Every now and again someone writes a story about the hidden life of Clarence Thomas. I remember having a talk with one of my boys who happens to be a federal prosecutor. "We've got to bring Thomas in," he said, referring to a speech Thomas had given to the National Bar Association. "We can't just isolate him."
Because online subscription is required, here's a snippet:
This is the Clarence Thomas rarely seen -- the maneuvering mentor and political adviser, a justice who's far more engaged in official Washington than he lets on. From his oak-paneled suite on the court's first floor, Thomas keeps tabs on the capital's gossip, dispenses advice to his understudies, chats up commentators -- he goes to Baltimore Orioles games with George Will -- and even phones senators to lobby for Democratic judicial nominees. Few ever know. According to several black judges interviewed by The Washington Post, Thomas has intervened or offered help on behalf of several stalled African American judicial nominees.
The last time we heard this narrative, it was about Thomas coming to speak to grade school kids.
I'm glad that Thomas is engaged in the lives of people he cares about. He may have inhuman policy preferences, but he is still human. But this is just part and parcel of a long line of stories designed to remake Thomas' image. And I don't buy it. I don't give a rat's ass who Thomas "mentored in private." I don't care what happened "behind closed doors."
Why?
Because as a social scientist I can't measure it. I can't see it happening (or not happening), and I can't use it to even theorize about possible effects because there are none.
And as someone who loves black people, I don't see much change in the rate of brutality incidents in jail as a result of Thomas' actions. I don't see much of a positive change in Affirmative Action policies as a result of Thomas' actions.
A few people getting gigs doesn't change his rulings, and the logic behind his rulings. He can be as compassionate as the day is long. If the symbolic politics kick doesn't (and shouldn't) work for Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton, why should it work for him?
So what.
Yeah I tend to use the same type of litmus test. If someone tells me they love white chocolate, I automatically assume they hate dark chocolate.
Then I assume they hate black people.
Posted by: Lester Spence at October 9, 2004 04:05 PMBut this is just part and parcel of a long line of stories designed to remake Thomas' image.
That's funny. I caught hell for saying the stories are designed to change his image AND they stand a good chance of doing so because of who he's reaching out to: kids and young adults.
Do you think the people he mentors will think he's an ogre?
Here's a link to another article on Thomas that appeared in 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23641-2002Jul30¬Found=true
Thanks for bringing this up. I just saw it.
I was actually thinking about our debate when I wrote it. I should've mentioned it. You've got the post on your piece. "Clarence Thomas is WINNING." Damn, I remember it like it was yesterday.
I never disagreed that the campaign existed, I just disagreed about the "winning" part.
Posted by: Lester Spence at October 10, 2004 12:59 AM"...He may have inhuman policy preferences..."
I don't think so. Example please.
Posted by: True_Liberal at October 10, 2004 09:56 AM
"...And as someone who loves black people, ..."
My test for racism is simple: I swap the words "black" and "white" (or their surrogates) whenever they occur. Applying this test, the litmus indicates affirmative.
And I bet you don't even love ALL black people. I confess there are some I recoil from.
Posted by: True_Liberal at October 9, 2004 03:49 PM