Village Voice July 13, 2001

Justice Thomas, the ACLU and Sieg Heil politics

by Norah Vincent

In that twisted, idiotic world where Clarence Thomas is the Antichrist, Jesse Jackson must be God. And in that same nasty irreality, where Thomas is known as Hitler, I guess Al Sharpton is FDR. Sounds like a board game, doesn't it? The puerile, thwarted liberal's game of LIFE—though to call such people liberals is to insult the very word. But that, in fact, is the inverted world within world wherein the Hawaii chapter of the ACLU is laboring for the cause of civil liberty. Preposterous invective—some of which is unprintable—spewed from the unashamed mouths of three members of that local chapter's board, all of them African American (as if that somehow acquitted them). Daphne Barbee-Wooten, Eric Ferrer, and Faye Kennedy—clearly, judicious thinkers all.

According to the Honolulu Weekly, Justice Thomas had been invited to Hawaii to debate ACLU national president Nadine Strossen at the annual Davis Levin First Amendment Conference. The invitation was rescinded, however, when Ferrer called Thomas "an anti-Christ," and "a Hitler," and said that having Thomas speak was "like having a serial murderer debate the value of life." Barbee-Wooten was quoted as saying: "Bringing Clarence Thomas sends a message that the Hawaii ACLU promotes and honors black Uncle Toms who turn their back on civil rights."

I wonder. Can this be the same mentality that objected so roundly to David Horowitz's recent advertisement against reparations for slavery—a well-considered, point-by-point refutation that he placed this spring in the few college newspapers that would print it? Several of the papers that did print the ad had their entire print runs stolen by rancorous protesters. Others caved under pressure and apologized for having fostered racial bigotry.

Could the ACLU's recent outburst be the foul sound of this same contingent speaking from the other side of its mouth? Might it be the demon voice of that same incumbent talented tenth, the ones who claimed that mere disagreements on race matters—not, mind you, name-calling (for there was none in Horowitz's ad)—created a "hostile atmosphere" for blacks on campus?

Alas, it would seem so. The orthocrats have spoken. And perhaps this is not entirely a bad thing, since it effectively hoists the liberal hegemony with its own petard, and does so far more completely than could any bomb thrower on the other side. Indeed, irksome as they are, we'd be fools to try and cork these mindless outbursts, for a true libertarian should never stand between a person and his First Amendment right to make a jackass of himself. Speak, by all means, and let the world hear what you're made of, because such sticks and stones do no lasting damage to the hearer. They do, however, banish the speaker, and everything he says thereafter, from all serious consideration by anyone with even a spark of critical intelligence.

Meanwhile, the mainstream black caucus's beloved totems remain unscathed by scandal. The revered reverends exchange mad insults and tactful disavowals from their separate exiles. Slippery Jesse in disgrace; hungry Al in jail. One an alleged swindler, the other a convicted defamer, yet somehow still the saving grace of black folk because they support affirmative action in college admissions and everywhere else. And thus their virtue miraculously prevails, through all the storms of bad character to which such puffed-up demagogues are prone.

Thomas, though, is not ordained unimpeachable by the clergy of liberal opinion. He's not considered black, but is seen as performing in blackface. The minstrel of white conceit, an enemy thus vilified, and named so rudely—can it be?—after a cookie.

University of California regent Ward Connerly has suffered the same fate. He has endured the gross epithets of his foregone detractors and all for the grave sin of thinking for himself, for opposing a system of racial preferences in American higher education that, if it weren't so conveniently self-serving, all minority advocates would likewise be against. But as it stands now, the University of California has reneged on its pledge to end affirmative action in admissions. I guess they were getting the Hitler treatment, too.

And so the game goes on. There is no debate. There is no exchange. There is only conformity and heresy, impunity and name-calling, and both are polar absolutes. The retrograde dichotomy of black and white perseverates in the name of liberalism, but at its expense.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 14, 2001

-- (it@lics.off), July 14, 2001.

And so the game goes on. There is no debate. There is no exchange. There is only conformity and heresy, impunity and name-calling, and both are polar absolutes. The retrograde dichotomy of black and white perseverates in the name of conservativism, but at its expense.

-- there is no difference (works@both.ways), July 14, 2001.

Three members of one chapter of the ACLU say stupid things about a particular Associate Justice and we can safely draw conclusions about "liberalism" from that fact?

To me, it just sounds like three people who are so spitting mad at Justice Thomas they can't see straight. If you accept that simpler interpretation of this fact, then most of this article falls apart from the weight of its top-heavy over-interpretation.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 14, 2001.

I think you might want to look into the history of David Horowitz, Lars. He exemplifies the definition of Erik Hoffer's true believer. Norah Vincent's comments seem designed to agitate, but I suppose you already knew this.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 14, 2001.

Anita--

I posted this primarily because it's from The Voice and I thought that made it of interest, considering the VV's traditional politics. Oh sure, I support the argument but it's a common argument made by the Usual Suspects, not by VV type sources. I never heard of Norah Vincent--don't know if said person is a man or woman, Dem or Op-Ed Republican.

Nor do I know much of Horowitz except that he was once a true beliver on the Left and is now a true believer on the Right, sort of a mirror- image David Brock. Whether that makes him more or less credible depends on the location of the observer.

Maybe he's just a hired gun like so many spinsters these days. Which leads to another question---which is worst, being a hired gun or a "true believer"?

Fortunately, that's not an either/or option.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 14, 2001.

I agree with "Works Both Ways." BTW, that would be a cool American Indian name. Kind of like "Parks All Wrong" or "Drinks Too Much" or "Bathes on Saturdays." :)

In any event, I think that Works Both Ways is correct. There is far too much self-serving bullshit orthodoxy on both sides of the political and ideological fence.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 15, 2001.