John Ashcroft's weak performance at his confirmation hearings disappointed many supporters. In the face of a brutal left-wing attack on his beliefs, Ashcroft appeared to cave in and concede that he would work vigorously to enforce many questionable Clinton-Reno policies in the area of civil rights and abortion, among others. This was a blow to conservatives who had hoped that the new attorney general would strive mightily to reform or repeal what they regard as current unconstitutional legal abuses.
It's entirely possible that John Ashcroft abandoned his principles and that his administration will be a wasted opportunity to restore the rule of law. But there is another possibility, entirely speculative. And that is that John Ashcroft simply LIED to gain the nomination. Now before we get all upset about that possibility, let me argue that no one is obligated to tell the truth to the likes of socialist loonies such as Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. No one is obligated to be truthful to political thugs bent on destroying what is left of liberty and free enterprise in America. Ashcroft ultimately swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but any side-bar promises that he might have made to Dianne Feinstein or Pat Leahy are, in my view, entirely meaningless. Sure, Dianne, sure I'll enforce your stupid, illegitimate laws. Sure I will. Just hold your breath.
The Ashcroft situation can be likened to that of a victim in a confrontation with a mugger or robber. In my view the victim has absolutely no moral duty to be truthful to anyone hell-bent on harming him or stealing his property, especially if the truth would make the crime even more likely. Simply put, criminals forfit their right to truth when they steadfastly refuse to respect the sanctity of life and private property. Therefore it would be entirely appropriate, I dare say mandatory, for a potential victim to fib or lie (about the nearness of the police, for example) if the fib could prevent the robbery or help catch the criminal. And since 99% of politics concerns the suppression of liberty and the forceful redistribution (theft) of property, I would argue that the same fib loophole applies there – and with a vengence.
Here's a final illustration of the fib theory in the area of antitrust policy. From my perspective, the prosecution and lower court conviction of the Microsoft Corporation was totally illegitimate and the government case should be abandoned immediately. Yet if I were nominated to head the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, I could not be confirmed if I stated that position openly and honestly. Would a fib to the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton be appropriate if it would lead to the restoration of rights and justice in the software industry and prevent similar economic travesties? I think so. And if you don't think so, I'm afraid that you are looking at many more decades of socialism here.
Did John Ashcroft lie to Ted Kennedy? I don't know, but I hope he did. And did he have his fingers crossed behind his back when he left the hearings? I sure hope he did.
February 19, 2000
Dom Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford and author of Antitrust: The Case for Repeal (Mises Institute, 1999). He lives in Vero Beach, Florida.
