Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

October 18, 2002, 9:00 a.m. Supreme Justice Ten years of Justice Thomas — and Thomas bashing. By John A. Foster-Bey

ctober 15, 2001 marked the ten-year anniversary of the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. While the hearings should have been used as an opportunity for the nation to hear and assess the legal philosophy and judicial perspectives of the second black nominee to the Supreme Court, liberal opponents to his confirmation chose instead to attack his character and private life rather than debate his ideas. Unfortunately, in the intervening years, much of the mainstream media continues to miss the opportunity to engage the justice's ideas.

A recent case in point is "Supreme Discomfort" an article in the August 4, 2002 Washington Post Magazine by Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher. While the authors attempted to provide a balanced presentation of supporters and opponents of Justice Thomas, the most striking aspect of the article was its focus on the remarkable level of animosity expressed by many of the traditional liberal black-activist and civil-rights leaders. The key question is why this black Supreme Court justice should raise such hostility from some blacks. Why is Justice Thomas seemingly so threatening to members of the traditional black-leadership class? The answer may be that he opposes their view that government must be the prime engine in solving the problems of the black poor and oppressed, and, in so doing, he threatens their legitimacy as leaders — as well as the rewards and benefits that come with that leadership.

Donna Brazile, a political liberal, who expresses a good deal of respect and even admiration for Justice Thomas captures the controversy surrounding him. She told the Post reporters, " He will never fit in Thurgood Marshall's shoes. Those are shoes he doesn't want to wear." Brazile's statement really is about the expectations of the liberal white and black establishment. Thurgood Marshall is seen as the prototype for a "black" Supreme Court justice: intellectually and legally strong, but reliably, almost reflexively liberal. For the black — and for that matter the white — liberal community, ascent to the Supreme Court means being like Thurgood Marshall.

In many ways, the fact that he is not trying to be like Justice Marshall is at the center of the controversy surrounding Justice Thomas. For example, it is hard to believe that the liberal establishment — black or white — would have given Anita Hill's accusations any credence at all if Justice Thomas had been a committed liberal jurist who aspired to follow in the footsteps of Marshall. The validity of this view was demonstrated in the liberal leadership's and activists' willingness to overlook the possible sexual indiscretions — among other things — of a sitting president in order to support a reliable ally. The same might be said of the rather muted criticism from liberal blacks (and whites) of Jesse Jackson when his problems with a female subordinate were publicly revealed. There is no reason to believe that the same support would not have been given to Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearings if he were a liberal — regardless of the validity of Anita Hill's charges.

The question that this raises is: Are the efforts to vilify Justice Thomas really in the best interests of the black community — or the nation as a whole? Because he is a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas is arguably one of the most, if not the most powerful blacks in the country. In addition, he represents the cutting edge of an emerging debate between the traditional black liberal leadership (and its white liberal allies) and a new black conservative alternative about how best to address the future development of the African-American community. If discourse and debate is central to a healthy, well-functioning democracy, there should be a least some concern that the political development of the black community is being limited by the attempts of many black liberals to silence black conservatives, such as Justice Thomas, with name-calling ("Uncle Tom") and marginalizing.

The real importance of Justice Thomas is that he is the first truly powerful "black conservative" in a prominent public-policy role. As a Supreme Court justice his rulings and opinions have the capacity to influence the direction of public policy for decades to come. While there are a growing number of black conservative intellectuals and public policymakers, none as of yet have his potential influence. This alone makes him a lighting rod.

The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act brought the longstanding debate in the black community between self-reliance versus reliance on government effectively to an end — at least among the African-American leadership class. The debate was embodied in the early-20th-century positions of Booker T. Washington — who argued for self-reliance and internal development — and W. E. B. Dubois — who argued for massive political and systemic change. With the enactment of the new law, advancement for the African-American community was henceforth primarily tied to increasing the federal government's role in promoting opportunity for blacks. This meant not only reducing and eliminating illegal forms of discrimination, but also finding ways to make up for past injustices. While in the past African Americans argued that eliminating barriers and unfair, unjust, and illegal constraints were all that was needed, the new orthodoxy argued that the black community needed a progressive, activist government committed to promoting the rights of African Americans and redressing the wrongs of the past. Thus was the foundation for affirmative action and a variety of other race-based programs born.

However, despite the public ascendancy of this "progressive" view, the debate about the strategies and goals for bringing the African-American community fully into the American mainstream continued — often out of sight of the media and the liberal white political establishment. Thus while the progressive-government position of the black political and civil-rights establishment captured the public stage, there were still those who thought relying on government programs and largess to insure the black community's development would provide some benefits to a few, but in the long-term would not produce the foundation necessary for sustainable achievement.

It wasn't until the 1980s, that the views of such black intellectuals as Thomas Sowell began to gain public prominence. These views espoused a modern alternative to the mainstream black leadership's liberal, activist-government approach. Black conservatives suggested that government programs such as affirmative action might not be in the long-term best interest of the black community, especially if these programs tended to treat blacks as victims forever in need of government protection. Moreover, black intellectuals such as Shelby Steele worried that these programs confirmed for both whites and blacks, that blacks did not have the intellectual capacity to compete successfully in society without help. These positions placed black conservatives — the intellectual descendants of Booker T. Washington — squarely at odds with black liberals — the intellectual heirs of W.E.B. Dubois. For black liberals, these government programs, especially affirmative action, were critical to the survival and success of the black community. To question the efficacy of such government programs as affirmative action was heresy.

Justice Thomas's public opposition to affirmative action quickly labeled him as being outside of the established black liberal consensus. While he could be tolerated as a lower-court judge to elevate a black conservative like him to the Supreme Court was unthinkable. The bitterness over Thomas's victory in the confirmation hearings continues to rankle.

The vilification of Justice Thomas by black liberals impoverishes the black community and the nation. His ideas and values represent important contemporary and historical currents in the black community. Too many African-American liberals have translated legitimate differences and debates about policy with Justice Thomas into unjustified character assassination. We should all be beyond that; what is needed is a vigorous and honest debate and exchange of ideas between black conservatives like Justice Thomas, black liberals, and others, not name-calling and vicious personal attacks.

— John A. Foster-Bey is a senior associate and director of the Program on Regional Economic Opportunity at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. The opinions expressed are his own and do not represent the positions of the staff, board, or officers of the Urban Institute.