4198

Why liberals are afraid of Clarence Thomas

He's written an autobiography titled, "My grandfather's son," and liberals are squealing and denigrating again. They used to just condemn his qualifications; now it's his emotional state. It's not just because he's an uppity black man who isn't grateful for all they've done (the whites). It's not just because he's got black skin and Negroid features (the Civil Rights leaders who grew up with the brown paper sack rule of acceptable appearance). It's not just because he complains about rich feminists hunting for more shackles and glass ceilings (as black women were still scrubbing floors). No. He stomps all over and rips up their favorite playgrounds giving them no place to hang out. So I suppose they have a right to pout and bully him, and call him too angry or disturbed to be on the bench. But, as John Yoo points out in today's WSJ, "Clarence Thomas is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take pot shots at him."

And if he's too angry,

does that include the other angry people who came out of the Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s?

Or who left the church because of its inaction on race issues?

Or who used company rest rooms with racial slurs on the walls?

Or who saw the futility in the black power movement after a brief, heady flirtation?

Or who dabbled in leftist politics in the 70s and found it empty rhetoric?

Or who disappointed and argued with his parents about his political views and life choices and lives with regrets?

Or who had to learn to speak standard English and give up his distinct (and ridiculed) childhood dialect?

Or who says a degree from Yale is worth about 15 cents in the real world if you are black?

Or who believes busing poor black kids to poor white schools did nothing for educating children?

Or who saves a complimentary letter to reread from time to time as an affirmation of his beliefs?

Or who believes criminals need to be tried by juries, not judges?

Or who went the lonely route and voted for Ronald Reagan, turning away from government engineering of social problems?

Now, for conservatives who read this book: they may wonder as I did, why he didn't know until joining the Department of Education that busing was never about education for disadvantaged black children, it was always about neighborhood integration and the real estate market. They may be puzzled that he knew so little about black on black crime when he began working in Missouri. They may wonder why he would stay eight years with the EEOC--did he think he was God, because if it was as bad as he said, that would be its only salvation. Why he didn't get rid of Anita Hill sooner if he knew she was trouble. Did the first Bush ever take his advice on black appointments?

I found the inefficiency and relationships between the various federal agencies and departments discouraging--I think more could have been said. More solutions offered. (Although as a Supreme, he probably has areas on which he isn't allowed to comment.) If it were me, I would have had a few regrets about that, too. Also, for this reader, many of his insights, sounded more like hindsight.

Still, it's well worth reading.

Jesse Peterson is looking for a few good (white) men. I wish him luck.