Same old same old Sonia

(Denver Post, June 21) “It is a small state, and yet there are those who love it.” Sen. Daniel Webster, arguing the Dartmouth case before the Supreme Court, actually said “college,” not “state.” But my paraphrase is apropos for Coloradans in a summer when the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor has everyone talking about senators and justices. We do love this smallish state of ours, and jealousy for Colorado’s prerogatives of self-government is in order as we debate replacing David Souter. “Don’t tread on me,” the defiant flag of the founding era, has made a comeback at this year’s Tea Parties. Does Sotomayor get that? Not that I can tell, which means she’s wrong for the court. Of the three federal branches, claimed Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, “the judiciary will always be the least dangerous to the Constitution,” as it has neither “the sword or the purse.” Decades of judicial imperialism have left that prediction as devalued as Hamilton’s $10 bill.

More accurate was his rival Robert Yates, who wrote in the Anti-Federalist that history had never seen “a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.” He worried that the Supreme Court would “be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually” and at last “to melt down the states into one entire government for every purpose.”

Did Yates exaggerate? Not much. From FDR’s time to Obama’s, regardless of which party appointed them, the robed priesthood of the bench has overseen more and more of American governance gravitating from state capitals to Washington and from the elected branches to themselves.

Is there blame to go around? Yes; every part of our body politic has helped weaken liberty. We’re now getting the government we deserve. Does history hinge on Sotomayor’s confirmation or defeat? No; “wise Latina woman” or not, she’s just one judge. We the people must initiate the needed constitutional rebirth.

It’s dismaying, though, how oblivious most politicians are to the high court’s part in turning free citizens into docile “sheeple” (Pravda’s mocking word). Seeking some comprehension of the crisis, I asked Colorado’s senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, what our smaller state with its commitment to participative self-government should constitutionally expect from the Supreme Court. The answers came back bland as sand.

“Coloradans want judges who are fair, impartial, and faithfully apply the law,” said Bennet, adding that he hopes for a sensitivity to “our special concerns in the West” about water rights, public lands, and the role of government. Udall told me the qualities he’s looking for include “moderation, an ability to listen and bridge ideological divides, and above all, a deep understanding of the constitution.” Unlike Bennet, who came out for Sotomayor after a brief meeting, Udall is uncommitted though leaning favorably.

The danger of senators rubber-stamping a president’s judicial nominees, predicted by Oliver Ellsworth at the 1787 convention, seems borne out by these two in relation to fellow Democrat Barack Obama. They need remediation from CU law professor Robert Nagel, author of “Unrestrained: Judicial Excess and the Mind of the American Lawyer.” Nagel says legal groupthink has made the whole country politically timid and “slavish in believing we need to be saved by the Supreme Court” from the messiness of democracy.

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky, another Democrat and the first woman on that bench, supports Sotomayor but said she too wishes for a high court with more “out in the world experience” and fewer Ivy-trained Easterners with appellate resumes like this nominee.

Very true, and by that yardstick I’d prefer Dubofsky herself, or Bennet or Udall, or Bill Ritter or Pat Schroeder, to Judge Sonia. Liberals all – but any of them would be less susceptible to the seductive superstition of Supremes as Saviors.

Words for the Class of 2009

(Denver Post, June 7) Colorado high school graduates of 2009, how exciting to see you gathered by the tens of thousands at Invesco Field. Following up your commencement ceremonies in May, here we are in June for the young citizens’ Responsibility Rally. As your keynoter, I’ll be brief. (Applause.) Even from last month, you’ve likely forgotten your graduation speaker’s message. Mine from 1962 is long gone. I do remember a Bible verse from our principal about listening, and a fireside talk by our camp director about duty. Maybe you’ll remember this day when a 20th-century American offered two words for the 21st century: personal responsibility. If you do, our rally can be as historic as Barack Obama’s appearance at Invesco. Why? Because in his first days as President, Mr. Obama not only called for “a new era of responsibility.” He also said a hallmark of the new era should be everyone in your generation completing high school. But no politician can impose that from the top. It takes individuals from the bottom up.

It takes you. (Thunderous applause.) It takes unstoppable achievers like the seniors from Lincoln High School in Denver, there in the front row, double the size of Lincoln’s 2006 class – and not by a path of roses, either, since most of you come from tough economic and family situations. You did it with things like learning contracts, credit-recovery courses, and uniforms. You rose to Principal Antonio Esquibel’s challenge.

Are you encouraged that a Kenyan’s son is in the White House and a Puerto Rican’s daughter is up for the Supreme Court? Sure. Are you glad that $700 million in stimulus money is headed for Colorado schools? Sure. But those big names and big dollars didn’t earn your diplomas. Your hard work and determination and discipline did.

Are you bothered that the CEO of Cesar Chavez charter schools makes more than Sen. Ken Salazar? Why not; he certainly produces more in terms of dropouts prevented and lives turned around. Are you surprised that home-schooling has doubled in this decade? Why not; state academic honors so often go to home-schoolers, some in this audience included.

With the BS detector of every teenager, you know that good teaching has little to do with an adult’s degree or union card. And that character lessons are golden coin compared with academic small change, as the sickout by Boulder teachers sadly illustrated. For contrast, join me in saluting five non-classroom educators whom I call Colorado’s personal responsibility all-stars.

They’re seated up here with the Mayor and Governor: Luis Villareal of Save Our Youth, Mike Painter of Colorado UpLift, Glenna Norvelle of Denver Kids, Don Reeverts of Whiz Kids, and Tom Tillapaugh of the Street School Network. “Yes you can” was a watchword for these inner-city rescuers, long before it became anyone’s campaign slogan. Countless ’09 grads wouldn’t be here without them.

Many good groups do mentoring and alternative education, but none outdo these five. They exemplify the responsibility movement which I and Barack, an odd couple indeed, urgently believe America needs. “Just love a kid” is the Nike-style dare from Reeverts. “Serve unconditionally.” Grads, that includes you. Adults, us too.

“Everybody’s gotta be involved,” Villareal explains. “Then it’s the community caring for the community.” “Relationships are key,” say Painter and Tillapaugh. “Show them responsibility is freedom,” says Norvelle.

The all-stars’ wisdom sums up the victory your graduation represents and the obligation it carries. My forgettable words fade before the liberating truth of their testimony. In King Solomon’s time it was told that one brave man, poor but wise, saved a city under siege because he cared enough and got involved. Our city today is no different.

Much has been given you, fortunate young Coloradans. How will you give back?

Talk radio vs. thought police

(Denver Post, May 24) Memorial Day, honoring America’s war dead, originated in 1868 after the horrific bloodbath that saved the Union and freed the African race. From Sumter to Appomattox, half a million whites lost their lives so that 4 million blacks might have their liberty.What else was bought with all that blood? Freedom of thought and speech and assembly, for one thing. In defeating the slave power, Americans also defeated the thought police who had tried to criminalize black literacy and silence abolitionist voices. The First Amendment was reaffirmed with passage of the Civil War amendments.

Unfortunately the tyrannous impulse never dies. It must be constantly fought. There are always those who prefer censorship to debate. Sometimes they use labels. Criticize Obama and you’re a racist. Warn about illegal immigration and you’re a bigot. Sometimes they use laws. Diana DeGette muzzled free speech outside abortion clinics. Now the FCC has talk radio in its sights.

But this is not a policy piece about the Fairness Doctrine and all its sneaky surrogates, community content, minority ownership rules, the performance tax, or whatever else. Rather it’s a Memorial Day meditation on the attitudes and habits that keep a free society free.

First consider how “talk radio” became a sneer label in itself, when we should be cherishing it as today’s successor to the Committees of Correspondence from 1775. It’s a glorious thing, this unruly community of a host with his listeners, callers, guests, and sponsors, sounding off about what’s wrong and how to fix it. What a wimpout for liberals, uncompetitive in the medium, to deem it unfit company, infra dig.

Rush Limbaugh can settle his own score with Colin Powell; indeed the extra notoriety is money in the bank for El Rushbo. I’m more interested in local radio’s contribution to the open process of self-government here in Colorado. We’ve had one daily paper fold and another on the watch list. We’re getting the blue snow job from billionaires Tim Gill and George Soros. We need more ferment, not less, on the airwaves.

All Coloradans are better off when Peter Boyles of KHOW calls in the cavalry for that soldier with the impounded car, or when Mike Rosen of KOA champions that teen with the America-hating teacher. It’s good for the big, arrogant, impersonal institutions to get taken down a peg. (And if my show from the right on 710 and Jay Marvin’s from the left on 760 don’t often break news, we too enrich the free-speech mix.)

As for the attitudes that sustain a free society, Thomas Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute cites four indispensable ones. His checklist for citizens includes self-assertion to resist despotism, self-restraint for civil order, self-reliance to prevent dependency, and civic knowledge to unlock participation. I’ll argue the donnybrook that is talk radio stimulates all four.

“Your views count, you have a voice, you can make a difference, and if you don’t nobody will.” That’s our encouragement to the oft-ignored Jim and Jane Average from every broadcaster who sits down to the microphone, opens the phones, and dives into the issues. The packaging differs widely, from the combative Jon Caldara to the calming Dan Caplis, but the empowering message is consistent. Where’s the downside?

Unless you fear the messiness of democracy, there is none. Talk radio undeniably broadens civic knowledge. It fosters self-assertive, self-reliant individualism. Its moral fervor teaches self-restraint. Think of it as citizenship boot camp.

Web activism is potent, but talk radio with the spoken word and hearing ear in real time is even more so. Sen. Udall, Rep. Markey, Gov. Ritter, Mayor Hickenlooper, Benson of CU and Kiley of Coors may not return YOUR call, but when 850 the Blowtorch speaks, they listen. Politicos naturally want to turn down the volume. We shouldn’t let them.

'Change' now our issue

(Denver Post, May 10) Colorado Democrats are having a lousy year. It’s been a tough 2009 for the party in power, and 2010 may be worse. Which is odd, because 2008 was great for state Dems. They gained a Senate seat, a House seat, and threw a coronation party for Obama, who is now embarked on the most brilliant reign since Louis XIV, the Sun King. Yet with the legislature done and election year eight months off, there’s a sense that Democrats have worn out their welcome with Coloradans, creating an opportunity for Republicans to reintroduce themselves and get back in the ballgame. Malaise hangs over the Capitol. Will Gov. Bill Ritter do a Jimmy Carter and become a one-termer? You’ve seen the numbers. Voters disapprove Ritter’s performance by 49% to 41%, according to an April poll. Matched against potential GOP challengers, he trails Scott McInnis and barely leads Josh Penry. His appointee in DC, Sen. Michael Bennett, is disapproved by 41% to 34% and trails Republican Bob Beauprez. They’re a pathetic pair.

Camelot magic is gone from the Dem ascendancy that began in 2004 when Ken Salazar was elected senator and Andrew Romanoff stormed the statehouse. We’re now slogging through a recession that Ritter recklessly failed to prepare for, his legislative allies are split and ineffectual, and Susan Greene commiserates on “what a bummer it can be to be a Democrat in Colorado.”

Despite commanding majorities of 37-28 in the House and 21-14 in the Senate, Democrats this session failed on a number of cherished goals, including a tuition break for illegal aliens, easing sentences and ending the death penalty, quitting the Electoral College, and nanny-state rules for cellphones and seatbelts.

The majority party found itself well to the left of common-sense opinion on those issues, hence unable to ram through its liberal agenda when vulnerable members balked. Centrists from Colorado Springs, Adams County, and the Western Slope made the difference on last week’s capital punishment vote, for example. Senate minority leader Penry brokered the deal.

Governing is no picnic. Leading the Senate during the last budget crisis, back in 2004, I agonized through some of the same no-win choices President Peter Groff and Speaker Terrance Carroll have faced this year. You manage your diehards as best you can. You resort to ugly fiscal solutions and wince, knowing the out party will slam you for it in the campaign. In power, it’s hard to do otherwise.

This is the beauty of our two-party system. It pushes policy toward the center and curbs the ideologues. As a conservative Republican, I naturally believe our side has better answers. I also concede our sins and imperfections. For Colorado’s benefit at present, however, that’s beside the point. What’s great is how a feisty opposition from right OR left produces wiser lawmaking as well as livelier elections.

Lively indeed is the prospect for election 2010. Four Republicans are vying to take on the little-known Sen. Bennet, along with two each who are targeting Gov. Ritter, State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, and Secretary of State Bernie Buescher. With Obama likely to suffer off-year erosion, Democrat congressmen Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, and John Salazar sit uneasily in districts the GOP used to own.

Democrats might also forfeit legislative control in retribution for mismanaging the budget, gutting taxpayer protections, and saddling families with a billion dollars in new taxes and fees during economic hard times. And if the Tea Party rebellion continues, four activist justices could get voted off the state Supreme Court.

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Not really, Coloradans are likely to answer if asked the famous Reagan question in 2010. On kitchen-table issues like jobs and roads, the incumbents have little to boast of. Change is now OUR issue.

Earth Day then & now

(Denver Post, Apr. 19) “The trouble with the eco-crusader is that his false guilt and his false fears feed endlessly upon each other.” With Earth Day coming up on Wednesday, I remembered this line from an old presidential speech. Can you guess who said it? “From the emotional remorse that we have sinned terribly against nature,” it continues, “there is but a short step to the emotional dread that nature will visit terrible retribution upon us. The eco-crusader becomes, as a result, deaf to reason and science, blind to perspective and priorities, incapable of effective action.” That’s telling’em, Mr. President. Or it would have been, if Richard Nixon hadn’t let staffers talk him out of giving the Eco-Crusader speech in September 1971.

Fired up by attacks on the “disaster lobby” by Look magazine publisher Thomas Shepard, and uneasy about his own role in establishing the Environmental Protection Agency after the first Earth Day in 1970, Nixon directed me and other speechwriters to produce a warning against ecological extremism that he could deliver as a major address.

Our draft died on his desk amid concerns about political backlash. I kept the file as a historical curiosity – the presidential bombshell that wasn’t. Today, four decades into the age of true-believing green religion, Nixon’s undelivered speech reads prophetically.

So does Shepard’s diagnosis that the environmental doomsayers “are basically opposed to the free enterprise system and will do anything to bolster their case for additional government controls.” So does the denunciation by Prof. Peter Drucker, another source we consulted at the time, of the green fallacy “that one can somehow deprive human action of risk.” The battle lines have changed little in 38 years.

I wish now that President Nixon, a gambler in foreign policy, had risked this piece of domestic truth-telling. One politically incorrect speech from the White House couldn’t have halted the tides of earth-worshipping guilt and fear that still engulf us. But it would have been a start. With braver leadership, sooner, America’s voices for environmental common sense might have been less outnumbered today.

Two of those lonely voices were in Colorado last week. Terry Anderson, head of the Montana-based Property & Environment Research Center, and Christopher Horner, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, brought a coolly factual message to deflate some of the new-energy hype and carbon-phobia that Bill Ritter trades on and Obama wants to emulate.

Anderson literally wrote the book on free-market environmentalism – a 1991 volume by that title. He told the Independence Institute about PERC’s research on such inconvenient truths as the wildly oversold benefits of green jobs and the grim toll that cap-and-trade legislation to mitigate CO2 will take on our standard of living.

Horner’s current book is “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.” He told the Centennial Institute, where I work, that a recessionary economy and ten straight years of global cooling make this the worst time for a burdensome new carbon tax that “would not detectably impact climate anyway.”

If the eco-crusaders were serious about cleaner energy, says Horner, they would support nuclear power. They aren’t, so they don’t. And again, we find the battle lines unchanged; the nuclear debate also pervades my 1971 White House file. No, their aim is control, as Thomas Shepard warned. “For a new enemy to unite us, the threat of global warming fits the bill,” gloated the anti-growth Club of Rome in 1991.

Cheerleading mainstream journalists have decided the likes of Horner and Anderson “are not news,” as one bluntly told me – so you heard little about their visit to Ritterville. The governor letting eco-crusading foundations pay his climate czar’s salary has caused no stir either. We're supposed to believe a staffer beholden to ideologues at the Hewlett and Energy foundations gives Ritter objective advice? What sheep we are.