[CTRL] Ashcroft a Threat to Freedom of Press

[William Shannon]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=10323

Ashcroft a Threat to Freedom of Press
Jason Vest, AlterNet
January 10, 2001

I have veered from regarding John Ashcroft as an amusing piece of political
Americana to seeing him as a bona fide threat to the First Amendment since I
first encountered him in 1992. I was covering the Republican National
Convention in Houston for what is now the Bloomington, Indiana Independent
and found myself, along with a handful of other hacks, in a room where a few
dozen self-described "Evangelical Conservatives" had gathered. When a
colleague and I walked in, the meeting had commenced, and a prayer circle was
underway. As is often the case in these settings, the exultation of the
Almighty was anything but brief. I was slouching towards somnambulance as the
appeal droned on and on, when a verbal thunderclap jolted me back to reality.
The speaker's modulation had not changed (his timbre was as stupifyingly
monotone as it gets). What jarred me from my increasingly narcoleptic state
was the substance of a particular comment the speaker the made. My notes
don't specify what the preface to his section of homily was, but I managed to
record this: "... the people of America will see through the distortion of
the printed page, and that those in the media would join us to spread the
truth of His word." I blinked in amazement; a glimpse towards my colleagues
confirmed that I had not imagined it. "Who the hell is this guy?" I asked
one. "That's John Ashcroft, the governor of Missouri," someone replied. I was
both amused and offended; not only did it seem an amazingly craven act --
taking a shot at ol' debbbil "liberal media" whilst cowering behind the
shield of faith, head bowed and eyes closed, refusing to do the ostensible
enemy even the courtesy of eye contact -- but it seemed a gross violation of
the unwritten rules of engagement between politicos and journos. It's one
thing to get pissy over a piquant question on an issue, but praying for us
because we're not plying our wordsmithery in the service of a deity? After
the session broke up I rushed for the gov and asked him if he was planning on
making his prayer for the media a staple of his repertoire, as I was sure it
would only endear him to the fourth estate as a sagacious politician worthy
of respect and relevance. He shot me a look in response that I can only
describe as un-Christian and stalked away. After that experience, I was
inclined to dismiss Ashcroft as a sort of bemusing walking malignancy, a
comically uncosmetic melanoma on the already-diseased American body politic.
But as I watched Missouri send Ashcroft to Washington and Ashcroft ascend --
courtesy of the fiscal aid of religious conservatives (as well as the liquor
and tobacco lobbies) -- my amusement gave way to grave foreboding. With every
act, every utterance of his, I found myself going back to that moment in
Houston and shuddering, as I now fully appreciate Ashcroft's reality: there
is no distinction between serving the public and serving his particular
Jehovah. And that particular Jehovah seems to think that I, and anyone else
who disagrees with his Apostle on Earth, is in need of some sort of
re-education. It would be one thing if the ex-Senator (who I hope appreciated
the irony of being defeated by one who died but metaphorically lived on in
the hearts of a majority of Missourians) was being dispatched to some
department where he could make only so much trouble, like, say, Commerce. But
when one considers that Ashcroft could be responsible for enforcing any
future, Americanized version of the Official Secrets Act (approved by both
houses of Congress, vetoed by Clinton, but expected to come up again), his
1992 comments portend an interpretation of the law that does not bode well
for the free press clause of the First Amendment. Indeed, despite his
assertion that he will act as a "guardian of liberty and equal justice" in
the service of the "rule of law," which he defines as something that "knows
no class, sees no color and bows to no creed," his characterization of those
judges who hold that a woman's legal right to choose an abortion is indeed
Constitutional as "judicial despots" gives one pause. (He also considers
those who try, from the Federal bench, to rectify the remnants of segregated
schools, halt anti-affirmative action or anti-homosexual initiatives,
"tyrannical activists," and once referred to a liberal voting block of the
Supreme Court as "five ruffians in robes".) That officials of his party
worked with Federal, state and local authorities last year to actively keep
people from protesting against his party at its convention -- both by
perimeter management and infiltration -- also bodes ill for the First
Amendment's bit about freedom of assembly. And doubtless he'll instruct his
minions in the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia to do what
they've always done to activists who continue to agitate for the Federal
Colony's emancipation: prosecute vigorously when activists peacefully gather
in the Capitol Rotunda. And, from his new perch as Attorney General, there's
no doubt he'll throw the full weight of the Justice Department behind one of
his more insidious assaults on the First Amendment, the "charitable choice"
program he slipped into the draconian 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Referred to by
the decidedly bland and non-partisan National Journal as perhaps "the biggest
blurring of the lines between church and state in many decades," this little
gem of a provision essentially gives Federal money to any faith-based
organization to provide whatever social services it wants to the poor,
addicted and afflicted, and to do so with a license to proselytize. Several
legal challenges based on the program's blatant violation of the
establishment clause are underway. But as those challenges mount, Ashcroft's
congressional allies are trying to expand "charitable choice" from social
services to faith-based education programs as well. Conventional wisdom in
Washington holds that Ashcroft is in for a bruising, if not bloody, set of
confirmation hearings, but that he'll emerge as Attorney General in the end.
If, however, he does fail on the Hill, it's entirely possible he'll have
another role in the Bush Administration, perhaps as special envoy to Iran.
Doubtless the mullahs would find Ashcroft's brand of conservatism appealing.