one’s labor. The debate over what is just covers a wide range of possibilities, and does not necessarily favor the conservative or liberal side of our contemporary debates. The danger Rand poses is that she challenges the very premise of the debate and says everyone should be on their own.

Pope Francis recently repudiated such an extreme form of capitalism, and was rebuked in return by Rush Limbaugh, who essentially implied the pope was a Marxist.

Limbaugh’s statement was ignorant. The Vicar of Christ was in fact taking the noble concept of wealth accumulation and pointing it to its proper end. It’s similar to left wing criticisms of Catholic teaching on sexuality—any suggestion of limits is immediately taken to accuse the Church of being a killjoy, rather than pointing goodness to its correct outcome.

The short version of this spiel is that I am against the notion of libertarianism in all forms, and both parties have their wings who say “do whatever you want, and any suggestion there are limits is akin to a dictatorship.” In the Republican case—the Tea Party in particular—this comes with the acquisition of wealth at any cost.

I’m sure there are individual Tea Party members, and many more who sympathize with the movement that would agree with me and don’t follow Rand’s logic to its dead-end conclusions. But a movement is ultimately directed by its most devoted followers, and the Tea Party is locked in on hard-core libertarianism.

The result is that Tea Party candidates can achieve some short-term goals that Blue Dog Reaganite wants, namely reduction of the national debt. But they are not a long-term ally. The Tea Party is the equivalent of the NFL head coach who can take a lousy team and at least get them to the playoffs. But he won’t take them to the Super Bowl.

When you’re at rock bottom, you take what you can get in the short-term, but you can’t lose sight of the long-term goal. And in politics, debt reduction is the playoffs, but a new coalition built on economic populism and social traditionalism is the Super Bowl.

The above 800-plus words are the long version of this—I’m not going to cover every Senate race, because I don’t feel like writing redundant posts that say…

“The Democrat is solid on trade policy, but the stances on abortion make it impossible for me to vote for them, unless of course the corporate hack backed by Republicans abandons the unborn as well. I’m supporting the Tea Party candidate in the primary, but am concerned about their long-term agenda.”

That’s my opinion on the 2014 Senate campaign in a nutshell.

RG3 & Race In America Today

I spend most of time writing over at my site TheSportsNotebook.com, which focuses on a mix of sports history articles and contemporary commentary. As a fan of the woeful Washington Redskins, there's one topic that's been on my mind a lot lately, but I thought it might be better suited for this venue--it's whether race is playing a role in the current quarterback/coach drama in Washington.

If you're a sports fan, you probably know the details, given that most media outlets are all over it. If you're not a sports fan, here's a basic primer on what you need to know for this particular discussion...

*There seems to be a serious conflict between Redskins' head coach Mike Shanahan, who won the Super Bowl with the Denver Broncos in 1997-98, but has struggled with both the Broncos and Redskins since 2005, and his young quarterback Robert Griffin III, known casually as "RG3." The cause of the conflict isn't pertinent to this piece, but my take on the entire timeline of events from 2012-13 is here.

We should note as a disclaimer that neither side will acknowledge their distaste for the other, but it would be a big upset if the media speculation in this regard wasn't true. Almost as big an upset as the Redskins actually winning a game. Sorry, I let some frustration fly there.

*RG3 is an African-American quarterback and looks the part, with his long dreadlocks. Indeed, when he was drafted with the second overall pick in the spring of 2012, a friend of mine texted me to inform me that my team had "spent $50 million on a guy who looks like he just knocked over a 7-11."

I should note that this friend is *not* a racist--he's more like our version of Charles Barkley, the African-American basketball commentator renowned for saying race-oriented things that virtually everyone in our social circle, exclusively of European heritage (not by design, just the way it is) appreciates. I suppose a lot of people also call Barkley a racist, but I'm not one of them. I think those that do need to stop creating this ultra-tense racial climate that's already led me to write several disclaimers and explanations before we even get into the meat of the story.

*RG3 was benched for the final three games of this season. A big part of the reason is health-related. He tore an ACL last season, has never looked fully healthy and Shanahan's ostensible reason was to make sure that the young quarterback can have an offseason devoted to progressing as a quarterback rather than rehabbing. The fact Washington has a talented backup quarterback--a white guy in Kirk Cousins surely contributed to the coach's thinking.

*In the aftermath of the decision, a commentator on the NFL Network, Michael Irving--former wide receiver with the Dallas Cowboy teams that won three Super Bowls from 1992-95, dropped the race card on the table. Irvin pointed out that Shanahan had clashed with two other high-profile African-American players during his troubled tenure in Washington, and then asked "Do you think they would do this to Andrew Luck?" Luck is the player chosen one spot ahead of RG3 in the 2012 draft and is a clean-cut white guy from Stanford.

*This isn't the first time RG3's race has become an issue. It was last year at this time that an African-American commentator, Rob Parker, then of ESPN, called the quarterback a "cornball brother", because he was marrying a white girl and there are rumors he might vote Republican. Parker added "it makes me wonder if he's down with the cause." Parker was correctly fired by ESPN and even his colleague, the proudly black Stephen A. Smith, said during the live broadcast that he was "uncomfortable with where this was going," and said RG3's personal life was his own business.

That's the backdrop to the current drama. So now let's get to the question. Is race a factor in the benching of RG3 or any other part of this Redskins' soap opera?

****************

I'm going to begin with what I think is the easy answer--race is almost certainly *not* an issue with Shanahan and RG3. The fact is that the head coach also had serious problems with his quarterback in Denver, the legendary John Elway, a white player. The breach was so bad that Elway refused to return to the organization after retirement (he's currently the team president and doing quite well at it) until Shanahan was gone. It appears the Redskins' head coach just has a hard time playing well with others.

The harder question is whether there is a racial dynamic going on with media coverage and public perceptions of RG3. The quarterback has not been shy about getting endorsement deals, nor does he shun the TV cameras. With his team struggling (as one who's watched every game, he doesn't deserve the blame for the losses, but that's what happens you are the quarterback), the media has piled on. RG3 is being called a diva, a prima donna, an egomaniac, being full of himself, you name it.

This is where I think race is driving this coverage and my problems date back to last year, when RG3 was riding high, on his way to Offensive Rookie of the Year. My issue can be summed up thusly..

*RG3 comes from an outstanding family. Both of his parents served this country in the military, and his father, now retired, continues to work with veterans.

*As you would expect from a product of this environment, RG3 has never had a problem with authority. He went to school at Baylor, won the Heisman Trophy, helped lift a long-struggling program back to national prominence and there was never a whiff of any difficulty between him and his coaches. Indeed, his high character was something NFL scouts felt added to his draft value.

My thesis is this--if a clean-cut white guy came out of a military family, built a good reputation for character, lifted a struggling program to prominence and then played great in the NFL his first year, all the while repeatedly putting his body on the line in ways pro quarterbacks aren't supposed to do, the mainstream media would eat this up. He would be held out as more than a good football player, but as a role model. The same would be true for his family.

And if this same quarterback later had run-ins with a head coach with a documented track record of not getting along with people, the media would be sure to point that out

Instead, media coverage last season--while indisputably positive--was more about RG3's electric style of play (he's an exceptionally fast runner) and not about the many things that mark his entire family as role models. When the worm turned for the worse this season, media coverage has excoriated the quarterback on a much more personal level. Shanahan's atrocious record of dealing with people has been left unmentioned by all but Irvin.

This is the racial dynamic that disturbs me--the Griffin family, by all accounts, is what we want to uphold. When the opposite happens, it's fair to wonder if there's something more than just football evaluations in play.

I want to be clear that no accusations are being directed at those who think RG3's play has been poor (though I disagree) or who think that Cousins should be the quarterback (I also disagree right now, but am open to being persuaded). Those are football judgments and it's what we talk about at TheSportsNotebook.  You can hold either view, while still agreeing that there's an unhealthy racial dynamic in the conversation about the Redskins' quarterback.

***************

One of the reasons I founded the Blue Dog Reaganite blog and shun the political mainstream is that I want to ask uncomfortable questions of my own political ideology, something that doesn't go over well in a world where political activists pride themselves on thinking they are ceaselessly correct every time they open their mouth.  And the race issue in general, particularly what we have discussed here pertaining to RG3 raises some uncomfortable questions.

The Blue Dog Reaganite heritage can be defined as an embrace of the pre-1968 Democratic Party, before they lurched radically to the left and the trifecta of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, who combined to break the back of the Soviet Union. Is that heritage, broadly defined, closed off to those of African-American descent?

We should note that this is quite different from asking of whether the heritage is racist. Politicians in the pre-1968 Democratic Party were instrumental in the civil rights movement and Ronald Reagan didn't have a racist bone in his body. But like with the whole RG3 scenario, there can be a unhealthy racial dynamic that doesn't involve actual racism.  

I'm an Irish Catholic and quite proud of my cultural and political heritage. There's no question there were rivalries between the Irish and black communities in America and it spilled out in the aftermath of the civil rights movement. The same would be true of other Euro-ethnic groups. Ronald Reagan also came under fire from the organized political community and race became a wedge issue that left a lot of socially traditional Democrats crossing over to vote Republican, while the African-American vote became the political base of the left wing as they hijacked the Democratic Party.

Ronald Reagan, in a decision that should never have been made, opened his 1980 presidential campaign with a speech at Philadelphia, Mississippi, a place that had been the site of violence against African-Americans during the civil rights movement. I maintain firmly, after reading much of Reagan's writing, that this was not a product of his personal beliefs. But can an African-American be blamed for feeling like they might not be wanted?

The political Left went on to consolidate the African-American vote as their own--they were "down with the cause", as Parker might put it, and used the civil rights experience to create a false linkage with today's debates over gay and lesbian rights--there is quite a difference between race and one's sex life, but African-Americans are being bullied into backing this latest left-wing cause on the grounds that's a natural extension of the civil rights movement.

I find this all quite frustrating, but whenever there's frustration it's always good to start by asking what your own role in it might be. Or in this case, the role of the ideology and heritage that I subscribe to. If we haven't reached out to African-Americans aggressively enough, if we haven't sought to build bridges based on shared values, then is it any surprise if they choose to go another direction in their voting patterns?

As it pertains to this topic, if we don't see the Griffin family's values and service to the country  and celebrate them the same way we might if their last name was Murphy, should we be shocked if African-Americans notice and act accordingly?

The Blue Dog Reaganite philosophy and heritage is something to be proud of, but any political construct is always going to have shortcomings. Our political ideas are ideal for those in the African-American community, and our social values have much in common. Our forebears were great people,  and our own motives in carrying that out have been good, but there were battles that left us divided. It's okay to acknowledge our own role in it and to make some amends. It's called acknowledging we are human, and not always in the right.

For me, that starts with this--in the debate surrounding my favorite NFL team, the Irish Catholic head coach (whose hiring I enthusiastically supported) is wrong and needs to tone down his ego. The African-American quarterback with the long dreadlocks (whose drafting of which I was skeptical) might not be perfect, but his values and those of his family are what we should be supporting.

It's a small decision and on a matter that's not of great social consequence. But if all of us make a lot of small decisions and make them well, they'll eventually have an impact of great social consequence.

Europe Votes To Stem The Pro-Abortion Tidal Wave

There hasn't been much good news in Europe--or anywhere else for that matter--when it comes to the government protecting the most basic of human rights, that of the right to life. Perhaps things are changing for the better though--the European Parliament voted down a draft report that would have turned the whole idea of human rights on its head, and actually established the right to an abortion as human right.

The European abortion vote was too close to get overly comfortable--334 to 327, but this is also the second time in two months the EP has rejected this bill, and what's more the pro-life movement in Europe is going on the offensive. They've gathered over 1 million signatures--enough to force some type of action--on a proposal to end government funding of abortion, and to restrict research practices on embryos.

If you start breaking down the vote by country, it's unsurprising that Ireland, Italy and Poland were the strongest to stand up for life. Poland in particular, the home of Blessed John Paul II and two of the 20th centuries great saints, Faustina Kowalska and Maximilian Kolbe--gave 37 of its 44 parliamentary votes to stop the assault on the unborn.

One thing that has to be noted is just how modest this measure, as well as the one pro-life petitioners are bringing to the forefront are. Abortion is already allowed quite freely throughout Europe, and this vote does nothing to stop that.

What this vote did do was prevent abortion on demand from being forced on countries that don't want it, and to prevent medical personnel from being coerced into performing abortion. The petition the pro-life movement has generated also will not alter the reality of legalized abortion throughout Europe--it's only going to stop European taxpayers from financing it.

This debate is forcing those who adhere to the label "pro-choice", and protest that of "pro-abortion" to make some fundamental decisions.

If you're really pro-choice, you'll vote to get the government out the abortion business entirely and also respect the choices of doctors, nurses and taxpayers who want no part of this mess. If you decide to step over the line and impose your will, be it with a demand for funding, or worse, to force conscientious objectors into abortion, then I don't see how you escape the label "pro-abortion." You've clearly voted to place the government on one particular side.

I don't claim to be pro-choice. I think there are certain things that governments should do, and that protection of human life is one of them. But for those that do feel that even this topic should be a matter of personal choice, this European abortion vote and this current debate is a threshold moment on whether they meant it.

Why Do Catholic Conservatives Oppose Gambling?

Secrets, murder & gambling: my three favorite things
--Richard Castle, The Double Down (2009)

I just finished watching the rerun of my second-favorite Castle episode, where the above quote was delivered by actor Nathan Fillon, who plays novelist Richard Castle, a character who helps the New York police solve crimes while using his hands-on experience in the writing of crime novels.

This episode ranks behind only The Wild Rover, where one of the secondary characters (Kevin Ryan, portrayed by Seamus Dever) goes undercover in the Irish mob. And in a conversation about the show last night, I said that one of my all-time favorite scenes came when actress Stana Katic (who plays Kate Beckett, the co-star and foil for Castle) dropped some thick Russian accent in helping her get into a mob-run poker game.

The point to all this is not to recount my favorite Castle episodes, but to note that the favorite choices come back to some common things, which in turn have cultural and political implications, the kind which I blog about on Blue Dog Reaganite.

I have an interest in the mafia, and a definite interest in gambling. For the record, I don't wager myself, save for an NCAA Tournament pool and an occasional football pool--wagers that amount to anywhere from $10 to $20 for a betting event that stretches several weeks. I do, however take a great interest in point spreads, betting odds, moneylines and the array of tools Las Vegas uses to measure sports teams, and I spent three years working in the sports handicapping business, where my company marketed its picks to gamblers.

All of which would put me in disfavor with social conservatives, the kind of which I would agree with on the right-to-life, euthanasia, the definition of marriage, and other hot-button political topics. My interest in gambling--and the fact I favor complete legalization of all sports betting and casino gaming throughout the United States--is a pretty clear dividing line.

I touched on this point a couple weeks ago in a post about how the pro-life movement needed to unbundle itself from the extraneous issues of social conservatism if they wanted to reach more people. I'll always vote for a pro-life candidate, even I disagree on gambling, but not everyone else will. And more to the point, there's just no logical connection between the two topics.

What I don't quite understand is why Catholic conservatives also fall in line with the anti-gambling crowd. In the late summer of 2012, in a conservative Catholic venue, I gave kind words to New Jersey governor Chris Christie, and cited his effort to legalize gambling as one of the reasons, though not the primary one. I was scolded by a Catholic deacon--not for praising Christie, but for endorsing legalized gambling.

But why? Catholic parishes are legendary for their bingo halls, and having done some volunteer work in there, trust me when I say it isn't a bunch of old ladies putting down quarters while they finger their rosary beads. The games are attended by players who buy as many cards as they can monitor at a time, rapidly using the stamp to fill up their cards every time a number is called out. It was then that I realized that this bingo stuff was really a game of skill, demanding fast reflexes and reaction time. I'm kidding only somewhat on that point.

Nor is the Catholic Church as a whole being inconsistent on this. The catechism that those of us in the pews are called to adhere makes it clear that there is nothing inherently immoral about gambling, a clear dividing line between the Church and conservative Protestant denominations.

Any perceived inconsistency comes either taking the personal beliefs of individual Catholics (which they are quite entitled to) and imputing them to the Church as a whole. Or those same individual Catholics taking their personal beliefs themselves and presenting it as the teaching of the entire Church (something they are not entitled to).

The Catechism Of The Catholic Church does spell out that there can most certainly be byproducts of gambling that are immoral--whether it's cheating at games to betting money that's needed for one's family. But those same sinful byproducts exist with alcohol consumption, and I've yet to hear anyone suggest that we re-enact Prohibition.

Secrets, murder and gambling. Well, I won't say those are my three favorite things. The first two are not even on the list, certainly not the second. And I won't even say gambling is a favorite thing. But it is something I'm interested in. I don't see a reason to apologize for that, and it's long past time to stop making wagering on a football game something outside the bounds of civil society.

The Cheneys, Same-Sex Marriage & The Verdict Of History

There's some domestic discord going on in the family of former vice-president Dick Cheney. One of the former VP's daughters, Mary, is a practicing lesbian, and raises two children with Heather Poe, with whom she obtained a marriage license in Washington D.C. recently. On the other side, there's daughter Liz, running for the Senate in Wyoming and an opponent of same-sex marriage. The dispute went to Facebook.

Heather Poe posted the following--"I can't help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other. I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE."

Mary Cheney addressed her sister directly: "Liz — this isn't just an issue on which we disagree you're just wrong — and on the wrong side of history."

Let me take up Ms. Poe's point first. Does she also believe that polygamy should be protected in every single state? If not, how does one justify this discrimination against someone who believes they're deeply in love with more than one person? Does she believe a man should be able to marry a 16-year old? If not, how can this discrimination be justified, given that 18-years-old being the cutoff point for adulthoood is decidedly arbitrary.

More to the point, do those who believe in same-sex marriage, really believe that every relationship where love is involved must have marriage as a possible end game? If you believe that it's appropriate for the government to draw lines in certain places and restrict marriage--whether it's multiple spouses, minors or anything else society might conjure up--then you're really no different from those of us who oppose same-sex marriage.

We may draw the line at one man and one woman, you may draw it somewhere else, but all the rhetoric about "hate" and "homophobe" does not alter the reality that you're not that different from us. Nor are Heather Poe and Mary Cheney.

Thus, we came to Mary's point, which I suspect is the real engine driving public support for same-sex marriage and that's being on the wrong side of history. We might begin by pointing out that at the time of the Roman Empire there were any number of lifestyles--including homosexuality--which were ascendant, at the same time the Catholic Church was still in its embryonic phase. The Church is still here. The Empire is long gone.

Of course it took a few centuries for the Empire to disappear, and the rising tide of support for same-sex marriage, coupled with the potent financial and cultural influence of the gay rights movement , shouldn't give any of us opponents the illusion that we'll see historical vindication anytime in our lifetime. But it will happen.

Even if it doesn't though, fear over the verdict of history is more than a little vain. It means asking  "what will people think of me?", as opposed to "What is the truth?" History is far from some infallible moral arbiter, and I write as one who thoroughly enjoys historical reading and wishes I'd have majored in the discipline in college, rather than wasting my time on political science and drinking to excess. But to read history is to know it's constantly being revised.

You don't even have to look at issues and events from long ago--just look at how even contemporary history, if I may use an oxymoron, is constantly being revised. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush left office unpopular, the latter extremely so. Both rebounded in esteem post-presidency. Whatever happens to Barack Obama's declining approval ratings, be assured the same is going to happen to him.

Therefore, how can anyone use history as reliable moral guide for forming judgments on contemporary issues? Why would they even want to? The only question that really matters on any subject is not what history will say. It's not whether a position is sufficiently "progressive", or "conservative." The only question that matters is this--is the position I have taken true. Or at least, the truth as I perceive it, free of whatever my normal political allegiances tell me?

I believe the human body was designed in such a way that makes it apparent that sex was intended to be between a man and a woman. While my reasons are undergirded in religious faith, that's also a statement decidedly non-religious and could be embraced by even an atheist.

But if Mary Cheney and Heather Poe don't see it that way, I don't hate them or wish them ill in any way. Why would I? I know nothing about them. If they, and those that agree with them can't reciprocate, then the problem is theirs. Even if they're in the good graces of history. For now anyway.

The Blue Pool On A Patch Of Red

The political battles of America today are defined in terms of colors, that being the red and the blue. The red, of course, being associated with Republicans and the blue with Democrats, based on the colors the TV networks use to highlight each state when calling it on Election Night.

I would identify myself as a "red" voter, with cultural questions being the primary reason, along with support for Republican ideas on judicial nominations, and general support for a nationalist foreign and defense policy and a market economy.

All of those can be delved into a later date, but for this post I would like to synthesize the issues that constitute what I'll call "the blue pool", if we want to envision a patch of blue ink flowing onto a patch of red. It seems I've been writing about these more frequently of late, particularly with the contemporary conservative movement moving well to the right of any ground ever occupied by Ronald Reagan and adding estrangement from Ayn Rand conservatives to that I already knew existed with Daily Kos liberals.

I identify strongly with my Irish Catholic heritage and have a special affection for the city of Boston, so I suppose that's where the Blue Pool begins. But if it stopped there, it could be seen as simply some sentimental affections, both cultural and historical.  It doesn't stop there though, and there some practical political topics, firmly rooted in the present day, that broaden and deepen the Blue Pool.

All of the topics I'm about to discuss circle around the rights of labor and of the working class--a phrase that I'll define as people who work just below middle-class level. Enough income to get by, but where financial insecurity is rife, and not because they're trying to live a lifestyle beyond their means. These topics would be...

*Trade protectionism
*Health care
*Union rights
*Wage laws

The first of these topics was one I outlined in a recent post of issues that would form the heart of a presidential campaign undertaken by my ideal candidate. Protecting America's economy from floods of cheap imports--thereby undercutting domestic manufacturing and encouraging multi-national firms to relocate their plants abroad and ship good back to the American market without penalty--is the most important topic on the American agenda after we protect the rights of the unborn.

This is an idea that would find its strongest backing in the labor unions, who are undercut simply by management being able to threaten the relocation of jobs to cheap labor countries.

I also believe the government should guarantee that every American get access to basic medical care. I'm not saying it has to be a single-payer system or that it has to be ObamaCare. In fact, I would prefer to use a lot of the ideas brought up by conservatives--tax incentives to buy individual policies separate from the employer and being able to own your own coverage--and then coupling that with an expansion of Medicaid to ensure no one slips through the cracks. I support conservative means, but there is no denying that the end--medical care for everyone--is a liberal one.

In a recent post on the coming Senate campaign in Michigan next year, I discussed the rights of labor to organize and outlined why I believe so-called "right-to-work" laws subtly undercut that right. I'm not prepared to extend this beyond the private sector and into government employees. I know the latter includes cops, firefighters and teachers, but it's not about the nobility of the work, it's about the nature of the employer. A private sector union is negotiating against a monied corporation. A public sector union is negotiating against the taxpayers.

This was at the heart of the recent political blowup in Wisconsin, where I live, and Republican governor Scott Walker facing a recall election, which he won by a wider margin than his original election. I backed Walker and the conservatives when the topic was public sector unions. I don't when it comes to the private sector and that creates a definite stream of blue flowing into the pool.

Finally , we come to the question of wages. In my most recent post I discussed how raising the minimum wage is not only a worthwhile idea, but one that can be strongly argued based on conservative principles (at least conservatives who aren't knee-deep in libertarian ideology). There are a few sticking points on the details that I want to see worked out, but in principle I agree with a higher minimum wage.

All of the issues outlined require some level of government intervention in the workings of a market economy, a strong labor union, or at the very least, the threat of a strong labor union to negotiate on behalf of its members. And they all form what amounts to the Blue Pool in an otherwise Red political life.

The Conservative Case For A Higher Minimum Wage

The idea of raising the minimum wage is associated with liberals, and for good reason. But there's an article in Vanity Fair by Kurt Eichenwald that lays out a persuasive case for a higher minimum wage. While Eichenwald appears to be quite liberal and the venue his piece is published in certainly is, a lot of the arguments made can have appeal to conservatives.

While I have some differences with how conservatism is developing in the 21st century, and my heart is still with the pre-1968 Democratic Party, the name of this blog also underscores that my first political hero was Ronald Reagan, and I've yet to vote for a Democratic candidate for president in my lifetime. I haven't voted for a Democratic Senate candidate since 1988.

The point to this brief personal history is that I'm not instinctively inclined to back what Eichenwald says. Furthermore, I think there are some missing elements to his argument, gaps that I would like to see filled before getting on board. But what he does write is persuasive, fact-based and is the solid foundation for an argument to substantially raise the minimum wage. I'd like to make my own appeal to conservatives--especially Catholic conservatives--to consider what he's written, because his case does align with a lot of our core values.

If we were to summarize Eichenwald's argument in a nutshell it's this--corporations, from McDonald's to Walmart, pay their employees dirt wages, barely survivable, if at all. They then rely on government assistance programs to pick up the slack.

In the name of Ronald Reagan, what is this other than blatant corporate freeloading? Keep in mind, when we say the government is picking up some of the slack, it's for basics--food, shelter and medical care. The people in need clearly aren't lazy--they're doing a job that most people would consider beneath them. If we value work and don't like freeloaders, then the correct side to be on in this case is the employee who should be getting paid a livable wage.

The argument that the company won't survive simply doesn't wash either. The obscenely high CEO pay in this country is proof that there's no shortage of money to go around. Is it really creeping socialism to suggest that the person who serves your Big Mac actually be able to afford medical care, and that the CEO might be able to get by on six cars in the garage rather than twelve (before you call that an exaggeration, my last boss before I became a freelancer really did have a 12-car garage)?

I would argue that corporate abuses like this illustrate the sharp divide between establishment Republicanism, which shills for big business, and populist Republicanism, which has focused more on small business owners. The latter are actually a part of their communities, and it's their tax dollars that are being used to subsidize the labor costs of corporate America.

Can anyone explain to me why this makes sense, why it is in any way of reflective of conservative values?

Translating the right values into the right policy is never without a mess, and there are some aspects of this that I'm still shaky on and it pertains to how a substantial increase in the minimum wage would affect small business.

Small business are on a smaller profit margin, and I am concerned that there would be layoffs of employees on the margins of the business. It might be a spouse who's not making a living income standing on its own, but paired up with the other spouse, provides a critical safety net for the family.

One possible solution is to exempt businesses of a certain size (say 50 or fewer employees), but that discourages growth. What if a company has 45 employees and is growing and wants to expand? The last thing you want is a policy that hinders the growth of a firm that knows what it's doing.

Another concern, albeit quite marginal, is that a high minimum wage would make hiring high school kids impractical. This one I'm willing to dismiss. I understand a job teaches a high school student the work ethic, but there are other ways to do that, and I don't think some extra summer work for a student is more important than basic living wages for the provider(s) for a family.

Finally, a point for Catholic conservatives to consider. The tradition of our Church teaches that there are four sins that cry out for vengeance from heaven. The fact that murder and sodomy are among them animates our belief in the rights of the unborn, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. But the denial of workers their just wages is another one, and when someone works for you, yet can't afford all of the basics of life, that strikes me as just such a denial.

I know there's an emotional reaction against agreeing with any idea that sounds like it might come (indeed does come) from President Obama or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), but on this particular topic there is an intersection of Catholic values and those held by the Secular Left. And there's nothing wrong with occasionally agreeing with someone you otherwise want voted out of office

I'd like to say that I've figured out a way to reconcile the problems a small business would have with a higher minimum wage, but I haven't. I'll leave that to the people who study this stuff full-time. I can say though, that on balance, the case for raising the minimum wage is much stronger than the argument against it, and that case can be firmly rooted in traditional conservative values.

A Big Political & Labor Showdown Looms In The 2014 Michigan Senate Race

The state of Michigan is going to have an exciting race for the U.S. Senate in November 2014. It's an open seat, with Democratic veteran Carl Levin retiring, and surprisingly, each party seems to be coalesced around its nominee. The Republicans will likely go with Terri Lynn Land, a former Michigan Secretary of State. The Democrats appear set to nominate Gary Peters, who has served in the state Senate.

Neither candidate has a long track record, and in Land's case, her job has meant she's been able to avoid casting votes or having public opinions on a lot of controversial issues, so we have no idea what she thinks or what specific elements of the GOP agenda motivate her.

What we do know is this--this race will be closely watched on a national basis. The state of Michigan has gone reliably Democratic at the presidential level every election since 1988, though it's usually just enough in play to tempt Republicans.

The perception is that if the GOP can't win this Senate seat in a year where there's no incumbent and a sixth-year Democratic president is watching his political fortunes plummet, then why would anyone believe a Republican presidential nominee can win here? I agree with that perception.

Furthermore, there is also a governor's race, one where the GOP has enjoyed success, and their incumbent Rick Snyder is up for re-election. Snyder made national news earlier this year when he signed "right-to-work" legislation that means an employee at a union shop can choose not to be a part of the union.

If Snyder loses--and this race is going to be another competitive one--he likely drags down Land with him. If he and Land lose, it's likely going to be because their views on union rights proved toxic in the state of Michigan. And if that's the case, it's a loss that would be well-earned.

"Right to work" is a misnomer, and Snyder's legislation--one championed by conservatives across the country--goes into one of the areas where Blue Dog Reaganite turns a lot more Blue Dog and a lot less Reaganite. This boils down to undermining the very right of workers to organize.

If employees all vote to form a union and elect their leadership, that leadership is then responsible for negotiating the wages and benefit scales for everyone. Why should someone be able to opt out and not pay the dues, all the while collecting the benefits? If this were a different context, the Right might call that freeloading.

Furthermore, this law gives employers a chance to divide-and-conquer, cherry-picking the employees they might want to give favored treatment to if only the employee will leave the union. This is how "right to work" undermines the right to organize. It ultimately allows management to water down the union, and eventually to reduce wages.

I know there are bad unions out there, and there a lot of corrupt leaders, ones that have the political interests of the left wing of the Democratic Party more at heart than they do the economic good of their members. In no way am I saying that employees should always and everywhere vote to unionize. Every situation is different, and only the workers on the spot know all the nuances of their relationship with management. It's up to them, and if a person votes no, I have no problem with it.

Republicans are on much stronger ground when they resist ominous moves by Democrats to take away the secret ballot when it comes to voting on unionization. This is a move that's all but inviting bullies to take over the process and intimidate employees into a vote they may not like.

The right of workers to organize--whether exercised or not--should be considered fundamental to upholding the dignity of work itself. The so-called "right-to-work" laws, and the push to eliminate the secret ballot both undermine that.

Unfortunately, a Republican governor has lost his credibility to fight the latter by acceding to the former. Instead of lamenting about the "47 percent", the GOP might have better luck if they didn't attack their rights in the workplace and instead focused on upholding them.  

The Pro-Life Movement Needs To Unbundle Itself From Social Conservatism's Extraneous Issues

There are a lot of good examples to the problem of bundling a variety of social, moral and human rights concerns under the banner of "social conservatism", but for our purposes this morning the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race will be good enough.

The nature of the race is simple--the Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen is potentially vulnerable--she won with 52 percent of the vote in a 2008 environment quite favorable to her party, but now has to seek re-election in a political atmosphere not quite as blue. Shaheen's belief in the power of government does not extend to offering any protection to the unborn, which means she fails my first threshold of support.

What are the Republicans offering as an alternative? We won't know for sure until next September 9 when the primary is held, but two prominent candidates right now are former Congressman Charles Bass, and state activist Jim Rubens. The latter is a declared candidate, with Bass reported to be strongly considering.

Here is where the "bundling" problem comes into play.  Bass represents the corporatist wing of the GOP, which usually carries water for Planned Parenthood, and takes the side of the abortion industry giant at the expense of the unborn. Rubens moves to the other extreme--his committment to "social conservatism" is so firm that he currently leads a statewide movement to stop gambling in his state.

I should also note that former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown is reported to be considering entry into the race--the Republican owns a home in New Hampshire. At this point, it's still too much in the rumor phase for me to take seriously. And for the purposes of this discussion it changes nothing, since Brown would simply substitute for Bass on the ideological landscape.

I'm not going to pick on Rubens specificially here, because he obviously believes in the anti-gambling creed. But what about those of us that don't, and have become tired of hearing casino gaming and sports betting as the work of the Satan himself? The movement that is defined as "social conservatism" has bundled issues like these right along with the right to life, and there is no correlation whatsoever.

Let's say you're a social conservative, who supports the right to life and opposes legalized gambling. Aren't you at least a little bit uncomfortable with an ideology that puts the rights of society's most innocent into the same conversation as whether or not one should bet on a football game?

If you are a socially conservative Catholic, let me take it a step further--the same movement that pushes against gambling today was the same movement that pushed against alcohol in the 1920s, and that was the same movement that smeared Irish Catholic presidential candidate Al Smith, the first of our faith to gain the nomination of major party when he was the Democratic candidate against Herbert Hoover in 1928.

I know times have changed, but there is an underlying philosophical gap between Catholicism and a Puritanical approach to human culture. That gap once played out in Prohibition and is playing out again today when it comes to gambling. Taken to excess, both alcohol and betting can become sinful, but neither is inherently wrong and done in a healthy context can lighten an overly tense atmosphere.

Overly tense is an apt description of social conservatism today. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the social conservatives are so deeply committed to the pro-life cause. If I lived in New Hampshire, given the limited choices, I'd given Rubens a vote.

But if the pro-life movement is going to find long-term success, it's going to have find room for some of us who don't believe that an array of other issues should be bundled up along with it. Especially not when I strongly disagree with the prevailing social conservative trend, as is the case on gambling. Let's unbundle issues that don't belong bunched together, and let all of us find our own place in the pro-life mansion.

A Look At The 2014 Iowa Senate Race

In a recent post, Blue Dog Reaganite outlined the general landscape of U.S. Senate races in 2014 and vowed to pay more attention to the primary process--something that any of us who feel isolated from the mainstream in each party--have no other choice but to do. Today we take a look at the race in Iowa.

Iowa's longtime Democratic senator Tom Harkin is retiring. Harkin was a solid voice for a protectionist trade policy, including when he ran for president in 1992, but his utter lack of compassion for the unborn was disappointing.

And while I obviously don't know the man personally, his persona in public was one that exuded arrogance. This would include his being the man responsible for one of the most disgraceful public displays recently seen in American politics. When his fellow liberal senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) died tragically in a 2002 plane crash, Harkin was the ringleader of funeral speakers who turned a solemn memorial into a political rally.

It was a horrific display of making politics the sum and substance of a human being's life, and it showed exactly what he and those that cheered him on really thought of Wellstone--that his life  had value only so far as he served their political ideology. It's certainly a lesson to be carefully observed by anyone when deciding how much loyalty--if any--a public figure deserves. With Harkin that answer was none.

Regardless of who replaces him, the American body politic will be better off without his presence. Here the best contenders to do...

Bruce Braley: The Democratic Party has fallen in line behind Braley, whose policy stances have the same strengths and weaknesses as the man he aims to replace. Braley has shown some genuine courage on trade policy, speaking out against the free trade agenda as one that favors multi-national corporations at the expense of the middle class. I say "courage", because Braley has not restricted his free trade criticisms to Republican presidents and obvious situations. He also called out President Obama on a free trade deal with South Korea.

South Korea has somewhat compatible economy with the United States--in spite of the obvious differences in size, there aren't the same concerns with low wages that would exist, for example, in Central America. The free trade advocates can make what I would consider a legitimate argument for free trade with South Korea. It's not an argument I'd agree with, but I would see the logic. The fact Braley holds firm to his criticism under a Democratic president is enough to persuade me his commitment to protectionism is real.

Unfortunately, his commitment to Planned Parenthood and the lucrative abortion industry is equally clear. I can't in conscience vote for him, unless the Republicans made it possible by nominating someone equally extreme.

Speaking of the Republicans, they have a brokered field right now, as they gear towards the June 3 primary. Party officials are worried that if no one ends up with 35 percent of the vote, then the nomination would decided at the state convention a month later. Whomever wins the GOP nomination is already getting a later start than Braley, and to cost them another month, would likely be fatal. This field is likely going to get crowded, but right now there are two candidates formally declared, and interesting...

Joni Ernst: A state senator, she has a military background and the endorsement of the Republican lieutenant governor, citing her as a solid conservative. We should note here that Ernst, while voting against public funding of abortion, has also voted against legal protection for the unborn even after 20 weeks. This is an example of why I don't like where conservatism is going--it seems that simply being against government is enough.

Ernst would likely be the GOP's strongest candidate against Braley, given her military background and being a state senator doesn't come with the same baggage that a House member like Braley would pile up. I don't know where I'd come down on that. If abortion is not a factor, I prefer Braley's economic stances--not by a lot, but by enough. The question would be whether Ernst's honorable stance against public funding is enough to justify what would be a vote (or in this case an endorsement, since I don't live in Iowa) solely on pro-life grounds.

Sam Clovis: When I first heard he was a radio talk show host, I had a little bit of a negative reaction. Conservative talk radio broke the back of left-wing control of the media and gave a voice to the populist elements of conservatism, which are a welcome contrast to the corporate mindset that normally controls the Republican Party. For those achievements alone, it deserves our gratitude.

But as the medium has become more widespread, there's also a lot more paranoid rhetoric and mindless toe-the-Tea-Party-line-in-every-case thoughtlessness. But if you read this feature on Clovis, it's very apparent that this is someone who is genuinely thoughtful and comes to his Tea Party convictions through real thought. And since I have no issue with 75-80 percent of the Tea Party platform, that's fine with me. I hope he wins.

I suspect though, that we are heading for a Braley-Young battle in November 2014, which should make for an interesting race. If you ask me to predict, I would guess that Braley having a united party and a nice amount of cash in his war chest holds this seat for the Democrats.