Alberto Gonzales is now the attorney general of the United States.

There’s a long list of reasons why this development should concern people: His contentious Senate confirmation last Thursday; his White House memo that denounced the Geneva Conventions and apparently opened the door for the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; his inaction while reviewing clemency requests for Texas death row inmates; and his work for, and support from, the Enron company before it collapsed, to name a few.

But the big worry should be just how intertwined his career is with the man who nominated him.

Let’s review Gonzales’ resume. For the past four years, he has been White House counsel, a position handed to him by one George W. Bush. Before that, he was a Texas Supreme Court justice, a position to which he was appointed by then-Texas governor George W. Bush. Before that, he was Texas’ secretary of state, the result of an appointment by that same George W. Bush. Before that, he was general counsel for the Texas governor’s office — hired by, and reporting to, you guessed it, George W. Bush.

Not even John Ashcroft, the outgoing neocon attorney general whose nomination was contested even closer than Gonzales’, was so closely tied to the administration.

It’s certainly not a stretch for the president and the attorney general to share a similar ideology — that’s expected when one office appoints the other — but there is a significant difference between sharing political views and having an appointee who is utterly dependent, indebted and loyal to the appointer.

The attorney general — the highest law enforcement officer in the federal government — requires a certain independence and fearlessness to uphold the law of the land. Unlike Cabinet positions and other appointed government roles, Gonzales’ duty will not be to promote specific administration goals, but to see that laws are fair, just and appropriately adhered to. In short, his job is not to be a yes man for Bush policies, but an even-handed steward of the law.

Given Gonzales’ history, what assurance do we have that he will recognize this? How can we be sure an individual whose success is so bound to the president can be unbiased in legal dealings with the president’s policies, or, if the situation arose, the White House itself?

Of course there is no guarantee. But if Gonzales truly respects the position to which he has just ascended, he must prove it by putting the bar and the United States above his dedication to the president.