The Left Suddenly Discovers that the African American is Smart

I have to say that Jeffrey Toobin's New Yorker essay on Clarence and Ginni Thomas is a remarkable piece of work. It may be one of the most remarkable pieces of court journalism I have ever read. On the one hand, it is clearly a hit piece. Toobin works assiduously to portray Clarence Thomas as a vaguely sinister figure, "probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties." He describes the conservative activism of Ginni Thomas in terms that would certainly convince any good liberal that the Tea Party has a seat on the Supreme Court.

Had Toobin confined himself to that, he would have written a dime-a-dozen diatribe. As Michael Barone points out:

It's possible to read Toobin's article as a partisan hit job, echoing the demands of 74 Democratic congressmen that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from sitting on a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare because of his wife's involvement in the tea party movement.

Never mind that this is a standard neither Toobin nor the Democrats apply to other public officials with spouses active in public affairs -- or that they're not asking Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself because of her work in the Justice Department on the issue.

Toobin knows that that strategy is very unlikely to succeed in preventing Thomas from voting, say, on ObamaCare. Instead, he argues that it is Thomas' judicial philosophy and influence on the Court that is the real threat. But there is a real problem with that strategy.

If there is one thing that every good liberal knows, it is that Clarence Thomas is an idiot. After all, he is really quiet from the bench.

The conventional view of Thomas takes his lack of participation at oral argument as a kind of metaphor. The silent Justice is said to be an intellectual nonentity, a cipher for his similarly conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia.

By "conventional", read, "the New York Times." The left has chattered ad nauseam that Clarence is a cross-eyed lion. Who cares then what his judicial philosophy is, even if such a dunce can have one?

So Toobin makes one of those moves that, in a chess movie, will cue up the big music.

But those who follow the Court closely find this stereotype wrong in every particular. Thomas has long been a favorite of conservatives, but they admire the Justice for how he gives voice to their cause, not just because he votes their way. "Of the nine Justices presently on the Court, he is the one whose opinions I enjoy reading the most," Steve Calabresi, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, said. "They are very scholarly, with lots of historical sources, and his views are the most principled, even among the conservatives. He has staked out some bold positions, and then the Court has set out and moved in his direction."

Thomas's intellect and his influence have also been recognized by those who generally disagree with his views. According to Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, Thomas's career resembles that of Hugo Black, the former Alabama senator who served from 1937 to 1971 and is today universally regarded as a major figure in the Court's history. "Both were Southerners who came to the Court young and with very little judicial experience," Amar said. (Thomas is from Georgia.) "Early in their careers, they were often in dissent, sometimes by themselves, but they were content to go their own way. But once Earl Warren became Chief Justice the Court started to come to Black. It's the same with Thomas and the Roberts Court. Thomas's views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case."

Now he tells us. After two decades of Clarence the dunce, suddenly we get Clarence the evil genius. He is suddenly admired not just by the forces of darkness but even by the good guys. He is recognized for his brilliance and…cue bass and drums…the startling truth that he is in fact the intellectual leader of the U.S. Supreme Court. On issue after issue, the Court has moved in a direction staked out by Justice Thomas.

Toobin is alarmed by Thomas and he does not like him. He knows that the "conventional view" about Thomas has always been a lie but it was a lie that bothered him little in the past. He belatedly came to realize that the lie, while emotionally gratifying to the left, was disarming. Thomas has been shielded from the kind of scrutiny to which Antonin Scalia was subject. For twenty years the left has been firing at the wrong guy!

That is one of the costs of being a liar. You sometimes end up deceiving yourself. Whatever you think about the jurisprudence of one Clarence Thomas, he is in fact a brilliant and, even more important, a persuasive high court judge. He has been subject to a campaign of vilification such as no other justice ever had to endure and he not only survived it but exploited it and showed his enemies to be fools. Toobin's piece is a must read.

Comments

[Sharnea]

The title of this article is incredibly offensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sharnea]

The title of this article is incredibly offensive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[George Mason]

What we have heard from liberals so often about conservatives is that they are stupid but have great influence. They of course never offer an explanation but then, like Toobin it takes awhile to figure out why they have influence.

[Bill Fleming]

Well, Ken, first of all, it's not true that no justice but Thomas has "ever had to endure" such things, and shame on you for saying so. Dust off your history books and take a look specifically at Samuel Chase and William O. Douglas.

And second, double shame on you for blowing the "African American" dog whistle. I thought you were above such things but apparently not.

Here's a little video to help your readers view this issue in perspective, since clearly they're not going to get it from you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QNvBNCppUk

[Ken Blanchard]

Sharnea: the treatment of Clarence Thomas by the left has been incredibly offensive.

Bill: Clarence Thomas's race has always been the chief thing that infuriated the left. Blacks aren't supposed to be conservative. They viewed it as a betrayal. The idea that being conservative while Black is a special crime is a morally suspect idea. I know you would prefer it if only the Tea Party and other conservatives were subject to accusations of racism. Sorry,but the left doesn't get a pass.

[Bill Fleming]

Ken, says who? I'm left and I don't think that way. Show us some proof, professor.

[Bill Fleming]

If you're talking about the Anita Hill hearings, that wasn't because Thomas was black, it was because he was an abusive, male chauvinist jackass.

[duggersd]

Here are some examples of people who believe Thomas is a disgrace to his own people.
http://sociologistsforobama.blogspot.com/2009/06/clarence-thomas-traitor-to-his-race.html
http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-08-21/news/17729021_1_thomas-conservatism-clarence-thomas-national-bar-association
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9714925
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/22/the-root-clarence-thomas-the-m
As for the Anita Hill hearings, I believe it turned out that Anita Hill's accusations were probably unfounded. But White liberals believed Anita Hill over Thomas. We had a he said, she said situation. It turns out Anita Hill followed this alleged abusive, male chauvinist jackass from one job to another. It seems she was probably put up to making the charges precisely because he is a Black man who is conservative and certain Senators needed SOMETHING to hang their no votes on.

[Bill Fleming]

duggerSD, those are all black folks criticizing Thomas for selling out. It has nothing to do with "the left." It has to do with the black experience, something you and I and KB know little or nothing about, and are fools if we think we do.

[Miranda]

Here's an example of how many liberals treated Thomas. They suggest that he is not well-qualified. And even question whether or not he can come up with his own opinons:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-08-05/news/18086603_1_national-bar-association-justice-thomas-black-power

"At the same time, we should realize that Thomas' own individuality has never been the question, whether people loved him or hated him. He was a conservative affirmative-action choice. Even his supporters had to suppress laughter when George Bush called Thomas the very best possible choice.
Thomas' legal record was mediocre, and his voting pattern on the high court has almost always been in line with that of Antonin Scalia. Did Thomas arrive at those conclusions on his own? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one actually knows, other than Thomas. "

Here's an example of the way some of the top Democrats
treat African Americans. First, we have Biden:

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS

""I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Then, we have Reid.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-09/politics/obama.reid_1_john-heilemann-african-american-voters-senator-reid?_s=PM:POLITICS

Harry Reid observes that Obama is appealing because of his light skin and lack of a "negro dialect."

Do you need more?

[Bill Fleming]

Miranda, those last two have to do with Obama, not Thomas, and yes they are both stupid, patronizing statements, proving nothing other that Reid and Biden can be lunkheads sometimes. They both expressed regret for making those statements and admitted to their foolishness.

As far as the first one goes, again, Stanely Crouch (the author) is himself a black man. So what are you arguing? Seems to me you are stereotyping both blacks and liberals and then lumping them both into an even more generic package to try to force your point.. In other words exactly what you are trying to accuse liberals of doing. That's just plain goofy.

So, to answer your question, "Do I need more?" No thank you. I can only handle so much BS in one day, you know?

[Jimi]

"If you're talking about the Anita Hill hearings, that wasn't because Thomas was black, it was because he was an abusive, male chauvinist jackass."

Once again Bill shows us his ignorance!

[George Mason]

Bill; Why is it that only liberals can hear the racist dog whistle? Is it because they are the ones always blowing on it?

[Bill Fleming]

Jimmy, I don't know how old you are, but I have the feeling you didn't watch those interviews, or remember those times. Am I right?

[Bill Fleming]

George, I would make no such claim. Anyone can hear it, but liberals are probably the last ones to have tuned in to it.
Besides, what matters is not whether one can hear it, but rather how one responds when they do.

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. George, it is said that the only difference between an enlightened man and an unenlightened one is that the enlightend one KNOWS he's an asshole. The same can be said about racists in my experience. Those who deny it with the most vehemence are typically those who are most profoundly afflicted.

[Jon S.]

I find Bill's invocation of William O. Douglas to be amusing. If anything, Douglas was everything Thomas is supposed to be but isn't (leaving the race thing aside, of course). Douglas was essentially incompetent as a justice (for goodness sakes, read his Griswold opinion. It's a joke). It is fairly well known that Douglas held many religious bigotries (like that old Klansman Hugo Black) and was more than happy to write those views into constitutional law. He barely gave a pretense of actually caring about the language of the Constitution or legal history. And on top, he was something of a moral degenerate. Incompetent. Bigoted. Degenerate. Other than that, great justice.

[Jon S.]

On the race matter, the game gets very tiring. There is something about Clarence Thomas that just drives people right to their biases. There is no doubt that some opposition to Thomas is based on his race (will provide some examples) but that doesn't mean ALL of it is. Justice Thomas has staked out a very particular judicial position. He will come under criticism and rightly so. Conservatives don't need their own race card, suggesting that any time anyone says anything unflattering about Thomas that it is evidence of racism.

On the other hand, are not figures like Thomas and Condi Rice, in some sense, everything Barack Obama is not? Thomas and Rice actually grew up in the segregated South (Rice was famously childhood friends will a girl murdered in Alabama). Growing up poor and black in the South they faced obstacles that Obama never did, as he was born later and in a different place to academic parents. I don't mean to dismiss the factor of race in Obama's past, but simply to suggest that Thomas and Rice almost certainly were more seriously effected by racism than was Obama (for example, Obama never actually attended a segregated school). The fact that Thomas is not lionized as a great figure for all to admire is no doubt attributable to the fact that there is a class of people, including many among our elite, that believe that a black man must have certain views and Thomas is, in this sense, a race traitor (Herman Cain gets similar treatment these days). As Ken suggests, this itself is a form of racism. Thomas is punished for being the "wrong kind" of black man, having strayed off the liberal plantation.

Here are some examples of this:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1031881701210814115.html

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/06/25/garofalo-clarence-thomas-has-stockholm-syndrome-but-tea-partiers-are-racists/

http://beta.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028283.php?format=print

[Miranda]

Bill: I am aware of that. Dr. Blanchard's Title was, "The Left Suddenly Discovers that the African American is Smart." You make the argument that you're a leftist and don't think condescendingly of African Americans. You ask for proof that the left does. That is what I was responding to.

I sympathize with your argument to some degree and with Dr. Schaff's to some degree. But what bothers me is that, while many on the left have painted the Tea Party as bigots despite few real instances of such sentiments, Democratic bigotry can be found at the highest levels. See Biden and Reid. I think, therefore, that Dr. Blanchard has a point.

[Bill Fleming]

Jon, there is a big difference between stereotyping and racism.
Pretty sure you know what it is, but if not, I'll clue you in.

[Bill Fleming]

Miranda, see my note to Jon S. You should check the definition of bigotry and rethink your word usage.
I'll argue that the definition of bigot perhaps more precisely fits your position than Reid's or Biden's.
(Hint, it doesn't have anything to do with race.)

[Miranda]

Bill: I am willing to concede that the figures in question may be more guilty of racism than bigotry. However, both the Cambridge and Macmillian Dictionaries
include race in their definitions of bigotry.

[Miranda]

Macmillan, rather. Sorry.

[Bill Fleming]

Miranda, for Biden and Reid to be considered "racist" in their remarks, you have to be willing to say that they consider Obama to be inferior to them because of his race and that they would be justified in treating him differently than a white person. Certainly you don't believe this to be the case. If you do, can you provide any evidence to support your contention that Biden and Reid discriminate against Obama or any other people of color?

[Miranda]

No, they would have to consider African Americans inferior. I think the evidence is in their own words. Biden acting as if it was unusual for an African American to be "clean and articulate" and even calling such a thing "storybook" shows exactly that sort of attitude. Reid's disdainful comments about "Negro dialect" are exactly the same. The fact that these two rejoice over the qualities in Obama that they associate with whites and that they act as if these qualities are unusual to find in a black American speaks volumes. If it's not racism, what exactly would you say it is? And would you excuse the same comments if they came out of the Tea Party?

[Bill Fleming]

It doesn't matter what I would say it is. What matters is what the voters, Obama, and the black community say it is. Read your own link, Miranda. To the degree Reid made a racist comment, he admitted his mistake, apologized, and was apparently forgiven by those who would be justified in feeling slighted by him. Obama is all about all of us coming to grips with our racist predilections, facing them honestly, reconciling, and moving forward. For the most part, the GOP makes a mockery of this by sanctimoniously pulling a fake race card as Blanchard has done here, thus polluting and perverting the whole dialogue.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-09/politics/obama.reid_1_john-heilemann-african-american-voters-senator-reid?_s=PM:POLITICS

[Bill Fleming]

Now, as to Biden, again, Miranda, read your own link, especially this part:

"He called me," Obama said. "I told him it wasn't necessary. We have got more important things to worry about. We have got Iraq. We have got health care. We have got energy. This is low on the list."

"He was very gracious and I have no problem with Joe Biden," Obama added.

One of the main lessons of AA is that each of us has to take our own personal inventory and reconcile with those we have harmed. I think of it as being similar to the idea of working our karma.

The key is, though. No one else can do it for you. It's a solo act. And if anyone thinks they have some special license to take another's inventory for them, they should think again. You, KB, and Jon S. should see to your own burning houses.

[Ken Blanchard]

Great discussion. I've been too busy to reply and now wonder if I have anything to add. I'll add this list of comments about Thomas.

"Spike Lee opined that "Malcolm X, if he were alive today, would call Thomas a handkerchief head, a chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom."

Columnist and Kennedy-Johnson appointee Carl Rowan wrote that if you put a little flour on Mr. Thomas' face, you'd think you were talking to one-time Ku Klux Klan wizard David Duke.

The chairman emeritus of the National Conference of Black Lawyers charged Clarence Thomas had betrayed his race. Democratic Congressman Charles Hayes of Chicago labeled the Supreme Court nominee an Oreo. Not to be outdone, Democratic Congressman Gus Savage of Chicago took a break from complaining about Jewish money to call Mr. Thomas an Uncle Tom.

Howard University's political science department chairman coincidentally noticed during the Thomas hearings that a controversy existed over black male conservatives marrying white women.

Not to be outdone, Howard University's Afro-American studies department chairman declared that Judge Thomas' marriage to a white woman signified his rejection of the black community.

And a USA Today columnist decided that Clarence Thomas "has already said if he can't paint himself white he'll think white and marry a white woman."

All these came from this source: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/bates/071114.

To put it mildly, the press and the left in general would have no doubt whatsoever that these were racist remarks if they were made by someone on the right about an African-American who was on the left. I dare suggest that Bill would not be confused.

However, I did not accuse Clarence Thomas' critics of racism. I believe that racism is a real thing, regardless of how the word is used. Racism is not the view that one racially defined group is inferior to another, unless one means "inferior" in a very specific way. It is possible that Irish Americans are congenitally more susceptible to alcoholism than Chinese Americans. Believing that this is so on the basis of evidence would not make one a racist unless one chose to believe it in order to discredit the Irish.

Racism is the view that all persons who belong to some racially defined group are enemies. "Their" race alone is an offense to "us". Their race alone is reason why they must be discredited and defeated. I grew up in Craighead County, Arkansas, and that is what racism looked like to me.

As illustrated above, Justice Thomas' critics, especially on the African American left, hate Thomas because he is Black AND Conservative. They think that an African American has no right to hold conservative views, that to hold such views constitutes a betrayal of the race. At least some of them hold that his marriage to a White woman constitutes a race crime.

By my definition, this does not quite rise to the level of racism; but it is surely a good college try! It is at any rate a morally suspect idea, so I offer no apology for bringing it to attention.

More to the point, Thomas has had a few defenders on the left like Randall Kennedy and Alan Wolfe. While disagreeing with his ideas, they defended his right to hold them. That is to their credit. Meanwhile a lot more folks on the left encouraged the belief or uncritically accepted the belief that Thomas was stupid. That was a public lie and it is well past time that it should be exposed.

[Bill Fleming]

Well, that's a good point, KB. I guess you can't really accuse a guy of being all that stupid when he has — after all — a wife with such great taste in hats. http://jessesublett.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/virginia-thomas-aka-mrs-clarence-thomas.jpg

[Ken Blanchard]

and just what is wrong with that hat?

[Bill Fleming]

:^) Oh, I'm sorry, KB, do you have one too? Ooops! (There I go again).

[Ken Blanchard]

I do, but I only wear it for special occasions. If we show up at the same ball, we will both be embarrassed.

[Mike Quinlivan]

God Bless Augustana College. Reading this blog makes me want to weep for the poli sci students at NSU. At least at Augie we had to guess where our professors' ideological moorings were placed. Obviously not the case up in Aberdeen. I still can't place Dr. Peter Schotten; after knowing him for 9 years, I have no idea where he lands on the political spectrum. And that is how it should be.

[Bill Fleming]

Oh, I don't know, Mike. I think I might have enjoyed being a student in KB's class. Of course, I am several years his senior, so let's just say he would perhaps have enjoyed being a student in mine. For one thing, I would have made him learn to draw... Not so much for the art of it, but to help him clear his mind. ;^)

[Ken Blanchard]

Mike: this is a blog, not a classroom. Professors are entitled to express their opinions in proper venues, like anyone else.

[Ken Blanchard]

ps. time permitting, I would love to sit in Professor Flemming's class. Watch out for spit wads.

[Mike Quinlivan]

Dr. Blanchard,

I do agree with you there. Perhaps I am disappointed to see a professor, in a field that I have studied for years know, paint with such an absolutely mind-numbingly large brush. I guess subtlety doesn't sell on the internet. Oh well. Paint away Doc, paint away.

[Ken Blanchard]

Mike: I think you are being unfair. If you think that I paint with a "mind-numbingly large brush", then please do a little touch up. I think I am pretty precise here and I have no idea what you mean in your criticism. Could it be that you just don't like my opinions?

Please note where you think I have gone wrong. We have a lively debate going at this blog.

[duggersd]

Mike, as a student at Sioux Falls College (yes, I am aware of the name change, but the documentation says Sioux Falls College) I had a History prof who was unabashedly conservative and one who called himself a flaming liberal. I had an education teacher who left us no doubt as to where he stood (liberal). I had others who did not mention much, but it was pretty clear. In all of those classrooms, I found the discussion open and not demeaning. In fact, in spite my many "clashes" with the education prof, I still received very strong grades. Healthy discussion in a classroom does not have to devoid the prof of having an opinion. Those were some of my favorite classes and profs.
The real problem comes when you have a prof who stamps out discussion and opposing viewpoints. If the good Professor Blanchard allows for open discussion, I have no problem with him stating his viewpoint in class (I have not idea if he does). It does make for a more interesting class and one in which a student will learn more and think more about his viewpoints.