If you're wondering why the left hates Clarence Thomas so much, the answer can be given in one sentence: here is a black man who has left the liberal plantation. This is not supposed to happen. Those of us who are "persons of color" are supposed to march in liberal lockstep, spinning out elaborate tales of victimization and dutifully voting for the Democrats on election day. If we don't, we're accused of selling out to the white man.
It is a mark of Thomas' independence of spirit, and also his moral and personal courage, that he decided early on to become his own man. For him conservatism doesn't just mean tax cuts or free markets: it means personal emancipation from the imprisoning categories of race that, even today, keep African Americans and other minorities "in our place." In breaking with liberal expectations, Thomas betrayed no one because he never owed these self-styled benefactors anything in the first place. His new book "My Grandfather's Son" makes it clear that his real debt and allegiance is to his grandfather, who taught him to think for himself and act on those convictions.
When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, the left could not defeat him on ideological grounds. So they hauled in Anita Hill, who in the tradition of Southern slaveowners and segregationists sought to bring this black man down by hurling at him the age-old accusation of being a sexual predator. In his memoir Thomas draws a poignant analogy to the classic novel and film, To Kill a Mockingbird, in which a black male is falsely accused of rape. In retrospect it's incredible that so many aspersions could be cast on Thomas based on not a single piece of strong corroborating evidence. Even so, senators and media pundits engaged in lengthy disputations about pubic hairs allegedly discovered on coke cans. By my recollection, the most exotic theory was advanced by sociologist Orlando Patterson, who speculated that perhaps Thomas had engaged in some Southern lower-class down-home courtship techniques, complete with taunts and lascivious jokes, and that Hill, while understanding Thomas' stylized overtures perfectly well, was manipulating them in order to play the feminist heroine.
Thomas has proved to be an excellent justice, unusually taciturn during oral arguments before the court, but unfailingly principled and passionate in his opinions. No clone of Scalia, Thomas has developd his own approach to constitutional interpretation, emphasizing not literal allegiance to the text but rather a dedication to the central constitutional principles of individual liberty and local self-government over centralized control. Meanwhile Anita Hill has vanished into obscurity since the left no longer seems to have any political use for her. But I expect she'll be trotted out again to "refute" Thomas' memoir. Can we expect outlandish new accusations or a replay of the old ones? I hope she hasn't been saving those pubic hairs.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 5)
46. Clarence Thomas is objectionable because he's a self-loathing, lying, scuzzy, sleazoid human being. He lied himself onto the Supreme Court after sexually harassing Anita Hill. And now he's returned to try to convince the American people that it was all some liberal conspiracy. Bull.
Polls show his warmed-over lies aren't working. The American people believe Hill over him by a wide, WIDE margin.
Not only that, Thomas has got to be one of the most intellectually dishonest Supreme Court justices in American history. Having benefited from Affirmative Action and the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, ever since he came to the Court he's sought to dismantle them. His rulings are nothing short of scandalous.
And he is beyond contempt.
dee at 11:18PM on Oct 2nd 2007
47. It's common practice for sexual predators to attempt to demonize their victims, and accuse the victim of the wrongdoing, making them a victim twice-over.
What's so sad in this case is that--because it was so high-profile and politically-charged--the victim was terrorized not just by the predator himself, but also by a mob of politically motivated bigots in a national forum. All the while, this pathetic man is blindly worshipped as an idol.
Shameful. . .
JK at 11:21PM on Oct 2nd 2007
48. The Republican party of today was
never the old Democratic Party
which formed the KKK, it was the
same Democratic Party today which
O Bama has joined that did it
according to old history books
removed from our schools by the
liberal left.
The liberal left is the old
Democratic Party responsible for
the formation of the KKK. Thats
why Hillary is a liberal.
William Ehlert at 11:24PM on Oct 2nd 2007
49. Furthermore, Clarence Thomas is so comfortable being a slave, he's taken the plantation WITH him. He is the quintessential house nigger who identifies more with his oppressors/enslavers than with his own people.
Thomas is nothing more than a willing slave of the overwhelmingly white, racist elements of the Republican right wing.
"...left the liberal plantation"?
That's priceless.
deeceevoice at 11:25PM on Oct 2nd 2007
50. Everybody here seems to rewrite history to quantify their comments.
The Republican party was established by abolutionists in 1854 who supported Lincoln for president.
Around the 1890's the party started becoming more aligned with big business after going through some changes prompted by scandals and internal strife in the party. By the Roaring Twenties, the party's economic ideology had begun developing into the pro-business model we see today. The Republican Party supports a pro-business platform, with a brand of social conservatism increasingly based on the viewpoints of the Religious Right.
Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored "liberal" positions. Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities. It has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor.
The "Solid South" as dixiecrats were known exited the party in the early 60's to join the Republican Party who shared their opposition to civil rights legislation
Republicans attracted conservatives and white Southerners from the Democratic coalition with their resistance to New Deal and Great Society liberalism and the Republicans' use of the Southern Strategy. African Americans, who traditionally supported the Republican Party, began supporting Democrats following the ascent of the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights movement.
The Democratic Party has always been a party for the people, the working man.
De'Lousza This we you speak of must mean you and that frog you have in your pocket because "you" have had nothing to do with the developement of the democratic process here in the United States.
I'm not aware of your true ancestry, I can only surmise from your likeness, you are of east Indian descent or something near. Just the same I cannot recall where in the history of this country, on this land, where your people shed blood in the defense of personal freedoms and civil rights.
There may be a chavism between white, black, mexican, and native american in this country that is morally and ethnically perverse and that keeps us apart, but most of us know we have an "earned" attachment by birthright and not by immigration and owning most of the 2bit, rundown hotels and motels in the world!
You are not a real American, you are a paper American. You have no idea how our history unfolded. You are here to take advantage of how our history has evolved over the decades ignorant of the true sacrifices many have made in the name of liberty so you can be in a position to slander and distort our history with your perfidious hyperbole. You are a shallow lap dog for the bigoted propagandists' whose favor you desire.
Hey DD do they use vaseoline in your training sessions?
Phil G at 1:57AM on Oct 3rd 2007
51. Reply to William Ehlert @46:
What is this giberish you're writing? You smoking meth? How hard is it to take that hood off while you're typing?
The KKK wasn't affiliated with any one party, the parties were affiliated with the KKK, which was formed by ex-confederated troops to handle the "negro" problem during reconstruction. You can't try and make O'Bama and Clinton responsible for your alma matar. Once again they abandoned the Democratic party because of its liberal policies for citizens and joined the like-minded Republican Party.
Phil G at 2:45AM on Oct 3rd 2007
52. #41 Venliar
Again your bigotry comes through!
UUUMMM Manny were you drunk when you posted that dreck or is it just that english is a second language for you?
Why ventrue did you think those lines all by yourself or did your commie friend Tony tell you what to write. For your information English is my second language and you really impress me with your outright intuitiveness, your so scholarly, you imbecil! You answered none of my points so you have nothing intelligent to say or respond to so you attack the messenger how Liberal of you, by the way I've changed your name to Ventliar ninkampoop extrordinaire.
Find someone else who'll waste their time on you!
Latino,White,Black or Asian in time of war we must unite and kick ASS!!!
God Bless America!!!
Manny at 3:46AM on Oct 3rd 2007
53. We can not know that Clarence was guilty of legal harrassment. Of course we can not know that Anita was an innocent victim either. It is and was just between them. So lets drop it.
Dwain at 7:22PM on Oct 3rd 2007
54. From: sionx2123 at 10:57PM on Oct 2nd 2007
That's your response? Wow, my great grandma could of come up with something better than that, and she's dead. Maybe you should spend more time reading history books, and less time trying to make "witty comments" on a blog. Ah but who am I kidding, your probably just a person with a low self esteem who has nothing better to do but skim through blogs and make "witty" comments to make yourself feel better about your existence. That or you've picked up one too many doobies.
V -Hmmm....let's see. Would you be projecting your flaws on the boards in a Freudian attempt to compensate for your inability to project any other aspect of yourself anywhere else? Or are you merely lashing out in a puerile (to say nothing of futile)attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you got caught saying something stupid?
Better contact a medium to hold a séance for you so you can have your dearly departed great grandmammy can explain to you how the English language works before you post again. ;)
Ventrue at 1:21AM on Oct 4th 2007
55. From: Manny at 3:46AM on Oct 3rd 2007
Again your bigotry comes through!
V -So glad you're here to tell us these things. None of us would've noticed otherwise. :)
M -UUUMMM Manny were you drunk when you posted that dreck or is it just that english is a second language for you?
V -S'matter, didn't understand the question the first time, so you had to repeat it?
M -Why ventrue did you think those lines all by yourself or did your commie friend Tony tell you what to write. For your information English is my second language
V -Yes, it shows. BTW, as I've pointed out on another board, Red-baiting went out with tail fins and hula hoops. Or perhaps, you're actually a marielo posing as a PR and you still think people drive around in '57 Packards like they do back home.
M -and you really impress me with your outright intuitiveness, your so scholarly, you imbecil! You answered none of my points
V -Turnabout's fair play. When you make a point, perhaps I will respond to it....if you respond to mine. Here's another chance....are you dishonest or merely ignorant?
M -so you have nothing intelligent to say or respond to so you attack the messenger how Liberal of you, by the way I've changed your name to Ventliar ninkampoop extrordinaire.
V -Yes, I am a liberal sir....and when you learn how to speak English, I will direct you to the nearest dictionary so you can learn the definition of the word.
M -Find someone else who'll waste their time on you!
V -I don't do requests.
Last warning Manny....play nice, or you'll force me to force you to seriously embarrass yourself.....
....not that it would be particularly difficult.
Ventrue at 1:55AM on Oct 4th 2007
56. 51 "We can not know that Clarence was guilty of legal harrassment. Of course we can not know that Anita was an innocent victim either"
I believe that Clarence Thomas was NOT guilty
or any type of harassment and that Anita WAS
a victim of sexual harassment. I say this because
as I watched the testimony of the 3-4 women who testified sitting together at the same time who
worked with Thomas and Hill, I remember a series
of questions that brought out the tidbit
that there was a supervisor in the office whose
behavior towards the female staff sounded like there was some harassment. His last name was mentioned briefly but the senators conveniently
moved on to other questions, as they had an agenda.
Later while questioning the so called judge/arbitrator from California. The questions
asked were framed in such a way that the individual
could answer but would not be commiting perjury.
I.e "Did Anita Hill ever tell you that she was the victim of unwanted attention"
Her answer was "YES from a supervisor". "Who did Anita Hill tell you was her supervisor?" She answered "Clarence Thomas"
Notice, they did not ask if "Anital Hill told her
that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her."
I have always remebered these two pieces from the
confirmation hearings as being kind of odd.
As for Clarence Thomas, the individual, I have not
watched him in court , however, I have watched him
a number of times C-SPAN, either addressing a group, or part of a group/panel discussion. He seems to contradict the various verbal insults that come from some here on these blogs. Some people just get all "torqued" up when someone else just does not know what "their proper place or correct political view" should be.
JZeeeeeee at 9:24AM on Oct 4th 2007
57. #55 KK
"But he did it. He did it. You see him as a man and we do to. We see him as a black man, you see him as a man. But at night, behind closed doors, with our close and personal friends we both are calling him a black man, we can just do it to his face."
Your response was a little confusing for me
with the "but he did it. He did it" line,
were you being sarcastic or where you making
a statement?
JZeeeeeee at 1:38PM on Oct 4th 2007
58. Your pretty full of yourself aren't you Ventrue? Twice you've had the opportunity to disprove anything I said and you did not. Well hold on, let me read your posts again....nope no answer at all. If anyone is deflecting here it's you. Instead of providing any facts to disprove what I said, like how the original meaning of the word liberal actually defines someone who is conservative(not a neocon or a modern liberal), you'd rather show how "smart" you are and try to attack other people's intelligence. That's it for me on the subject, I have better things to do than argue with a self absorbed "intellectual" who cherry picks through history.
sionx2123 at 6:35PM on Oct 4th 2007
59. harass - transitive verb
1. keep bothering or attacking somebody: to
persistently annoy, attack, or bother somebody.
2. exhaust an enemy with repeated attacks: to exhaust an enemy by repeatedly attacking.
Clarence could have done exactly what Anita said
he did and still not be guilty of our legal U.S. description of harassment. Exceptionally bad
taste in behavior may indicate questionable qualities for the highest court but his "high
tech lynching" ploy got him past all of that.
In my view that ploy was also an indicator
that he did not belong on the highest court.
But, whatever works, works. What a surprise
when I found myself agreeing with some of his
court decisions. He is there and must make many important decisions. Lets stop "harassing him"
and hope for growth instead of defensive
insanity.
Dwain at 10:13PM on Oct 4th 2007
60. From: sionx2123 at 6:35PM on Oct 4th 2007
Since your great granny ain't around to hold your hand sionx, allow me to pass along a few pointers to help you out both online and in real life:
1. It is not MY job to DISPROVE anything YOU say. Rather it is YOUR job to PROVE what YOU say. It's that simple.
2. BEFORE you click on that "Add Your Comments" button, proofread what you have written in its entirety. Think once. Think twice. Ask yourself does it make sense or is it just an expression of your petty partisan hatreds and ego driven stupidity.
3. The next time you write something silly and get called on it, act like an adult and either admit you made a mistake, or clarify your comments.
Pssst...here's a little secret. You don't get to define a term to suit your agenda. The definition of the word "liberal" has not changed in more than 200 years....despite whatever it is that the ghosts of your dead relatives or the snake oil salesmen on right wing talk radio tell you to think.
4. To quote the late thespian John Vernon as Dean Wormer in the classic motion flick Animal House "Rude, dumb and conservative is no way to stumble thru life, son". If you insist on having a thick skull, you'd better learn to develop a thick skin.
IOW, quit whining like a little pussycat.....minus the cat.
Ventrue at 12:26AM on Oct 5th 2007