|
Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2001 / 21 Teves 5761
Philip Terzian
Linda Chavez, whose habit of offering shelter and assistance to immigrants in need has been
characterized as "exploitative," and routinely described as a violation of law, was forced to
withdraw her nomination to be secretary of labor. The same left-wing coalition which assembled
a dozen years ago to destroy Judge Robert Bork, is now advertising Attorney General-designate
John Ashcroft as everything from a racist -- he paid a compliment to Harry Truman's great hero,
Gen. Robert E. Lee -- to a sworn enemy of women and children. Gale Norton, who once explained
that the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution expanded federal power at the expense of
the states (yielding unintended consequences) is now daily denounced as a proponent of slavery.
Whether Ashcroft and Norton will survive these assaults, I cannot say. Their detractors
have two important advantages: The media is firmly in the anti-Ashcroft/Norton camp, and
tradition demands that the victims of such public campaigns refrain from answering their
critics. So stay on the lookout for more gotcha stories in the press about Gale Norton -- her
great-great-great grandfather may well have served in the Confederate Army -- and solemn
expressions of concern about John Ashcroft's religious beliefs. Thus far, it has not been
learned whether Mrs. Norton accumulated parking tickets in the 1970s, or Senator Ashcroft got
any Bs and Cs while a student at Yale, but we'll soon find out.
The casual observer of this carnivorous process may look at the spectacle and ask an
obvious question: Is appointive public service worth the trouble of crossing the threshold? For
mst senior government officials, the answer is yes: Public service is an honor and privilege,
and many describe their tenure in Washington as the zenith of their careers. But for many
others, especially in the business world, the publicized examples of Judges Bork and Clarence
Thomas, or Senator Ashcroft, serve as a warning signal: It's an honor and privilege to be
asked; but in the long run, who would willingly submit themselves to such indignities?
That is a matter of increasing concern in Washington, and prompted the Brookings
Institution to establish a project called the Presidential Appointee Initiative, funded by the
Pew Charitable Trusts, under the direction of political scientist Paul Light. It's a fine,
well-intentioned, idea. First, a hefty volume was produced called A Survivor's Guide for
Presidential Nominees, which explains in painstaking detail what is expected, and what
will happen, when the President solicits your service. Then it assembled a bipartisan council
to examine the federal appointment process, identify problems, and recommend reforms for
Congress to consider.
It is impossible to overstate the intrusive and needlessly exhaustive nature of clearance
procedures. In a blizzard of obnoxious and bewildering federal forms, nominees must not only
account for their every moment of action since the age of 18 -- schools attended, prescription
drugs ingested, where they traveled, what they earned, where they lived, who they spoke to,
what they wrote, joined, invested, etc. -- but must furnish voluminous information for
extensive background checks. At the end of the road, the FBI will know more about you than they
you know about yourself.
To what end? If the purpose of such investigations is to identify "security risks," they
have passed by more than a few while subjecting innocent citizens to rancorous cop procedures.
The United States is surely the only major democracy which exposes its volunteers for public
service to public mistreatment. In Britain, where he transition from one government to another
takes 24 hours, there is nothing remotely like our form of civic torture. So if the
Presidential Appointee Initiative manages to streamline the process, and persuade Congress to
forego these favored mountains of trivia, it will have done some good.
But there is more to the problem than bloated forms and gratuitous inquiries; it is the
poisonous political atmosphere that surrounds the appointment process. I presume that Gale
Norton has led a relatively blameless life: No inflated resume, no arrests for mail fraud, no
allegations that she directed state business to her cousin, no travels to Baghdad to peddle
nuclear weaponry. But that will not prevent her adversaries from assassinating her character:
Finding neighbors who didn't like her, and old boyfriends she jilted -- or digging up remarks
on the subject of federalism that will lead to accusations she's a closet segregationist. The
"war room" virus that infected the Clinton White House -- contending with opponents by
impugning their motives -- is alive and well. And I'm not sure good intentions will guarantee a
01/09/01: Washed in the blood
|