It seems that a new doctrine is being forged in Washington D.C. Applicants for public office who are conservative, pro-life, or religiously orthodox need not apply. If one happens to be all three of this unholy trinity (I do not equate the three as those on the left and in the media do), one is ipso facto a racist, homophobic, extreme religious zealot who threatens to impose one's moral vision upon the rest of us. I suppose I take umbrage because I happen to be all three. So is Senator John Ashcroft, President-elect Bush's selection to be United States Attorney General, and the man who is bringing the word 'bork' back into common usage.
Ever since Ashcroft's nomination, a panoply of liberal interest groups (read hysterical interest groups) have been frothing at the mouth making various unsubstantiated assertions and misrepresentations about Ashcroft and his record. Most of these assertions have amounted to no more than bald-faced lies.
First, it is said that Ashcroft is an extreme conservative whose views are largely out of touch with the mainstream. His opposition to racial quotas and his opposition to restrictions on gun sales and manufacturing are here the two largest sources of 'criticism'. But, in making such assertions, these liberal groups in fact show how truly out of touch they are with the American mainstream. These critics by and large come from those few counties -- the urban centers and academic havens -- which voted for Al Gore. Good people can and do disagree as to the wisdom of phasing out racial quotas. But to suggest that Ashcroft is an extremist and racist because of his opposition to them is laughable. Again, good people can and do disagree as to what limits should be placed on the sale and manufacture of guns and what the Second Amendment does or does not allow in this regard. But opposition to such limits at the federal level (the state level is a different story) hardly makes one an extremist.
These same political principles guided Ashcroft to oppose the confirmation of Justice Ronnie White of the Missouri Supreme Court to a federal judgeship. This opposition, which ended in White's nomination being rejected by the senate -- including all Republicans voting against him -- has drawn the greatest fire from the liberal interest groups. White, who happens to be black, dissented in a vicious murder case, arguing that the convicted murderer of several sheriffs and the wife of one of the sheriffs be given another trial. Ashcroft leveled his opposition when a Missouri sheriff pointed this dissent out to him. Certainly, one might criticize Ashcroft for using White as political fodder for his election fight with Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan. But to stretch this and characterize his opposition as one based on racial motives is slander.
In fact Ashcroft's record on race is nothing but exemplary. While governor of Missouri, he signed the law making Martin Luther King Jr. Day a holiday in Missouri; he also signed a hate crimes bill and appointed blacks to the bench in Missouri. While a senator he voted for each of the 26 black nominees to the federal bench whom the Senate confirmed. Interestingly, the wife of this 'virulent racist' teaches law at Howard University, a predominantly black college.
The second large strike against Ashcroft is that he happens to be a consistent pro-lifer. We are told that not only does Ashcroft oppose abortion but that he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Every credible pro-lifer and pro-life organization holds to the consistent view that one is never justified no matter what the circumstances to intentionally take the life of the unborn. The Roman Catholic Church, whose members make up 25% of the populace, teaches this moral norm. Reflecting on all of this one of two conclusions must follow. Either a great portion of the population is to be barred from public life because of its pro-life beliefs including faithful Catholics or the pro-life position is not extreme. If one reaches the first conclusion, we truly have reached a most disturbing moment in the American experiment.
The final and greatest strike against Ashcroft, however, is that he is a evangelical Christian. To be a religiously orthodox believer of whatever stripe is anathema to liberals. To be an evangelical Christian is worse than being anathema. Liberals can hardly contain their utter condescension and contempt when it comes to Ashcroft's religion. According to their accusations, his religion will prevent him from enforcing the law while he at the same time works to impose his morality upon America. This accusation is deeply offensive to the millions of Americans who are religious. If anything, however, it is Ashcroft's religion which ensures that he will both honestly follow the law and avoid any sort of enforcement of his moral code upon America. As he stated to the Detroit Economic Club in 1998, "We must embrace the power of faith, but we must never confuse politics and piety. For me, may I say that it is against my religion to impose my religion." A deep religious belief allows one to see the great dignity in the other person as one created in God's image and realize what that dignity demands. Foremost it demands that one never impose moral truths but rather propose them (though even this proposition seems to be frowned upon by liberals). Of course is easy to see why liberals would hold such views in high contempt; it is the exact opposite of the manner in which they attempt to impose their beliefs upon the vast majority of Americans. One only hopes that the true American mainstream through its elected representatives stands up and supports the eminently qualified John Ashcroft.
