Most politicians are forever stuck in a time warp—these days, the time being circa 1988. (Political journalists suffer from the same distorted perceptions, which helps keep the pols on their treadmill; it’s a self-perpetuating loop.)

So I was only mildly surprised when a few weeks ago I read that ranking Senate Judiciary member Jeff Sessions was publicly attacking one of Obama’s appellate-court nominees for her A.C.L.U. activities.

For those too young to remember the 1988 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush won partly by repeatedly mocking Michael Dukakis’s membership in the A.C.L.U.

That was during the approximately two-decade-long period when the idea of civil liberties was demagogued, extremely successfully, by the right as synonymous with being “soft on crime.”

These days, though—although a large swath of Republican politicians and an even greater percentage of Republican judicial appointees (including, glaringly, those on the Supreme Court) haven’t yet noticed it—a substantial percentage of the political right rank-and-file are, in the genuine, libertarian sense, philosophically anti-government. It is far less common now than it was during the “soft on crime” demagoguery era for people who are anti-tax, anti-government-regulation ideologues to be anti-civil-libertarian in other respects.

Yes, most of them are against gay marriage and many of them are anti-abortion-rights. But these are social issues, and their views on those issues no longer translate into restrictions on free speech, and into rote support of government police and prosecution tactics. And they certainly don’t translate into antipathy for the A.C.L.U. and the law-enforcement type issues that that organization addresses. (How many Tea Bagggers carried signs with slogans such as “Don’t tread on me!” at their protest gatherings?)

Just as with “the public option” in the health insurance reform debate, all that Obama, Democratic Senate incumbents and candidates, and their supporters need do is start very publicly citing a few recent 5-4 Supreme Court opinions, or opinions by federal appellate judicial nominees, that would shock and anger a substantial majority of the public.

My candidate for poster opinion is this one, a Supreme Court opinion from 2006; it’s easy to explain and to understand, and illustrates the appalling Neverland quality to the opinions that this ideologically and politically driven judicial crowd issues. But there is a wealth of other available examples; and counting.

I do recognize the Neverland quality of my saying that all that Obama and the Democratic Senate incumbents and candidates need do is actually educate the public about a public policy issue; this requires an effort to do that, and Obama, if not the Senate candidates, will always cower rather than take a principled stand, explain it and consistently push for it. But, really, hasn’t the “public option” trajectory taught this guy anything?

He may just be uneducable.

So glad to read this wonderful post and I thank run75 for tipping us (BOTFers) off that you are now posting as la savante. Great stuff here, Beverly. Wish I had been around this particular Fray to read your stuff on the Sotomayor nomination while it was "live." Isn't it grand? Hope she will do as well on the SCOTUS as so many of her female, Liberal supporters assume/d she will. As for the ACLU, yes indeed, if more right-wing citizens and "Tea Baggers" looked into that organization's history of who and what to support, they might be very, very surprised. Hope all is well with you and in your life, and again so glad to have re-found you, SN/tempo.

Hey, T.! Er—SN. Hi ya!