We in the heartland, in this rural Southern locale, are a mystery to the pundits in the large cities. They spend millions trying to take our pulse. Here’s a fact for one of their polls: bad jokes, derogatory remarks and discriminatory actions toward blacks and Hispanics, women, and homosexuals are still common in these parts. Bigotry is alive and well in the Bible belt. We still have work to do.

And that’s why I was disappointed in George Bush’s selection of John Ashcroft to be attorney general. I am in no way suggesting that Ashcroft is a bigot. He may be the man of integrity he and supporters claim he is, and I think his record shows he should win confirmation.

But the record also shows that his public life is sprinkled with actions and inactions that blocked forward movement as this country confronted important social issues. George Bush has promised many times that he will work to bridge the divides that are separating this country. A different nominee lacking Ashcroft’s political baggage, I think, would have better accomplished that task.

There is an aside in this whole debate that is confusing the confirmation process and threatening to overshadow the substantive questions about the nominee’s record. Ashcroft didn’t ask to wear the yoke, but he has been catapulted to the center of an ongoing struggle in this country about religion, politics, and where the two meet and separate. He is an avowed Christian who will proudly proclaim as much.

The messy confirmation process, however, wasn’t about his faith, per se, as some want to insist. Most Americans profess adherence to one faith or another, and many successful and unsuccessful public officials are as open about their religion as Ashcroft.

But when the tenets of one’s faith conflict with U.S. law, conflict with the job one is being asked to undertake, then the whole debate can seemingly focus on that religion. Though some writers on the far left may want to play the religion card against Ashcroft, I think most reasonable people would assign a higher value to a member of the Cabinet who is quite obviously a religious and spiritual person.

Ashcroft’s life as a public official, however, has turned normally polite former Senate colleagues into rabid inquisitors. Ashcroft has been a policy maker for decades, a Missouri governor, attorney general, U.S. senator and now -- most probably -- U.S. attorney general. He has an extensive record to digest, and here is some of what I find troubling, much of the same that others have questioned.

Most important is his 1999 effort to foil the nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White to a seat on the federal bench. Ashcroft was locked in a battle to retain his Senate seat at the time. White, who is black, was portrayed as soft on the death penalty issue. The truth is he upheld 70 percent of death penalty cases, and on 10 of the 18 death penalty cases he did not uphold, he voted with a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court. That leaves 8 “questionable” decisions.

My research into this issue leads me to believe that Ashcroft’s part in that confirmation defeat (White’s nomination was defeated by the Senate in a straight party line vote, 55-45) was motivated by his desire to win a Senate seat by appeasing rural white voters, the truth about White be damned. The Republican Party spent a good part of the past presidential campaign attacking Al Gore because they claimed he would do anything to win. Is Ashcroft guilty of the same thing?

White’s defeat marked the first time since 1987 that a federal judgeship nomination failed. That was when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork, a legal heavyweight whose understanding of constitutional law probably surpasses that of any current member of the high court, should have won a seat on the Supreme Court. He was accused by Democrats at the time of being a right-wing idealogue. Ironically, that’s the same thing many are saying of Ashcroft.

Then there was Ashcroft’s opposition to a voluntary desegregation plan for St. Louis schools while he was still in Missouri. He argues the plan would have cost too much, but he also refused to come up with any kind of alternative. There was also the opposition to a gay man to be an ambassador to Luxembourg despite what most contend is a sterling record. Ashcroft has refused to go into detail about his opposition to that nominee.

On the other hand, many in Missouri will tell you that as governor and attorney general Ashcroft led from the center. In fact, he championed some causes near and dear to liberals -- he increased spending for legal aid to the poor, increased the penalties for those committing crimes of bigotry, raised pay for teachers, and backed a policy of not allowing public money to be used for teaching parochial school students.

As the confirmation hearings have unfolded, Ashcroft has deftly rebutted the accusations against him. He has withstood tough questioning with a stone-like demeanor, has chosen his words carefully and used them sparingly. At one point, he even called up a giant of liberalism, Bobby Kennedy, as a role model. He has surprised supporters and detractors by moving all over the ideological spectrum. Some call his chameleon-like changes slippery.

James Carville, advisor to Democrats and husband to Republican presidential adviser Mary Matalin, said the other day that the best trait for a political writer is to be “colorful but noncontroversial.” Ashcroft, who is most probably soon-to-be attorney general of the United States, manages to be just the opposite: staid yet polarizing.

Bush, like all presidents, deserves wide latitude in choosing his Cabinet. We can only hope that Ashcroft’s tendency to participate in divisive politics will fade into the background as he settles into this most important job.

(McLeod can be reached info@smokymountainnews.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News