Operation Ashcroft: The Battle of Worldviews Behind the Confirmation Debate
By Frederick B. Meekins

While the actions of political institutions are important in that they determine the course of public policy, perhaps of greater significance upon the nation are the ideas motivating these decisions. And while the confirmation of John Ashcroft or the refusal thereof will have impact upon the makeup of President Bush's cabinet, of greater influence upon the United States will be the views and beliefs of those opposed to the proposed Attorney General.

Much of the opposition to former Senator Ashcroft does not stem from his lack of character or insufficient qualifications. Rather it originates in response to the nominee's beliefs and their policy ramifications.

There is nothing wrong with holding differing views on matters of government and jurisprudence. However, the opponents of the prospective Attorney General are the ones postulating that those who disagree with them should be barred from public service. These guardians of tolerance are the ones posing a danger to the American way of life.

The primary factors certain factions believe ought disqualify Ashcroft is his religion and his daring to question the relativistic multicultural hegemony being imposed upon all Americans that we buck at our own peril.

For example, at one point in his career, John Ashcroft dared oppose a black appointment to the bench who harbored an activist judicial philosophy. From coverage of this issue we learn it's racist to oppose someone of another race on any grounds whatsoever. Maybe Whites opposed to Clarence Thomas should be labeled racists now. Better yet, maybe minorities opposed to Ashcroft should be accused of harboring antipathy towards the white race.

Opponents of John Ashcroft also expect the nominee to adhere to standards they and their allies are unable to abide by. Regarding Ashcroft's opposition to abortion and other contentious matters, it is argued that he won't uphold and enforce all the laws of the land.

What of it? Administrations pick and choose what laws they will abide by and enforce all of the time. It has been suggested that Janet Reno was lax in enforcing child pornography laws. Was Bill Clinton dutifully upholding the law when he perjured himself in the Monica Lewinsky incident? Did Clinton enforce the law when he accepted campaign contributions from Red China? Did President Clinton faithfully adhere to the Constitution when he circumvented the legislative prerogatives of Congress when he enacted executive orders having the force of formaly ratified treaties and others affectively shredding the Bill of Rights?

I somehow remember those opposing Ashcroft today one time saying that these matters were of little significance to the country and how it was actually a hindrance to good government to take the time to properly consider them.

The ideology espoused by Ashcroft's opponents and the dangers it poses is especially evident in the criticism of comments made by John Ashcroft at Bob Jones University. Particularly offensive to this crowd were his comments that we have no king but King Jesus. One's reaction to this comment reveals just where one comes down in the spiritual conflict for the soul of this nation.

In saying we have no king but King Jesus, Senator Ashcroft was simply reiterating traditional American political thought. According to the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. In a monarchy, all authority rests with a king and the people enjoy only those rights granted them by their sovereign.

Since Christ as King (as a member of the triune Godhead) is eternal and unchanging, the rights we enjoy are not legitimately subject to curtailment by any earthly power. This in no way establishes a theocracy where only Church members in good standing enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

The problem arises on the other side among those unwilling to assent to a higher power as the source from which all blessings flow. When a society fails to recognize God as the source of the rights its members enjoy, those wielding power end up granting or altering rights depending upon their interests at any given moment regardless of the consequences upon individual human beings. Need to discriminate against the Blacks one day? Fine. Need to do it later to the Whites? Go right ahead. Want to do away the Jews? Might as well why we're at it.

While these policy alternatives probably do not reflect those of Mr. Ashcroft's opponents, the sad thing is that when we adopt their secular relativism one can no longer appeal to a moral authority outside the power structures of mankind since there is no objective standard to appeal to when Jesus is no longer King as John Ashcroft's opponents wish.

Things might be fine right now, but those wanting to put someone else on the throne of the cosmos are playing a dangerous game indeed.

There is nothing wrong with vigorously debating a President's cabinet appointments. In fact, over the course of history, the Senate has often been overly deferential in confirming Presidential selections to high office. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to assent to the wishes of the President.

Yet it is highly ironic that those most vociferous regarding John Ashcroft and the expression of conservative Judeo-Christian principles in the public sphere are the same ones squealing the loudest about the need for inclusion and bipartisanship. So in the end these terms end up merely meaning that Conservatives and those opposing the leftwing agenda ought to be obligated to abandon their own principles and beliefs.

False ideas have a way of increasing their influence if they are not countered with the truth. Today, vocal liberals oppose John Ashcroft's nomination to the office of Attorney General. In the future, they might abolish the right to disagree with them all together.

Previous Page