« Great Moments In Constituent Services | Main | Invincible Ignorance »

The Case of John Ashcroft

17 May 2007 03:18 pm

Both Matt and I have both made comments along these lines before, but with Andrew remarking that "I never thought I'd say this but in comparison with his successor, John Ashcroft is an honorable man," it seems worth revisiting the topic, and asking whether there was ever any reason to think that John Ashcroft wasn't an honorable man? If you think that all conservatives are dishonorable, I suppose there was - but apart from that, Ashcroft was a man of right-wing but fairly unremarkable political views who had a long and reasonably distinguished record as a public servant when he was nominated by George W. Bush to be attorney general. From that point on he was persistently smeared, mocked and ridiculed by liberals and the press, primarily, so far as I can tell, because he belonged to a Protestant sect that prohibited dancing and may have ordered a statue's bared breasts draped during his press conferences. The anti-Ashcroft hysteria never took any note of the fact that he was one of the most competent, experienced and independent-minded members of the Bush cabinet, who was never touched by scandal and whose fingerprints appeared on none of the Administration's blunders; only now, when it has become clear that Ashcroft was an honorable opponent of a particular example of Bushian excess, is he getting a small dose of credit for his conduct as Attorney General.

Alberto Gonzales, by contrast, while he has taken a great deal of (deserved) fire since becoming attorney general, hasn't been subjected to half the scrutiny and smears that Ashcroft endured - because while he may be a lackey, a time-server, and an underqualified yes-man, his religious beliefs don't creep the media out. And that makes all the difference.

:: Comments (17) ::

Share This

Comments (17)

He is a victim of the Cheney phenomenon: competent, likable, and respected with good press to boot until he joins up with Chimpy McHitler. I'm no admirer of Bush, although I voted for him twice.....but I think he inspires more hatred among the establishment elites than even Reagan did.

Posted by Jon | May 17, 2007 7:00 PM

It seems like Ashcroft got in front of the cameras more than Gonzales, who basically stayed out of the news until this whole thing blew up. Ashcroft seemed to be in the news a bit more often, mostly to scaremonger in some capacity or another. There was also the implication, as matt notes, that his personal beliefs would influence his adminstration of the law. That turned out not to be the case, no one knew at the time. I note that Republicans stymied Lani Gunier's nomination for her personal (non-religious) beliefs, even though she was otherwise perfectly qualified to be the assistant AG for Civil Rights.

Finally, Ashcroft became a lightning rod for the Patriot Act, which, as Matt points out, was mostly a wish list from the FBI/DoJ professionals built during the Clinton administration.

I don't disagree that the anointing in oil and avoiding dancing/card playing/etc. (in the same way that the press allows Romney's religion to influence their covereage unfairly) played a part in Ashcroft getting more press, but Gonzales hasn't written a follow-up to "Let the Eagles Soar" or done much to defend the Patriot act publicly.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 17, 2007 7:09 PM

Why are we all talking about Ashcroft now as an honorable man? Because of the crimes and misdemenors of his successor.
Let's not forget that he apparently was signing off on the eavesdropping program for some time, that he presided over the roundup of citizens and legal immigrants after 9-11, color coded terror alerts, etc.
He had policies, and supported policies, that most americans, and especially liberals, strongly opposed. So he was politically attacked for that. Not that big a deal.
But he wasn't one of Bush's incompetent and criminal Texas cronies, so now that things have gotten worse, Ashcroft shines a little brighter in comparison. But he's not suddenly the greatest AG evah.

Posted by agorabum | May 17, 2007 7:19 PM

he presided over the roundup of citizens and legal immigrants after 9-11

Who would that be?

Posted by Art Deco | May 17, 2007 7:38 PM

I think Ashcroft's comments about Islam are enough on their own to prompt us to question his honor.

Posted by berger | May 17, 2007 8:28 PM

Maybe resentment of Ashcroft has to do with his flouting of the Constitution in the Padilla case, and his ceaseless efforts to drive fear into the hearts of Americans with baseless terror press conferences. Also, he shifted the DOJ's focus away from terrorism, and toward his obsession with porn. The 9/11 Commission wrote about the then-FBI director's assertion that after a couple briefings about terrorism, "Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about" terrorism. Here's an article on the roundups that agorabum alludes to (tho I think agorabum put it too starkly).

Here's an article on the press conferences found in 10 seconds of Googling; other, smarter people have gone into more depth on this.

As Attorney General, Ashcroft missed the challenge of terrorism, and was willing after the fact to hold carefully timed, uninformative press conferences hyping the terror threat, over the objection of others in the administration.

So, yes, he did something good here after his appendix was removed.

He is still a dishonorable human being.

And frankly, Ross, your job is to be knowledgeable. I'm sure you know all about how Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, and how the Clintons abused their control of the White House Christmas card list. It wouldn't kill you to learn some facts about Republican governance. You'll come off as less ignorant when you whine about criticisms like Sullivan's.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 17, 2007 8:42 PM

Maybe resentment of Ashcroft has to do with his flouting of the Constitution in the Padilla case, and his ceaseless efforts to drive fear into the hearts of Americans with baseless terror press conferences. Also, he shifted the DOJ's focus away from terrorism, and toward his obsession with porn. The 9/11 Commission wrote about the then-FBI director's assertion that after a couple briefings about terrorism, "Ashcroft told him that he did not want to hear about" terrorism.

As Attorney General, Ashcroft missed the challenge of terrorism, and was willing after the fact to hold carefully timed, uninformative press conferences hyping the terror threat, over the objection of others in the administration.

So, yes, he did something good here after his appendix was removed.

He is still a dishonorable human being.

And frankly, Ross, your job is to be knowledgeable. I'm sure you know all about how Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, and how the Clintons abused their control of the White House Christmas card list. It wouldn't kill you to learn some facts about Republican governance. You'll come off as less ignorant when you whine about criticisms like Sullivan's.

[I reposted; original was held I think because of too many links, to the 9/11 Commission, a WaPo article on the detention of 5000 immigrants producing zero terrorists, and a MSNBC link about objections within the Bush administration to the terror-hype press conferences]

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 17, 2007 8:45 PM

John Ashcroft is honorable in the same way that Don Quixote would be honorable. Honorable, yet insane.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 17, 2007 9:55 PM

Oh, and nobody's mentioned his interview with Southern Partisan magazine yet.

Maybe to Republicans, white supremacists are just one of those important consitutencies that needs some condescension every now and again, like they imagine Democrats regard blacks. But it's surprising and offensive to the rest of us to see Ashcroft lend whatever legitimacy he has to their pages.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1880

"Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate President Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

--John Ashcroft, Southern Partisan magazine interview (Second Quarter/1998)


Here's a sample of opinion from the magazine John Ashcroft says "helps set the record straight":

On Slavery

"Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was." --Samuel Francis, Southern Partisan, Third Quarter/1995

"Slave owners . . . did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness."--First Quarter/1996

On Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln is a "consummate conniver, manipulator and a liar."--Southern Partisan cited in Legal Times, 2/26/1996

The Spring 1984 issue refers to "the sinister Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln--an invitation to the slaves to rise against their masters."

On John Wilkes Booth: "His behavior was not only sane, but sensible. His background, loyalties, beliefs, and experiences had led him to that end." --Mark Brewer, Second Quarter/1990

For years Southern Partisan has celebrated the murder of Abraham Lincoln by selling T-shirts with Lincoln's image over the words "sic semper tyrannis" ("thus always to tyrants")-- John Wilkes Booth's cry just after shooting Lincoln. Timothy McVeigh was wearing this T-shirt when he was arrested for the Oklahoma City bombing. (To see a photo of the shirt, click here.)New York Times, 6/3/1997

On the Klan

The Ku Klux Klan's first Grand Wizard, Civil War Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, cited as evidence that "the Confederacy was full of super heroes."--Fourth Quarter/1996

Praised former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke as "a candidate concerned about 'affirmative' discrimination, welfare profligacy, the taxation holocaust ... a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal." --Fourth Quarter/1990

On Feminism

Feminism is a "revolt against god."--First Quarter/2000

"Feminists, ethnic minorities, sodomites and other 'victims' of majority culture are demanding special recognition and privileged status." --Second Quarter/1992

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 17, 2007 10:51 PM

Yeah, I love you Ross, but you really should update this post:

"In the comments: There's a whole lot of stuff besides Ashcroft's prayer meetings and taste in art that bothered liberals."

I still might agree that many liberals' cluelessness about what faith looks like and animosity toward culture war Christians clouds their vision, but still, this is a pretty ham-fisted blog entry,

Go easy on Ross, though, folks, he used to only post, like, once a week.

Posted by Tyler Simons | May 18, 2007 3:39 AM

the reason why ashcroft attracted ridicule was that to the vast majority of people he seemed to be a freak: watch him singing 'let the eagle soar', consider the fact that, as ross mentions, he belonged to a sect that didn't permit dancing, and yes, all those superfreak quotations above. here we have in operation a particular characteristic of religious people: they forgive those foibles of other believers that specifically relate their faith. to most ordinary people ashcroft seemed to be in the grip of something approaching a mania.

Posted by lucretius | May 18, 2007 9:11 AM

Elvis,
So you believe that someone who is interviewed should be held accountable for editorial comments of the publisher?
How friggin' ignorant can you be?
A lot, apparently.

Posted by hunter | May 18, 2007 12:32 PM

Hunter-- Read my post more slowly. Maybe you'll be able to understand it after a second or third try. Probably not, but give it a try. Here's some assistance for you:

Ashcroft praised the magazine for "setting the record straight."

And it's an explicitly white supremacist magazine.

Those views are repeatedly expressed in that magazine, as that selection of quotes shows. It wasn't one "nappy-headed hoes" moment that you can explain away. It was integral to the magazine's purpose.

And Ashcroft said they were "setting the record straight" about history.

At a minimum, Ashcroft was unwilling to criticize white supremacists. We can debate what his level of sympathy to their cause is (I suspect it's minimal) versus his desire to pander to people with abhorrent views whose votes he wanted (I suspect that's more accurate). Neither is honorable.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 18, 2007 1:47 PM

Are you contractually required to keep engaging Andrew Sullivan? Haven't you succeeded enough now so that you can stop pretending to respect him? When Sullivan goes on vacation, you cannot be asked to blog for him anymore. Is it about the links?

You can't consistently link Larison and Sullivan, or Kaus and Sullivan, or the Pope and Sullivan, over many months without at least trying to explain the contradiction.

Posted by anonymous | May 20, 2007 12:04 PM

How about this lovely Ashcroft quote?

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/06/inv.ashcroft.hearing/

Posted by Dave | May 21, 2007 3:19 PM