By making wobbly allegations of racial discrimination that they could not clearly substantiate, Ashcroft's opponents left themselves open to charges that they themselves were playing the race card. It is appalling, of course, that the mere absence of iron-clad proof of racism has become tantamount to a clean bill of health with respect to the racial hygiene of the nation's most powerful political figures. But that is what has happened. Instead of making a demonstrated commitment to racial justice part of the minimum standard for promotion to the attorney general's office, the baseline standard is merely the absence of irrefutable evidence that a nominee actively supports the Ku Klux Klan. Had I been fighting the Civil War, I would have fought with Grant. . . .
Slavery is abhorrent.
Put aside that there were many white supremacists, including Grant himself, who supported the Union. Put aside that there were many white supremacists who abhorred slavery. The crucial fact is that Ashcroft's record shows little in the way of authentic support for the great struggles for racial justice that have taken place in his own lifetime. Fourth, while many progressives have shown admirable pluck in their vocal opposition to Ashcroft, they have also shown a regrettable tendency to resort to rhetorical formulas that should be eschewed. Another mistaken critique is the one that asserts that Ashcroft is an unsuitable nominee because he fervently opposes existing law that he should be obliged to enforce whatever his personal views.