Mason-Dixon Line politics revisited

[Doug Millison]

Subject: ZNet Commentary / Solomon and Russell / Ashcroft and the 
Bush Nine / Jan 9

ASHCROFT: NOT JUST WHISTLING DIXIE
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 1998 interview, Ashcroft praised Southern Partisan as a  magazine
that "helps set the record straight." He added: "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 key question that arises from reading the  Ashcroft
interview in Southern Partisan (three pages of text ending with  his warm
farewell, "I'll be seeing you!"). It's crucial to understand the  magazine
that Ashcroft went out of his way to laud. A year ago, in its Jan.  31
issue, The New Republic reported that Southern Partisan "serves as the
leading journal of the neo-Confederacy movement" -- and, for two decades,
has been publishing "a gumbo of racist apologias."

For instance, in 1996, Southern Partisan asserted that slave  owners
"encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and
happiness." In 1990, the magazine touted former KKK leader David Duke as "a
Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal."

Gradually, since George W. Bush announced his choice for attorney  general
on Dec. 22, information about Ashcroft's interview with Southern  Partisan
has begun to reach the public. Some news accounts have quoted his  favorable
words about Davis and other top Confederates. But few journalists  have gone
deeply into the story.

Some Ashcroft backers have strained to pooh-pooh the Southern  Partisan
interview. In a Dec. 31 editorial, 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
ention  -- 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 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  Democrats
in the Senate seem very willing to cave.

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
(www.accuracy.org), a nationwide consortium of policy researchers with
offices in San Francisco and Washington.


[snip]

[Donors to ZNet -- I am one  of them -- are asked to include the 
following notice if they pass a ZNet Commentary on to others.  I 
encourage you to support ZNet, too. Doug]

Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to
learn more about the project and join folks can consult ZNet at
http://www.zmag.org or the ZNet Sustainer Pages at
http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm



-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>