Ashcroft mess shows ideological divide

A lot of people fail to realize that the current mess surrounding embattled Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft could’ve been averted. That’s right. And all Ashcroft had to do was beat a dead guy.

If Ashcroft had simply beaten deceased Gov. Mel Carnahan in the Missouri Senate race, the republicans would own the slimmest of minorities in the U.S. Senate, 51-49. It would then be suicidal for George W. Bush to pluck Ashcroft out of the Senate chamber to serve as attorney general, for that would mean risking the scant Republican advantage. If Ashcroft had won, perhaps Bush and his camp might have been more aggressive in their courtship of moderate Montana Gov. Marc Racicot for the same position.

History, however, didn’t play out that way. Missouri democrats made an undeniably brilliant move by tabbing Carnahan’s grieving widow Jean to fill his vacant position, and their candidate did win. But in the long run this move may have done great harm to the Democratic Party and, according to some of the more vociferous democrats, perhaps American liberalism itself. The position of attorney general carries as much, if not more, notoriety than that of U.S. Senator, and will soon be occupied by a man liberals would just as soon not see in any capacity in Washington.

By this point, everyone and their crazy uncle has heard all about Ashcroft: his vehement opposition to abortion, his feelings about Ronnie White, his honorary degree from Bob Jones University, his evangelism and his anointment-by-Crisco. And the number of people in this country that are evenly excited or appalled by these facts further demonstrate the deep divisions in our country that the Florida voting burlesque only hinted at. Ashcroft is a lightning rod if there ever was one, celebrated by conservatives as a stoic purveyor of the true American ideal, lambasted by liberals as a pariah with antiquated and downright dangerous viewpoints.

Carp they will and carp they have, but for every big gun the democrats aim at Ashcroft, they aim another squarely at their own feet. That stunned grin Ashcroft had on his face periodically during his hearings as Ted Kennedy, of all people, gave him a lecture on ethics, said it all. Between Kennedy’s sudden role of social defender and the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s recent admission that he fathered an illegitimate child, the liberals preaching to Ashcroft tend to warp their own messages.

Ashcroft can’t help but look good against those two, and especially against our outgoing president, whose economically and socially triumphant but morally and politically complicated term in office has historians, critics and pundits scratching their heads over what exactly to make of the past eight years. Who comes out looking better, three lecherous liars, or a prudish yet dedicated family man that disdains both drink and dancing?

And for every enraged Al Gore booster that calls in to C-SPAN’s talk shows to hearken the demise of the Democratic Party should any democratic senators support Ashcroft’s nomination, there’s a Washington player more than willing to provide some comforting balm to the wound. Ashcroft, a graduate of Yale University, has been portrayed by republican and some democratic senators as a dutiful servant of the Constitution. “He loves the law,” Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts giddily reassured CNN viewers, providing a dual service to his party. Not only does he gracefully downplay Ashcroft’s intimidating conservative record but, by simply being African-American, he soothes, with varying degrees of effectiveness, the racial concern that has come out of Ashcroft’s nomination.

Blatant manipulations aside, it may also be the case that Ashcroft’s record isn’t quite as shudder-inducing as most liberals would have Americans believe. For all the heat that Ashcroft has drawn for his dismissal of African-American judge Ronnie White, remember that not only did Ashcroft approve 26 of 28 African-Americans appointed to the bench, but that some of White’s decisions really did border on the perplexingly incompetent. What’s more, there’s the little puzzle of how a candidate as unabashedly conservative as Ashcroft was able to successfully (and popularly) govern a moderate, middle-of-the-road swing state such as Missouri. The answer — that Ashcroft might be more open to compromise than his firmly-held beliefs might indicate — is a hard pill for democrats to swallow. So will Ashcroft’s inevitable appointment to the post, a result for which the democrats may have no one to blame but themselves.

Not far from all this nuttiness, Jean Carnahan is approaching the end of her first month as a freshman U. S. Senator. One would be hard-pressed to guess exactly how she feels right now. Is she exhilarated to be on the front lines of American politics? Or is she already exhausted, weighed down by her tragic death of her husband and son and the sinking feeling that, even though she won, hers was a hollow victory?

Truthfully, to accuse Carnahan of bringing on our country’s current ideological crisis simply by WINNING her Senate race is both unfair to her and downright wrong. After all, a different result in the down-to-the-wire Washington Senate race would’ve also tilted the republican lead in the senate to 51-49, and would’ve put precious Republican congressman at a premium. But as it stands, Carnahan’s hollow victory does make an unwilling symbol for the hollow liberal victories of the past eight years, while John Ashcroft’s imminent appointment shines a light on the confusing, divisive, and frightening time that may lay ahead for American ideology in the 21st century.

Jack Bullion is a junior English major from Columbia, Mo.
He can be reached at (j.w.bullion@student.tcu.edu).

Editorial policy: The content of the Opinion page does not necessarily represent the views of Texas Christian University. Unsigned editorials represent the view of the TCU Daily Skiff editorial board. Signed letters, columns and cartoons represent the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Letters to the editor: The Skiff welcomes letters to the editor for publication. Letters must be typed, double-spaced, signed and limited to 250 words. To submit a letter, bring it to the Skiff, Moudy 291S; mail it to TCU Box 298050; e-mail it to skiffletters@tcu.edu or fax it to 257-7133. Letters must include the author’s classification, major and phone number. The Skiff reserves the right to edit or reject letters for style, taste and size restrictions.