In Search of the Good Person, Well Spoken

 
Dump John Ashcroft!
(And Welcome to The Better Rhetor)

Here at the Better Rhetor, we are trying to jump-start a letter writing campaign to get John Ashcroft fired. We’d like to see him go the way of his loutish compatriot, Trent Lott. For the whole, twisted story, click
here.

Meanwhile, welcome. The Better Rhetor is dedicated to the search for the Good Person, Well Spoken, i.e. the better rhetor. This site looks for examples of public discourse that will inspire, hearten, heal, and make strong.

Unfortunately, we do not run into much of that sort of thing.

Instead we find, surveying the vast landscapes of contemporary discourse, nostalgia for slavery, lust for power, stratagems for inequality, and the usual motley of fools, tools, weasels,and outright frauds.

It’s enough to re-name this place "The Repugnant Rhetor."

But we are nothing if not optimistic and take heart, especially when we recall such words as these.

And so the search continues for The Better Rhetor.

Welcome!


posted at 8:48 AM

 
John Ashcroft Should Be Fired!
What You Can Do About It

Give them credit. When the Republican Senate ousted Trent Lott as majority leader, they sent a clear message. Some statements and behaviors, the GOP Senate told us all, are beyond the pale, outside the boundaries of acceptable conduct in public life. Celebrating the good old days of segregation falls into this category. When Trent Lott made the mistake of essentially donning his white robes and hood in public, it cost him. Good riddance Senator Lott, the country will be better off without your brand of race-baiting politics.

Of course it’s possible to see the GOP action as a nothing more than another cynical bit of theater, as Tom Tomorrow so deftly points out. In this reading, the GOP simply got rid of a buffoon who was holding up the main agenda, the anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-woman, and anti-environment positions that define the contemporary Republican Party.

But let’s not be cynical. (And for me, this is really hard.) Instead, let’s hold onto the principle established in the Trent Lott Affair: In matters of race, some things are unacceptable, beyond the pale of decent conduct. That’s the message the Republicans wanted to send, and it’s a good message.

Now it’s time to follow up. Now it’s time for the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, to send the same message to another notorious race-baiter, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft’s history is well documented. If anything, it’s worse than Lott’s. According to the website of the People for the American Way, Ashcroft’s record reveals a long and sordid history of playing the race card. Both as attorney general and governor of Missouri, Ashcroft fought school desegregation in St. Louis, refused to endorse a bi-partisan report calling attention to racial discrimination in the United States, and thwarted efforts to reform voter registration for minorities. As U.S. Senator, Ashcroft worked to gut affirmative action programs, opposed federal hate crimes legislation, and distorted the records of minority nominees for the federal judiciary. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote that Ashcroft, as attorney general and governor of Missouri, and as U.S. Senator, "built a career out of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African-Americans for public office."

Nasty as these are, there are other, darker stains on John Ashcroft’s record that cannot be rationalized or explained away.

o Delivering a commencement address at Bob Jones University. In 1999, Ashcroft spoke and received an honorary degree at from Bob Jones University, an institution best known for its anti-Catholic propaganda and its ban on inter-racial dating. Mr. Ashcroft later claimed "not have known" about the school’s bigoted policies, a statement that struck many as "implausible."

o Maintaining connections with the White Supremacist organization, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the same group with ties to Trent Lott. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz has written that Ashcroft sought to intervene on behalf of a CCC member accused of plotting to murder an FBI agent. Confronted with this, Ashcroft denied knowing about the group’s doctrines, denials that Joe Conason called "no more credible than those initially offered by Lott."

o Praising a pro-slavery agenda. In 1998, Mr. Ashcroft granted his notorious interview Southern Partisan—Trent Lott also gave an interview to this journal—a racist publication that celebrates slavery, secession, and the Ku Klux Klan with statements such as these: "Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was."

During this interview, Mr. Ashcroft said "Your magazine [Southern Partisan] also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] 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."

Are we beyond the pale yet? Recalling the principle established by the Republican Senate, and about which we promised not to be cynical, have we yet exceeded the bounds of Acceptable Conduct? Does it really need to be said in the twentieth century that slavery is an obscenity and that those who continue to support it should be condemned, not praised?

Put another way, could there be a more blatantly offensive character in American politics than John Ashcroft? (Probably, but let’s not go there today.)

Applying the principles established by the Republican Senate, it’s time to point out to elected officials that John Ashcroft has no place in American politics, much less as Attorney General.

You can do something about it. Write your senators (see the sample letters below) and demand that they:

1) Denounce John Ashcroft’s shameful record on race

2) Call upon George Bush to fire Ashcroft immediately.

A man who has praised a pro-slavery journal, maintained connections with a White Supremacist group, and accepted honors from a bigoted university, and who seems to lie about these when it suits him, has no place in the public life of a multi-racial, multi-cultural democracy. It’s time for the senate to say to John Ashcroft what was in effect said to Trent Lott: "No, your conduct is too repellent, too divisive, too much at odds with what this country stands for. You are not fit for a position of leadership in American government."

And if your senators are reluctant to send this message, which they probably will be, ask them to define for you the threshold at which someone becomes unfit for public service. Trent Lott was obviously unfit. Why him and not Ashcroft? They both had connections to the CCC. They both gave interviews to Southern Partisan. When does a person officially cross the line? Racist statements captured on C-Span? Associations with White Supremacist groups? Sex with an intern? What, exactly, are the standards? Ask them to spell it out.

As this is a bi-partisan issue, both Democrats and Republicans should receive letters. Yes, most Democratic Senators voted against Ashcroft for attorney general (for those who didn’t, see below), but there is no plausible reason why they should tolerate a man like Ashcroft any longer, especially given the opportunity handed to them by Trent Lott. Who knows? Maybe you can help kick-start your Democratic Senator toward something resembling a genuine opposition.

I have posted two sample letters below: One for Republicans, one for Democrats. I've sent one to each of my senators, a Democrat and a Republican. Feel free to use these letters and edit them however you please. If you send your letters here, I will post them on The Better Rhetor. I will also post whatever responses you may receive.

Is it possible to get rid of John Ashcroft this way? I don’t know. But I doubt Trent Lott worried too much when a few citizen-bloggers began writing about his words and deeds on their websites. You know how powerful this medium can be. Use its powers, as they say, not for evil but for good.

So take a shot and write.

o

Sample Letter to Republican Senators
(Note: All Republican Senators then in office voted for Ashcroft’s nomination.)

Dear Senator:

When Senate Republicans replaced Trent Lott as majority leader, they articulated a powerful principle: Those who seek to exploit racial hatred for political gain are not fit for positions of leadership. Senate Republicans are to be applauded for their action.

But the dialogue on race that began with Mr. Lott must not end with him. Specifically, it is time for the Senate to reconsider its endorsement of John Ashcroft for Attorney General. Mr. Ashcroft’s record on race is every bit as shameful as Mr. Lott’s and is unworthy of a person in a position of national leadership.

I am writing to ask two things. First, that you publicly denounce John Ashcroft’s appalling record on race. Second, that you call upon President Bush to fire Mr. Ashcroft immediately.

Mr. Ashcroft’s history of race-baiting is well documented. Both as attorney general and governor of Missouri, Ashcroft fought school desegregation in St. Louis, refused to endorse a bi-partisan report calling attention to racial discrimination in the United States, and thwarted efforts to reform voter registration for minorities. As U.S. Senator, Ashcroft worked to gut affirmative action programs, opposed federal hate crimes legislation, and distorted the records of minority nominees for the federal judiciary (http://www.pfaw.org). The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote that Ashcroft, as attorney general and governor of Missouri, and as U.S. Senator, "built a career out of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African-Americans for public office."

Even if it were it possible to argue those cases on the merits, there are other, darker stains on Mr. Ashcroft’s record that cannot be expunged.

o In 1999, Ashcroft spoke at and received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, the institution infamous for its anti-Catholic propaganda and its ban on inter-racial dating. Mr. Ashcroft later claimed "not have known" about the school’s bigoted policies, a statement that struck many as implausible.

o During his unsuccessful Senate reelection campaign, Ashcroft met with leaders of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the same White Supremacist group with ties to Trent Lott. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, Ashcroft sought to intervene on behalf of one of a CCC member accused of plotting to murder an FBI agent (http://www.prospect.org). Confronted with this, Ashcroft said through a spokesperson that he had not been aware of the group’s doctrines.

o In 1998, Mr. Ashcroft granted an interview to Southern Partisan—Trent Lott also granted an interview to this journal—a racist magazine that celebrates slavery, secession, and the Ku Klux Klan with statements such as these: "Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was" (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html).

In his interview, John Ashcroft did not condemn such sentiments but instead praised Southern Partisan, saying "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] 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" (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/ashcroft.html). When asked about these comments during his confirmation hearings for U.S. attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft appeared to lie once again, professing not to know very much about the magazine he had praised so effusively and specifically. Nor would he take the opportunity to denounce Southern Partisan, even when told of its agenda.

In sum, John Ashcroft’s record suggests a politician with a deep hostility to civil rights and an aversion to the truth when it proves inconvenient. His interview with Southern Partisan, in particular, was repugnant and an insult to all American citizens. Does it really need to be said in the twentieth century that slavery is an obscenity and that those who continue to support it should be condemned, not praised?

That is why I am asking you to publicly denounce Mr. Ashcroft’s record on race and to call for his dismissal. I am asking you to say to John Ashcroft what was in effect said to Trent Lott: "No, your conduct is too repellent, too divisive, too much at odds with what this country stands for. You are not fit for a position of leadership in American government." I am asking, finally, that you affirm the powerful principle that Senate Republicans applied to Trent Lott.

Some might argue that these issues were settled during the confirmation hearings for attorney general. Others might say that since Mr. Ashcroft is no longer a senator, he is not the concern of the U.S. Senate. To the latter, I would say that it was the Senate that confirmed John Ashcroft—indeed, you voted for him Senator—and so the Senate is the right body in which to revisit that vote.

As to the question of whether such issues have already been settled, I think the Trent Lott case demonstrated the question of race is far from settled in the United States. The ouster of Mr. Lott also opened the door for a fresh consideration of whether the American people should be represented by race-baiting politicians such as John Ashcroft. I am urging you and your colleagues to walk through that door.

If you choose not to act on these requests, then I ask respectfully that you articulate in writing your standards for what counts as unacceptable behavior on the part of elected officials. What comments, conduct, and associations—particularly in matters of race—are acceptable? Which are unacceptable? Which will you tolerate, and which will you denounce? What, exactly, do you see as the difference between Trent Lott’s case and Mr. Ashcroft’s? I make this request as a constituent who wishes to understand your views.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,






Letter to Democratic Senators

(Note: All Democratic Senators then in office voted against Ashcroft’s nomination except for the Infamous Eight: John Breaux (La.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Christopher Dodd (Conn.), Russell Feingold (Wisc.) (say it ain’t so, Russ), Zell Miller (Ga.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and North Dakota Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan.) Modify your letter accordingly.

Dear Senator:

When Senate Republicans replaced Trent Lott as majority leader, they articulated a powerful principle: Those who seek to exploit racial hatred for political gain are not fit for positions of leadership.. Republicans senators are to be applauded for their action.

Now it is time for Senate Democrats to make an equally powerful statement.

The dialogue on race that began with Mr. Lott must not end with him. Specifically, it is time for the Senate to reconsider its endorsement of John Ashcroft for Attorney General. Mr. Ashcroft’s record on race is every bit as shameful as Mr. Lott’s and is unworthy of a person in a position of national leadership.

I am writing to ask two things. First, that you publicly denounce John Ashcroft’s appalling record on race. Second, that you call upon President Bush to fire Mr. Ashcroft immediately.

Mr. Ashcroft’s history of race-baiting is well documented. Both as attorney general and governor of Missouri, Ashcroft fought school desegregation in St. Louis, refused to endorse a bi-partisan report calling attention to racial discrimination in the United States, and thwarted efforts to reform voter registration for minorities. As U.S. Senator, Ashcroft worked to gut affirmative action programs, opposed federal hate crimes legislation, and distorted the records of minority nominees for the federal judiciary (http://www.pfaw.org). The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote that Ashcroft, as attorney general and governor of Missouri, and as U.S. Senator, "built a career out of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African-Americans for public office."

Even if it were it possible to argue those cases on the merits, there are other, darker stains on Mr. Ashcroft’s record that cannot be expunged.

o In 1999, Ashcroft spoke at and received an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, the institution infamous for its anti-Catholic propaganda and its ban on inter-racial dating. Mr. Ashcroft later claimed "not have known" about the school’s bigoted policies, a statement that struck many as implausible.

o During his unsuccessful Senate reelection campaign, Ashcroft met with leaders of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), the same White Supremacist group with ties to Trent Lott. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz has written that Ashcroft sought to intervene on behalf of a CCC member accused of plotting to murder an FBI agent (http://www.prospect.org). Confronted with this, Ashcroft said through a spokesperson that he had not been aware of the group’s doctrines.

o In 1998, Mr. Ashcroft granted an interview to Southern Partisan—Trent Lott also granted an interview to this journal—a racist magazine that celebrates slavery, secession, and the Ku Klux Klan with statements such as these: "Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was" (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html).

In his interview, John Ashcroft did not condemn such sentiments but instead praised Southern Partisan, saying "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] 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" (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/ashcroft.html). When asked about these comments during his confirmation hearings for U.S. attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft appeared to lie once again, professing not to know very much about the magazine he had praised so effusively and specifically. Nor would he take the opportunity to denounce Southern Partisan, even when told of its agenda during his confirmation hearings.

In sum, John Ashcroft’s record suggests a politician with a deep hostility to civil rights and an aversion to the truth when its proves inconvenient. His interview with Southern Partisan, in particular, was repugnant and an insult to all American citizens. Does it really need to be said in the twentieth century that slavery is an obscenity and that those who apologize for it should be repudiated, not praised?

That is why I am asking you to publicly denounce Mr. Ashcroft’s record on race and to call for his dismissal. I am asking you to say to John Ashcroft what Senate Republicans in effect said to Trent Lott: "No, your conduct is too repellent, too divisive, too much at odds with what this country stands for. You are not fit for a position of responsible leadership in American government." I am asking, finally, that you affirm the same principle that Senate Republicans applied to Trent Lott.

Some might argue that these issues were settled during the confirmation hearings for attorney general. Others might say that since Mr. Ashcroft is no longer a senator, he is not the concern of the U.S. Senate. To the latter, I would say that it was the Senate that confirmed John Ashcroft—though you, correctly, voted against him—and so the Senate is the right body in which to revisit that vote.

As to the question of whether such issues have already been settled, I think the Trent Lott case demonstrated the question of race is far from settled in the United States. The ouster of Mr. Lott also opened the door for a fresh consideration of whether the American people should be represented by race-baiting politicians such as John Ashcroft. I am urging you and your colleagues to walk through that door.

If you choose not to act on these requests, then I ask respectfully that you articulate in writing your standards for what counts as unacceptable behavior on the part of elected officials. What comments, conduct, and associations—particularly in matters of race—are acceptable? Which are unacceptable? Which will you tolerate, and which will you denounce? I make this request as a constituent who wishes to understand your views.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,



posted at 1:23 PM

 
Is Ashcroft Fit to Serve?
(No. And What We Can Do About It)


More on this to come.
posted at 7:30 AM