Remember to remember to remember
Subject: "A Confederate in the Cabinet" / Baltimore Sun
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:24:18 -0800
I guess this is a Web Hiccup!
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
[Distributed by the LA Times - Washington Post wire service on Monday, January 8]
The Baltimore Sun
Sunday, January 7, 2001
A CONFEDERATE IN THE CABINET
Opposition: Should the attorney general be someone who doubts that the
preservation of slavery was a "perverted agenda"?
By Norman Solomon
More than 13 decades after Robert E. Lee surrendered at
Appomattox, the U.S. Senate is getting ready to confirm as attorney general
someone who has voiced fervent admiration for the Confederacy. It's an
almost unbelievable situation. Yet many news outlets -- and the vast
majority of senators -- are perpetuating a state of denial.
John Ashcroft, defeated for re-election to the Senate last
November, is the incoming president's most controversial Cabinet pick.
Arguments are raging about Ashcroft's hardline positions against civil
rights, affirmative action, school desegregation, women's rights, abortion,
gay rights and protection of civil liberties. Media attention has focused
on the extraordinary actions that he took in 1999 to block the appointment
of African-American Judge Ronnie White to the federal bench by smearing him
as "pro-criminal."
If he becomes attorney general, Ashcroft will be the nation's
chief law enforcement officer. He'll have enormous power while running the
Justice Department and making weighty recommendations to the president on
judicial appointments. For good measure, Ashcroft will oversee such
agencies as the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service and federal prisons.
Less than two years ago, in an extensive interview with Southern
Partisan magazine, Ashcroft was emphatic about his admiration for Jefferson
Davis and other Confederate leaders. At the time, the senator was
considering a run for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, a quest
that would have involved cultivating support among white voters in GOP
primaries in the South.
During the interview, Ashcroft praised Southern Partisan as a
magazine that "helps set the record straight," adding "You've got a
heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like Lee,
[Stonewall] Jackson and 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."
Should the attorney general of the United States be someone who
doubts that the preservation of slavery was a "perverted agenda"?
That's not the only question arising from the interview. And to
fully understand the impact of Ashcroft's words, you must understand who
reads Southern Partisan, which has been described as "a leading journal of
the neo-Confederacy movement."
In 1996, the magazine asserted that slave owners "encouraged
strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness." And in
1990, Southern Populist touted former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke as "a
Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal."
Some Ashcroft backers have strained to pooh-pooh the fallout from
the interview. For example, a Dec. 31 editorial in the Detroit News scoffed
at any suggestion that Ashcroft's comments "call into question his
commitment to civil rights and may be grounds for a challenge to his
appointment."
The newspaper declared: "That's a nonsensical smoke screen. The
views Sen. Ashcroft shared several years ago with Southern Partisan
magazine reflect a curious American reality -- the ability to reconcile
admiration for the courage, nobility and commitment of the rebels with an
objection to their cause."
In fact, Ashcroft derided the idea that pro-slavery leaders had a
blameworthy agenda, and he did not express any "objection to their cause."
The Detroit News editorial was misleading in another important respect:
Like so much other media coverage, it did not scrutinize -- or even mention
-- Ashcroft's sweeping endorsement of Southern Partisan as a magazine that
"helps set the record straight."
Avoidance of Ashcroft's overall record has been typical of
editorials by newspapers supporting him for attorney general, including the
Boston Herald, the Atlanta Journal and the Chicago Tribune.
But at least as many daily papers -- notably the New York Times,
the San Francisco Chronicle and the Star Tribune in Minneapolis -- have
editorialized against the Ashcroft nomination. And quite a few other
dailies (such as the Baltimore Sun, Atlanta Constitution, Boston Globe, Los
Angeles Times and St. Petersburg Times) have expressed editorial misgivings.
Perhaps most telling has been the response from the most prominent
newspaper in the prospective attorney general's home state of Missouri, the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch -- which swiftly urged the Senate to "investigate
Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to civil rights, women's rights, abortion rights
and to judicial nominees with whom he disagrees."
The Post-Dispatch recalled that "Mr. Ashcroft has built a career
out of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing
African-Americans for public office."
It's no surprise that Bob Jones University, notorious for bigotry,
gave Ashcroft an honorary degree in 1999. Accepting the award in person, he
was proud to deliver the university's commencement address.
While the country's editorial writers and columnists are deeply
divided over whether Ashcroft should become attorney general, there is much
less division in evidence on Capitol Hill. Republicans, of course, are
marching to Bush's drum. Meanwhile, the Senate's 50 Democrats have been
mealy-mouthed at best.
Democratic politicians are fond of preening themselves as
champions of civil rights. But now, at a pivotal moment in history -- while
some complain that Ashcroft's ideology makes them uncomfortable and promise
that the nominee will face tough questions -- the bottom line is that the
Democrats in the Senate seem very willing to cave.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont lost no time signaling pacific
intent toward Ashcroft, a six-year-member of the club: "I do not intend to
lead a fight against him."
Another purported liberal on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, was quick to say: "Unless there's
something I'm unaware of, I'd be inclined to vote for him."
The Ashcroft nomination could turn out to be the defining issue of
the presidential transition. Right now, the cowardice of Senate Democrats
is sending an obscene message of contempt toward all Americans who have
struggled against racism since the Civil War.
_________________________________________________
Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy
offices in San Francisco and Washington.