SENATOR John Ashcroft certainly is not the popular hero of the ACLU or NOW, but neither is half the conservative population of America. So why is Ashcroft such a controversial pick for the highest position of law enforcement in the country? His not too shabby public record makes him an appropriate pick for Attorney General, but throw in his radical conservatism along with the most disputed presidential election in American history and you have the worst possible nominee for the job.
When President-elect George W. Bush ran his campaign, he focused on political inclusion and unity in Washington. When Gore threw big words at the former Texan governor, Bush simply had to smile and say, "I will be your friendly, non-partisan president" and all would be well. So when the country was sharply divided on election night, Bush's campaign promises of unity played perfectly into a disputed election that many people thought was the coming of Armageddon. Then Bush decided to nominate to the highest office of impartial law enforcement perhaps the most divisive politician in Washington, and everything fell apart.
Ashcroft's past record and personal beliefs justify the controversy that has surrounded his nomination. On the first day of his Senate confirmation hearings, Ashcroft did not shy away from the issues that have sparked opposition to his appointment. In fact, he confirmed the accusations.
Ashcroft reiterated his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, a belief that even his potential boss, Bush, will not support. Ashcroft has also publicly condemned homosexuality as a sin. While his beliefs are not unique on these issues, his record indicates that his policies as governor and senator reflected his personal dispositions.
He also has created the idea of "charitable choice," a policy which would allocate federal tax dollars to private, faith-based organizations. These organizations would still be able legally to discriminate on the basis of religious preference.
Perhaps the most controversial incident involving Ashcroft was his acceptance of an honorary degree from Bob Jones University in 1999. Ashcroft claims that he was unaware of the university's racist policies on interracial dating. When Ashcroft was attorney general of Missouri in 1983, however, the Supreme Court passed a ruling that denied Bob Jones University eligibility for tax exemption because of its discriminatory policies. To claim that he was unaware of such a ruling in the country's highest court while he was Missouri's attorney general is not credible. To claim that he was unaware of the official discriminatory policies of a university from which he was receiving an honorary degree is simply ludicrous.
Ashcroft has not been quiet about his personal beliefs either. In his speech at Bob Jones University, he claimed that America had "no king but Jesus." In an interview in 1998, he told the Christian Coalition that the "robed elite" of the judicial system had made a wall of "religious suppression," and this coming from the man who is supposed to be in charge of the judicial system that is a part of a secular government.
Ashcroft's career as a politician paints a portrait of a man who is devoutly religious and politically conservative. Nothing in the Constitution denies a man with such criteria the opportunity to serve as a public servant. In the Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Ashcroft acknowledged that he would take the oath to enforce the law and not change it. Such an acknowledgement can only be accepted from a man who apparently has devoted his life to the Bible upon which he will place his hand and swear to take the oath.
Because of its timing, Bush's nomination of Ashcroft is inept and perhaps deceiving. Picking someone opposed by many Americans right after a divisive and marred election shows either bad judgment or practiced deceit. Bush got to the White House by promising an end to the bickering and partisanship in Washington, and the American public holds him to that promise after such a controversial election.
In return, Bush picked a man whose record does not indicate impartial enforcement of the law, whose personal beliefs don't reflect those of moderates, and whose policies have been known to blur the distinct separation of church and state.
Kudos to president-elect for not forgetting that campaign promises are, after all, just campaign promises.
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 19 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
