It was a great day for the whiners.
At lunch time in Memphis, there was Clarence Thomas capping off his free meal at the National Bar Association’s convention by bemoaning his critics and how they have persecuted him.
Back in Washington later in the day, Linda Tripp stepped up to the microphones outside a federal courthouse to vent rage over her critics, including people in “the entertainment industry” who have been making fun of her appearance.
And, somewhere in the back of my mind, I am hearing the ghost of Harry Truman warning that if you can’t stand the heat, you should get out of the kitchen.
If you didn’t know better last Wednesday, you might have thought neither Tripp nor Thomas had done anything at all to provoke the abuse some others have laid on them.
Quite the opposite is true. Thomas, for example, has known for years that his opposition to affirmative action was extreme, controversial and wildly unpopular among black Americans, especially civil rights leaders.
He also knew that those same views were his ticket to ride speedily up the fast career track in Reagan-era Washington, first as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, then to the appellate court, thumbing his nose all the way at those same civil rights leaders, whom he dismissed as chronic complainers.
As one Reagan aide observed, Clarence Thomas was a version of affirmative action of which conservatives richly approved. The more he complained, the more attractive he looked to the right-wingers who wanted him, more than anyone else, to fill Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court seat during the George Bush years, although he was strikingly inexperienced at age 44.
More Top Picks Luxury
Similarly, what did Linda Tripp expect after she recorded hours of private conversations with her supposed girlfriend, tried to get money for a book bashing President Clinton, then turned the taped recordings over to Kenneth Starr, the special counsel investigating Clinton?
Sure, some of the barbs and brickbats hurled at Tripp and Thomas have gone way off the mark and over the top. Appearance, for example, shouldn’t matter. Thomas’ views should be judged on their legal and moral merits or demerits, not on his skin color, just as Tripp should be judged by her actions, not by the size of her hair or hips.
But in the world of caricature, everyone is fair game, especially in editorial cartoons, late-night TV monologues and Saturday Night Live skits. At least Tripp, unlike her former girlfriend, has not been portrayed wearing kneepads, as some cartoonists portray Monica.
Similarly, Thomas is right on the money when he defends the authenticity of his blackness against the “psycho-silliness” that he is self-hating or has forgotten his roots. Only extreme racial nationalists and the extremely naive assign ideas to Thomas or anyone else based on their skin color.
But, in taking that defensive line, Thomas sidestepped the more pointed criticism that has been made of his decisions to turn back the clock on programs that have helped women and non-whites, including himself.
After once praising the affirmative action efforts that helped him get into a prestigious colleges, Thomas should not be surprised if some people gasp in disbelief when he turns around now and calls affirmative action harmful to blacks.
Like Linda Tripp, he has a right to think for himself, but others also have a right to disagree. Sometimes the disagreement can get nastier than it needs to be. If it has no merit, it will sink under its own dead weight. But if the shoe fits, don’t try to throw it at your critics.
I often have disagreed with what Thomas has to say, yet I have defended his right to say it, most recently at the National Bar Association. The association, which is the nation’s largest organization of black lawyers and judges, was deeply divided over whether to cancel his invitation to speak after he accepted it.
In the end–surprise, surprise–the organization was not harmed by exposure to Thomas, who must have been greatly encouraged by the two standing ovations he received from about half of the hundreds of black lawyers who filled the Peabody Hotel ballroom.
Whether the applause came out of agreement with his views, respect for his high office or mere appreciation for his gutsiness in showing up, it took wind out of his attempts to play the racial martyr. It is time for Thomas to do what he has advised his critics to do: Move on.
But even if his entire audience had walked out, Thomas still would have had the upper hand. At the end of the day, he would return to his lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. His critics in Memphis, to their credit, gave him a fair hearing. He owes his critics the same courtesy.