Et Tu, Feingold? - Senator Russ Feingold supports confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General

As for the rest of the Democrats, it may be a while before they form a clear, united front. "The Democrats have a lot of thinking to do," says Norton. "We haven't had to do strategic thinking for a long time, when we had the master politician in the White House. And we didn't do so well when we were twelve years in the wilderness, either. Reagan ruled the world, and Congress went with him."

Frank is more optimistic. "There was more opposition to Ashcroft than any cabinet position since John Tower," he points out. "I think you'll see the Democrats be a more oppositional party--on vouchers, where we seem to be winning, on trying to get a fairer tax cut, on trade, where there will be a more coherent opposition to deals that don't protect workers and the environment--now that Clinton is gone. The differences between the parties will sharpen some."

But Feingold is the most optimistic of all. "I think there's a progressive, populist wellspring out there that could lead to retaking power. It's as close as the next election. For progressives to get in a defeatist mindset after this election was won on the votes is simply wrong.... There are going to be civil rights and environmental policies coming out of this Administration that are probably not going to be good. That will provide sufficient fuel to make the opposition to the Ashcroft nomination look like nothing."

In the short run, the Democrats may show some strength on judicial appointments. The forty-two votes against Ashcroft constitute enough to sustain a filibuster in the Senate and successfully block appointees in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.

Here, at least, Feingold plans to join with his Democratic colleagues. Somewhat confusingly, he asserts that ideological litmus tests are OK when they are applied to judges, but not to cabinet appointees. "My traditional understanding as a student of constitutional law actually is that an ideological litmus test might not be acceptable for judges, either," he says. "But since the Bork nomination, I've come to believe that we may have to consider ideological issues when we look at lifetime appointments and whether a person can be a fair judge."

Feingold concedes that Ashcroft could do "great damage." He even suggests that he might have to change his mind. "Now if he doesn't do what he said, we will have learned a lesson," he says. "I will have to revisit my views on cabinet appointments, just as I had to revisit my views on judicial appointments."

By then, of course, it might be a little late.

Ruth Conniff is Washington Editor of The Progressive.

COPYRIGHT 2001 The Progressive, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group