The Chavez nomination

In his campaign, President-elect Bush defined himself as a uniter. Overall, his now-compete list of Cabinet appointments, though decidedly and unsurprisingly conservative, left him ample room to provide unity. His selection of Linda Chavez to head the Labor Department is the glaring exception, a nomination almost calculated to divide.

This and the selection of John Ashcroft for attorney general are the two Bush nominations certain to undergo the most intense scrutiny during Senate confirmation hearings. Mr. Ashcroft, though controversial, has two things working in his favor – as a former Missouri attorney general, he has actual experience in the field, and as a former senator, he is likely to enjoy a considerable amount of collegial courtesy.

Ms. Chavez has no such advantages. She got her start in public life as a lobbyist for the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association; she is now anti-union with the fervor only converts possess. After a couple of appointed positions in the Reagan administration, she went on to a career as a columnist, TV panelist and think-tank thinker, making herself a favorite of the right through her strong views in opposition to such things as affirmative action, bilingual education and the minimum wage.

Being opposed to such things is, of course, her right and for a person with those views to find work in the incoming administration is no great shock. It is the way Ms. Chavez has expressed those views, the belittling and disparaging tone she often employs, the lack of context and fact, that should give senators pause and Mr. Bush reason to reconsider.

In debates on such matters as the minimum wage or workplace discrimination, she has, for example, often called those with whom she disagrees Marxists, or, in extreme disagreements, Marxist-Leninists. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, against whom she ran with spectacular lack of success in 1995, was a not merely a “Marxist-feminist,” but a “San Francisco-style, George McGovern liberal.” She regularly asserts that the minimum wage primarily benefits the teen-age children of affluent families, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.

There is legitimate opposition to bilingual education and her stand on it could be based on those principles. Instead, her statements opposed to bilingual education in any form are so blatantly insulting that her leadership position in an organization to make English the official language was omitted from the biography released by the Bush transition team.

The nomination of Ms. Chavez is unfortunate at this time because the economy is in such transition, the wage gap is widening and the incoming administration has some serious uniting to do. It would be unfortunate at any time because uninformed, fractious name-calling simply doesn’t belong in the White House.