American Politics Journal -- Action from Principle

Guest Editorial
Action from Principle
by Elio Zappulla

Mar. 7, 2001 (APJP) -- Thoreau said that "action from principle" ought to be our guiding philosophy, and I fully agree. Like all of us, I have the highest esteem for those whose lives are guided by idealism. The exemplary lives of many people--the great, the near-great and the ordinary--have lighted the way for others because they acted according to their ideals.

Of course, different people have differing principles. But while my own cannot possibly always coincide with another's, I nevertheless can understand and often respect the idealistic motives that lead people to act as they do. On the other hand, I am often puzzled by those who appear to harbor deep convictions yet who are able passively to tolerate conditions, situations, laws, or circumstances that thwart or threaten the ideals they cherish.

A case in point is that of our new U.S. Attorney General. John Ashcroft is a deeply religious man with strong feelings about abortion. In fact, he considers abortion to be nothing less than murder. I am certain that he regards Roe v. Wade as an abomination. He has said, ex cathedra, that even in cases of rape and incest abortions ought not to be performed. That is a pretty strongly held belief.

And so, given the depth of that belief, the question arises as to how it is possible for John Ashcroft to swear, without mental reservation, to uphold pro-abortion laws. How can a man with his beliefs feel anything but intense outrage about the existence of laws that permit what, to him, is tantamount to homicide?

Although I do not share Ashcroft's beliefs about abortion, I know this much: if I did, I would surely move heaven and earth until I had brought an end to Roe v. Wade. However, before he was confirmed in January as the new Attorney General, he told the Senate that he regarded Roe v. Wade as the law of the land and he swore that he would work to defend it and to uphold other pro-abortion laws and rulings

I find this incomprehensible. Surely, anyone whose religious convictions are as strong as Ashcroft says they are would be unable easily to set them aside and allow what he considers murder to continue to be practiced. Surely, his unusually strong anti-abortion feelings would make it virtually impossible for him to strive to protect pro-abortion legislation.

Thus, I am not sure what to conclude about the peculiar position he is in, but one of these statements (at least) must be true:
A. He is not a deeply religious man at all, and his claim to be one is false;
B. He has not thought his position through carefully and is caught in an embarrassingly illogical trap;
C. His desire for power is far stronger than his religious beliefs.

The only position he might have taken that would have been consistent with his alleged religiosity and his well-known visceral hatred of abortion would have been for him to say that he would work night and day to overturn all pro-abortion laws. I would not have agreed with such a posture, but I would have respected John Ashcroft. Instead, the new Attorney General has sworn to do something that obviously conflicts violently with his alleged religious beliefs.

I am forced to conclude that he is one or more of these things:
A. phenomenally shallow;
B. astonishingly ignorant;
C. frighteningly schizophrenic; or
D. Machiavellian.
Any of those characteristics would make him unfit to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America.

I believe that President Bush, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has made a choice that the nation will live to regret, a choice the President made, no doubt, to feed the roaring lions of the religious Right who helped elect him.

"Action from principle?" Not in this instance.

Elio Zappulla is Professor of English and Humanities at Dowling College, Oakdale, New York. His verse translation of Dante's Inferno was recently published by Pantheon Books and Vintage Books.



Home • Latest • Archive • Search