021412sectionalgbb
Special kids get chance to play
Benefit held for crash victim
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2007 > October > 02 > Entry
Still sulking after all these years
I was writing editorials for a living at the time of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings. I watched them for hours on end. I had a lot of trouble deciding whom to believe. Then Thomas said that he hadn’t watched Hill’s testimony, which he reiterates now. That seemed amazing to me, because if she were lying, you’d think he’d want to watch for possible places to catch her in her lies.
Then, as I recall the order of things, a book came out defending Thomas and denouncing Hill, only to be renounced by its author, a then-right-wing hack, as a fraud. Then a respectable book came out by two top journalists that made Hill look good and Thomas worse.
Now he denounces her as “mediocre,” despite having hired her twice. He attributes certain bad work-place characteristics to her that don’t seem to have hindered her climb from Oklahoma to Brandies and Wellesley.
Before the Hill testimony, I developed doubts about Thomas’ honesty because of his testimony on abortion. He repeatedly insisted that his views on Roe vs. Wade were unformed and that he had never even discussed the subject with anybody. The latter point seemed just bizarre. At any rate, I was certain he was the flaming right-winger he turned out to be, as conservative on abortion as anything else. Everybody else was certain, too.
So, all things considered, I guess I believe her.
But what’s really offensive about Thomas is not that he lied about her, if he lied. If you found yourself in his situation, you’d lie too. What’s offensive is his lifelong determination to portray himself as a victim, and particularly as a victim of racial discrimination.
He insists now, as he did then, that the political left had to get him because he was a black conservative, and the left had decided that a black man must have liberal views, and, further, that the liberals would attack him by using the racial stereotype of a black man out of sexual control.
This is such utter nonsense on so many levels.
First of all, ideological control of the court seemed to be at stake. The fight would have been the same if he were white.
Secondly, Anita Hill came forth. Does he really imagine that if a similar thing happened to a liberal nominee, the conservatives wouldn’t have pounced? Please.
Thirdly, the sexual charge happened to be the one that she made.
After being confirmed, Thomas made his mark on the court in two capacities: as a reliable right-wing vote — not conservative like, say, Kennedy, but right wing — and as the guy who never asks any questions of the lawyers appearing before the court.
His strange silence is difficult not to see as a symbol of his bristling anger. It makes him preposterous.
He needs to get over it. He got a lifelong job on the top court in the land at a very young age without exceptional qualifications. And yet he’s mad. He’s mad about, of all things, racial discrimination against him.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: National politics
Comments
By D. Greene
October 2, 2007 8:22 PM | Link to this
You didn’t actually answer your own question about whether or not black conservative men are treated poorly. You sort of raised it, dismissed it, and then ignored it. Good work Gottlieb.By TRS
October 3, 2007 1:51 AM | Link to this
There has been much written about the events of Justice Thomas’ confirmation and basically it still boiled down to he said, she said. In checking the internet, I find the book by the “hack” David Brock, but no book by two well respected journalists. Not saying it doesn’t exist, but I sure don’t see it. Brock may have discounted his writings of that time, but it is worth remembering that Brock is now employed by the Soros machine and so it would behoove him to do so. In reading a brief portion, much of his writing is based on the testimony and the inconsistencies of Ms. Hill and they still have validity, ie if she was harassed, why did she follow Thomas to EEOC? At the end of the day, I guess its boils down to who you are predisposed to believe and obviously, based on your point of view, you have chosen Ms Hill. To your points, I would concur the that this nomination would have been bitterly fought whatever conservative was nominated but disagree that such a fight would have been the same. The discrimination of a black conservative is a fact. It has played out in Justice Thomas’ term with various schools and organizations at which he was to speak where he faced protests, name calling such as Uncle Tom, etc because the left does not want to put an African American face to conservatism still to this day. I believe you have your head buried in the sand if you think otherwise. Second, Ms Hill’s testimony was discounted as inconclusive until your peers, the legacy media, began a feeding frenzy fueled by a leak from left. I do not think that an unsubstantiated accusation brought forward by conservatives such as Ms. Hill’s would have received the same degree of press frenzy so to answer you question - no, it would not have had the same legs. You wrote “if you would have found yourself in that situation you would have lied too”. Same applies to Ms Hill. She was coaxed into presenting a statement by an aide to Metzenbaum and told that it would not see the light of day. It would only be used to put pressure on Thomas to withdraw. Obviously when that didn’t work, it evolved into a whirlwind and Ms Hill was put on the spot possibily forcing her to stretch the truth. The same circumstance cuts both ways. As to some of your other comments, they do reflect your lack of understanding of the viewpoint of a strict constructionist. Thomas has never expressed his views on abortion, but certainly has expressed an opinion that Roe vs Wade is bad law. All courts claim to have not formed an opinion until they have heard the facts of a case. As for the other comments, they are a matter of perspective. For instance, from my point of view, Kennedy is a moderate, not a conservative. There have been several justices in the past who have chosen not to ask questions and to focus on this with Thomas is simply fueling your preconceived opinion. It is obvious that you have not taken the time to watch any of the interviews for you would have seen a man who fought through the adversity of the segregated south to reach attain the his position. I see no anger or malice.By Martin Gottlieb
October 3, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
On the first post: I simply did not raise the question of whether black conservative men are treated poorly. On the second: The book you didn’t find is “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas,” by Jill Abramson of the Wall Street Journal and Jane Meyer of The New Yorker (then). As for Brock, he made the admission that his hatchet job was a crock long before his association with Soros, but when he was breaking with the political right. The point is that he acknowledged his motivations were political and that much of what he said was wrong). But I really don’t care who people believe, as between Hill and Thomas. Like you say, its he-said/she said. Not the issue anymore. As for black conservatives being discriminated against, gimme a break. If you hold controversial positions, some people won’t like you; but, on the other hand, you might end up the Supreme Court at 43. It’s just so weird: The black conservatives counsel young blacks not to be quick to blame their problems on discrimination. If you want to see real discrimination, they seem to be saying, look at the life of black conservatives. Gimme another break. As to the circumstances of HIll’s going public, that’s an awful lot of spin. Bottom line is she was a grown, sophisticated woman. She knew what she was doing. On Thomas at his hearings: He absolutely, flatly refused to offer any opinion whatsoever on Roe (NOT just on abortion). On Thomas not asking questions: No, he is unique on the court. Asking questions of the lawyers is understood by the others to be part of the job. On interviews with Thomas, I’ve seen plenty. He still has to be accountable what’s in his book.By D. Greene
October 3, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Your post DID in fact mention my question, I just re-phrased it for readability, which is ironic considering you’re the one working for the newspaper. You said: “He insists now, as he did then, that the political left had to get him because he was a black conservative, and the left had decided that a black man must have liberal views, and, further, that the liberals would attack him by using the racial stereotype of a black man out of sexual control. This is such utter nonsense on so many levels.” You yourself said that Clarence Thomas acted like the left was out to get him because he was a conservative black. You say this is nonsense! I guess you were only referring to the sexual stereotype part of that statement? So the entire setup to that paragraph didn’t happen according to you? Balderdash! Maybe you should more carefully write the missives you post here on the blog, I doubt you would have been so careless were the article published in print. D. Greene, audendi.comBy TRS
October 3, 2007 6:14 PM | Link to this
I don’t think the sole reason was discrimination; however, liberals, particularly black liberals, went after Thomas was a vengence. They did not like his conservative views and their disdain was exxerbated by the fact he was black. I guess you can deny the racial component, but it existed. As for the spin - your comments seem to present a spin (with a dandy little disclaimer) that Thomas had reason to not be totally truthful. Just wanted to present an alternative spin that Ms Hill was in a similar position. As for not offering an opinion on Roe, never said he did. Most justices will not offer opinions on cases which come before them. Finally, you are absolutely wrong about the questioning. In the 60 Minute inteview the other night Thomas noted several other justices with similiar propensity. He named them, but I can’t remember their names.By Martin Gottlieb
October 4, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this
I shouldn’t have said that Thomas refused to answer questions about Roe in his confirmation hearings. He answered the questions by saying he had never thought about it much, never talked about it, had no had no opinion, and was open, all of which was utterly preposterous and widely labeled so at the time. If he had just refused to answer, there’d be no issue.By Martin Gottlieb
October 4, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
I couldn’t say that NOBODY has ever been like Thomas as to silence, but as for today’s court, here’s a paragraph from a 2006 story in USA Today about how it works: “With the exception of the typically silent Clarence Thomas, who is perhaps the court’s most conservative member, the justices each ask many questions and make known their concerns about a case.”