In the meantime, over at the college paper...

It's disconcerting, really. The entire Editorial Board has turned over twice since I was an editor there. I suddenly realized at the start of this semester that for the first time ever, I don't know who the heck any of the editors are. I mean, I know their names, but that's about it. This came with the reciprocal realization that, so far as I know, for the first time ever, none of the editors know who the heck I am.

Every semester in the past, I've known where I stood with the paper's Powers That Be. Even when it was an antagonistic relationship, I least I knew the ground rules. This time around, I haven't a clue. It's unsettling.

Adding to this, the new Powers That Be have changed the name of the paper.

I don't disapprove. Well, I'd have tweaked the new name a bit, but the idea itself wasn't a bad one, and their new front page layout is quite spiffy.

I do have some nitpicks on the content, though, particularly with their use of wire services. I've been debating whether to write a column on the matter, write them a letter, or just keep my mouth shut. I dunno.

I think I was most disappointed by a recent column by Jon Carroll, of the San Francisco Gate. He's one of my favorite columnists, and his positions are usually well thought out. But here's what he said on January 26th:

Like many Americans, I was saddened to see John Ashcroft lie before an official government body... [Ashcroft] has given his life to God. Since that is so, it is almost indecent to expect him to bow to the regulations of Caesar when he has in his hand the word of the Lord... "Enforce the laws as written?" Maybe he had his fingers crossed.

Carroll has hardly been alone in reacting this way. A multitude of Web sites have sprung up to call for the blocking of Ashcroft's nomination. Petitions have been circulating. Many more articles, editorials, and weblog entries have been written, in print and online, to the effect that somebody with beliefs as strong as Ashcroft's could never possibly be able to fulfill the duties of attorney general.

Ashcroft's opponents have presented quite a bit of evidence of his right-wing views. They point to his positions as a governor and senator, saying that he's fought against abortion rights, civil rights, and worker rights. Let's grant, for the sake of the argument, that all these claims are true. Let's grant that he's done his best to disallow abortions in all circumstances, that he struck down increases in Missouri's minimum wage, that he vetoed laws that would have provided maternity leave and granted workers with temporary disabilities higher benefits.

Let us grant all of this and more. So what?

All the above shows is that Ashcroft has strong beliefs, which he'll fight for when appropriate. It also at least suggests that he has some respect for the system, for the rule of law, given that he's been working within the government, rather than trying to work against it. This should not be a problem.

Virtually all the allegedly disqualifying evidence I've seen has been based on Ashcroft's actions as a senator and governor, and as a speaker to religious groups. These are areas in which one's opinions should matter. Changing laws is precisely what senators do. As for the statements to religious groups, they're fine when viewed in context.

If, on the other hand, his opponents could show that he disregarded the law as attorney general of Missouri, that information would be relevant, as it would prove that he is unable to do the job properly. But they have not done so, so far as I know. They seem not to have found anything to complain about. Funny how this hasn't mattered.

Ashcroft's opponents seem to be saying that, never mind the evidence, it's impossible for anybody with strong beliefs to enforce the law. Presumably, this would mean that a prospective attorney general would have to have no opinions at all. Or perhaps they'd say that the real point is that Ashcroft is a religious fanatic, not just fighting for his own views, but answering to what he considers to be a higher authority. The implication is that nobody who's deeply religious could possibly be trusted in a secular position, because given half a chance, all of us religious folk will lie, cheat, steal, or break whatever rules are necessary, in the greater service of God. This is what Carroll is getting at, above. It's a line of reasoning designed to appeal to antireligious prejudices, and I resent it highly.

The editors of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, after first suggesting that Ashcroft is probably a liar who should be rejected by Congress, go on to say the following:

But what if Ashcroft is telling the truth -- or at least thinks he is? It could very well be, as the man himself said, that Ashcroft really plans to enforce every last law of the land whether he likes it or not. If that's the case, doubts about Ashcroft should double. It's worth wondering about a man who has spent his life vowing to topple the laws he now says he'll enforce. Why should he want to do this? How will he manage it? How can he possibly muster the spirit to do it well?

These are not hard questions. Is it really hard to imagine that somebody might feel that protecting the integrity of the system and maintaining the rule of law would be more important than one's opinions on individual laws being enforced? On the contrary, somebody who believes in the strict rule of law is just the person you'd want in such a position. If the editors of the Star Tribune really believe that one can never put one's own opinions aside for a greater good, I pity the readers of their newspaper, which, by their own line of reasoning, must be terribly biased.

In any event, ideological differences are not grounds for rejecting a cabinet appointment. I can imagine the classified ad that might appear otherwise: "ATTORNEY GENERAL F/T. Prez seeks mindless drone to take legal action by the book. Ability to play well with others a must. Lousy pay, trial by fire in confirmation hearings. Independent thinkers and practicing theists need not apply. Fax resume and lack-of-character references to 202-456-2461."

Certainly, some of President Bush's first decisions have been troubling at best, and some -- like his creation of a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives -- need to be fought hand, tooth, and nail. But extending the fight to areas where no wrong exists only weakens the credibility of the liberal position.