John Ashcroft (1) (1942–)

I’m sure that John Ashcroft made some mistakes during his time in office and maybe he hurt some people and did things I wouldn’t, but I don’t think that it’s trivial that he wasn’t always wrong, didn’t always hurt people, and wasn’t personally malicious—was always far from the worst you could be.

For example, people sometimes felt that his faith played an inappropriate role in his life in office, but he did uphold the law against a white Baptist/evangelical group that didn’t pay its taxes over a number of years; he didn’t cut them a deal where they didn’t have to obey the law because they’re Christians. They had to pay the money back. It’s true that he held voluntary devotional meetings with people he worked with, but it wasn’t a pretext to reward and punish people, just a voluntary exchange of religious culture. People knew that George Bush was a Christian when they elected him—Gore was too, actually—and I just don’t see it as a guard to good governance to get people to hush up their values. Religion is made to take the fall sometimes for all of the harmful assumptions that society holds, not so much because it’s the only harmful assumption a body could have, but because it might be the least fun harmful assumption. A convenient villain. (It’s like saying, “If I never consciously, explicitly talk about morality, then I won’t be a racist.”) But all whites (for example) have various assumptions about many things, and if they’re assumptions that people are invested in (maybe they’re fun!) they don’t want them changed…. Not that John is a voice for progressive social change, but I just don’t think that the racism of white people can be simplified to, Republicans have it, Democrats don’t. Conservatives can’t bear all of the burden of collective wrongdoing just because liberals are insecure about their own role. There have just been too many racist socialists and sexist communists for me say, I have the truth, not guilt! Because maybe I have a little bit of both, right.

…. And I’d certainly rather have George W. Bush than militia movement violence and right-wing anarchy, you know. I’m sorry, but I just have to cut people a break.

…. It’s not that I agree really with how the “new priorities” were implemented; of course, “prevention” sounds nice, but unless you can prove a crime like a regular legal police force, then you can’t prove that any crime was actually “prevented” at all, or that anything other than “one of these damn Muslims was going to try something eventually, I’m sure of it”, has taken place. But people were mad at the time, so—I know, I know, I’m selling out the minorities—maybe it’s good that things weren’t worse. People wanted blood then, because Americans aren’t like “other people”, and a fully decent leader might have seen rioting or something. And I don’t want to go too far with this. At the time, people on the teenage Left were saying Bush was like a terrorist because he read a religious scripture. That to me is tragic. It’s not that I want to sound like I’m agreeing with terrorism. In retrospect, the bad guys obviously didn’t have the means to occupy the country or perform cinematic attacks in America day in, day out. It was probably a media buy for their Middle Eastern power grab more than anything else, so the least we could have done was not to other every vaguely Greek-looking person, you know. Prejudice is irrational. But that doesn’t mean you have to condone international crime, you know. 9/11 happened because Al Qaeda wasn’t even on our radar. We did a lot more than we needed to get them on our radar, but that’s not the same as saying that Bush was a theocrat who smirked when babies were blown up. To me, that matters.

…. As part of my Hamilton-over-Jefferson thing, I have to say that I like the government collecting information on people. Nom nom nom. Information. Santa Claus has to know what’s going on.

Government agents who abuse their power and act in racist ways should be taken out of power and prosecuted, of course, but that, like dishonesty itself, should happen case-by-case, not, Room A can never talk to Room B. Antiracism by strange rules never works. [I understand that some people say, you know, in effect, I’m racist because it’s what my mom and dad taught me; they were good to me and I love them. There you do have a cultural and societal problem; you can’t just say, Remember to be moral. They think they are. But the government is a machine, and blaming a department of the government and making these rules that certain departments can never cooperate is like blaming the gun—less guns maybe, would be good, but I’m saying you don’t blame the gun, like, this is a KKK rifle. Racism comes from people and culture, not machines.]

…. I’m sure that there are some people with funny names or whatever who want to hurt us, but it would be nice if there was a story about the feds clearing somebody, finding out that somebody named Mohammed al-Arab was just an Americanized Joe who liked pizza and football on TV and disliked fasting for Ramadan. (Be careful what you wish for, obese nation!) You know that all the people they watch, they have to clear somebody, probably the majority, right, by a lot, so why not make yourself seem merciful and have a story about the one who’s found innocent. (Because fasting’s not what the USA is about. People used to have two Lents; we’re one clever ad campaign away from two Christmases.)

…. This isn’t strictly a comment about the 2006 Ashcroft who wrote this book, but it’s obviously sad that someone who was at times so respectful (despite being a little over anxious about reading political cartoons and such) later fell in with a worse crowd. (I know that some people on the left were afraid back then, but Ashcroft kinda took things the wrong way. He did have a lot of support; 2002 was practically the only time that the president’s party won the midterm elections, and yet John here was almost offended by a guy saying just that congressional oversight isn’t pro-terrorist!) I guess some people just want to seem like a team player, and when they get criticized by the other side it seems obvious what side they’re on. I don’t mean to offer this as the delusional idea that I’m immune to criticism sensitivity myself. And I don’t think that he would have started the 2016 campaign himself, sometimes people just fall in with a bad crowd. It’s not right, but nobody’s immune to it.

…. I find the Republicans to be wrong about a lot; I find fault with their priorities, I guess you could say. But they’re not ipso facto wrong for being Republicans; the Democrats are not my sports team.… (mais)

"People love me or hate me. Few are indifferent." So says John. Well, I don't hate anyone, even John. I just don't agree with some of his assessments. For instance, he indicates that President George W. Bush gave "significant" thought to matters... and asked a lot of "What's happening on that case?"
From what I have observed, that may not have been so.. He also seemed to blame Clinton for the terrorist attack on 9/11. To be almost blunt: I think that this book is an attempt to cover his "butt." Maybe I am wrong on this. Anyway, it is an interesting read, but since it was for sale in a $1 store, I don't think many people took the trouble to read it. I wish that he had put an index in the book.… (mais)