In the surprise senate primary challenge in N.J. this year, Rob Andrews has made a very strong, compelling case for being elected over Frank Lautenberg. Trying to get Lautenberg to debate, much less campaign in the state, has been a nightmare, but this post is less about Lautenberg's negatives and more about Andrews' positives.

As someone who lives in Andrews' district and knows how responsive he is to his constituents, I have faith that Andrews would bring his strong knowledge and support for universities, including where I teach, Rowan University, to higher education across the country. When I heard Andrews speak in September on nuclear non-proliferation, my sense was that Andrews was committed to a peaceful, just world, and his knowledge of complex issues in the Middle East is simply astounding. Similarly, yesterday's endorsement from The Newark Star-Ledger, the largest newspaper in the state, mentioned that Andrews had the stronger grasp of health care issues and their solutions than Lautenberg, who only offered nebulous replies in return about health care. Andrews, for my money, knows much more than Lautenberg when it comes to foreign and domestic policy and would bring his policy-wonk background to important issues brought up in the senate.

On the local front, Andrews has worked hard for veterans in the state, ensuring that they receive health insurance even while on active duty, and he's worked tirelessly to preserve the Delaware River from dredging and dumping. This has earned him 100% ratings from the League of Conservation Voters and The Sierra Club, the same ratings he receives from abortion rights organizations. Andrews quietly helped Democrats in South Jersey by helping talk Republicans into switching parties, including Assemblyman Fran Bodine and the mayor of Gloucester Township. He builds coalitions, and many people, seniors, students, politicians, know him by first name simply because he's so active in the community.

Andrews has presented a strong plan to end the Iraq War, which includes the U.S. testing 75k Iraqi police and soldiers within a specific zone and withdrawing all U.S. troops out of Iraq within 12-18 months. Lautenberg has presented no equivalent plan. And Andrews has spoken extensively on stopping the high price of gasoline by regulating Wall Street speculators; again, Lautenberg hasn't responded to this domestic issue in such a convincing way.

Andrews has brought renewed vigor and energy to the N.J. senate campaign, holding town hall meetings in every state, and building a coalition of North and South Jersey politicians who support his movement for change. I encourage every New Jerseyan reading this to support and vote for Rob Andrews for U.S. senate in the Democratic primary on 3 June. Our state can and should do better under Andrews' leadership.

Perhaps you are like me and have conservative friends who repeatedly mention the mantra of the benefits of smaller government. In their minds, most, if not all, governments are, in fact, bloated bureacracies where hard-earned taxpayer dollars are squandered for unnecessary programs and for adminstrative functions. As with all narratives, whether with liberal or conservative ideological leanings, this one seems to be limited by its absolute view of government and its lack of faith in government to solve problems for individuals and communities.

If one were to create such a narrative of a pro-small government point of view, s/he could probably find evidence that the original founders of our country did have some notion that the government that governs least is the best. Jefferson himself mentions that the best government is a "mild" one, but much of this discourse is centered around the preservation of individual rights and not solely focused on creating a perpetual small government representative democracy.

Perhaps, if you're like me, you view government as also having the capacity to make up for inequalities in the private sector and as having the ability to provide opportunity to its citizens. "Small government" in itself does not seen like an ignoble goal, but a government that ignores the well-being of its citizens, as we've seen in recent years with the Katrina reaction on the federal level and the Bush administrations anti-consumer approach to health care, is a deleterious one. Jefferson, et al imagined a government that was efficient, but they would have been horrified to think that citizens in a democracy were suffering because of that same government and that the government would not act to redress that.

Hence, what do you think is wrong with the concept of "small government" from a political vantage? I wonder whether this isn't a conservative utopian ideal, where taxpayer money isn't needed to address a country's needs, and the private market is where the majority of investments go -- an ideal that is countered by the reality on the ground, that is, a government that, because of government ineffiency and inattention, denies basic human needs and rights to its citizens.

Pragmatism. It is a word revered in American politics and perhaps one of the few systematic contributions that American thinkers have added to modern philosophy. And pragmatism is what many political commentators are calling the newly-annointed Democratic Congress to enact in their leadership role; according to this line of thinking, Democrats stunning win on election night was due to the moderate revolt over the unilateral, ultrapartisan policies of Republicans, and Democrats can provide a corrective to this by governing from the middle, not the left. In fact, most publications, including 'Time' magazine, are calling this election a victory for the American middle and not progressive politics as a whole -- perhaps a wrong-headed spin on the election outcome. One could instead argue that the elections mark the electorate's return to Clintonian liberalism rather than the slim margins of victory for Pres. Bush in the last two presidential elections.

Progressives, from Sherrod Brown in Ohio to Joe Sestak in Pa., have been winners as much as moderate Democrats in this last election, and the nation's shift in the left should also be represented in congressional initiatives when Dems take over both chambers in January. The victory of the left in this election shouldn't be understated at all since the country overwhelming repudiated the failed doctrines of the Bush presidency and instead voted to change the direction of the country. My concern is that a solely pragmatist mantra in congress will result in overly-cautious maneuvering by house and senate leaders, the promotion of non-controversial legislation, and fewer checks and balances against the reckless policies of the Bush administration during his remaining two years in office.

If pragmatism is marked by bipartisan cooperation and a management, rather than ideological, emphasis, however, then this could benefit the country in the long run and help keep the Democrats in power for several election cycles; Democrats know this, and that is why they are promoting passing legislation (minimum wage, etc.) ahead of, say, investigative hearings on the Bush administration's intelligence failures and justifications for the war in Iraq. But the American electorate has also given the Democrats a mandate for their agenda, and this must include providing a necessary checks and balance of the Bush administration's overreach of the executive branch's power. There is a time for measure pragmatism in the political arena, but there is also a time for bold initiatives and accountability; I hope that the Democrats aren't afraid to seize the latter at the appropriate times.