Aside from a bit of understandable hyperbole (“most dastardly deed in American history”), this is a brilliant analysis. Radical feminism as gnosticism: who of a clear mind can deny it?

An anecdote from my own life comes to mind. I was in 8th grade and involved in competitive speech when Thomas was nominated. For my “current events” requirement, I wrote something about the Clarence Thomas Hearings; and went on to deliver, with that innocence of youth, this highly controversial speech (I took Thomas’s side: on my father’s influence) in front of my invariably embarrassed teacher many times in practicing for the competitive event. I think I even delivered it before the class several times.

“Aside from a bit of understandable hyperbole (‘most dastardly deed in American history’)… “

As a discrete, organized blow directed against a single individual, an individual who was in a uniquely vulnerable position because the attention of the whole country was focussed at that moment in the nomination hearings, to single that person out, to “expose” him on television as some kind of pervert, to humiliate him, take away his dignity, destroy him, mark him for life, can you think of any parallel? I can’t.

When Thomas’s nomination was first announced, a black wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he compared Thomas to a snake whose head should be lopped off. Then the left proceeded to attempt to do that. For cruelty, for deliberate, merciless intention to harm, I can’t think of any parallel. I spoke to various liberals and feminist women around this time. They didn’t care about the facts. Any man accused of this was automatically guilty, because, they kept saying, “it happened to me.” I said to one of these women that they were not treating Thomas as a human being. That actually brought up her short and seemed to awaken her conscience for a moment. But then, as though I had never said it, she just continued on as before in her diatribe as though Thomas were some lizard who had to be crushed.

The Hill-Thomas hearings were a major revelation of the evil of the American left, and a harbinger of what, in their hearts, they’d like to do to all of us.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on July 28, 2003 07:26 PM
“The Hill-Thomas hearings were a major revelation of the evil of the American left, and a harbinger of what, in their hearts, they’d like to do to all of us.”

it cetainly is a good example of the nature of vice, and the dichotomy between the left’s preaching platitudes versus what is in their hearts.

The left is a landscape of smiling insane dragons.

In responding to Mr. Cella’s “hyperbole” comment I didn’t thank him for the nice compliment. So, thanks, Mr. Cella.

Also I didn’t realize you were in your mid-20s. I’m impressed that men as young as that have developed such a level of understanding of politics and leftism. That gives more hope for the future. I guess coming of age in such a leftist society forces one to understand certain realities more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Abby: “The left is a landscape of smiling insane dragons.”

Wonderful quote! You made my evening!

thanks carl,

but i didn’t make it up, i borrowed it from michael o’brien’s book: “a landscape of dragons, the battle for your child’s mind”

it’s a very good book, (as are all of o’brien’s books), on the destructive nature of modern literature.

There is one more point about the left’s attempt to destroy Clarence Thomas. When Bill Clinton was accused of much more serious transgressions, the very same people defended him to the hilt and beyond. Also, it soon developed that Clinton had used an intern for sexual pleasure. The left was soon demanding that no penalty be inflicted.

Yes, and in their different treatment of the two cases, and all for blatantly partisan reasons, the feminist left totally discredited itself.

Mr. Auster’s latest comment about the feminist left’s discrediting itself is certainly true in an objective sense. In terms of the feminist left’s still having great influence over public policy (like women in combat) and retaining a certain amount of respect and influence among the soccer moms, I would have to disagree. Their schilling for the Clintons has not destroyed their public reputations any more than Jesse Jackson’s adulterous affair(s) destroyed his. These people deserve to be laughed off the public stage. Sadly, they are still front and center - spewing their noxious poison as always.

Carl is correct, of course. I meant that they had discredited themselves in the world of reality, not in the cave beneath the cave that is the world of contemporary politics.

Judging from the opening remarks from Anita Hill, esp. her body language and hesitations, I suspected she was making up the allegations. Additionally, all the evidence was that Clarence Thomas was the perfect gentleman around the ladies. So, from this epochal Bigger Thomas high-tech lynching, a reasonable person should conclude, I think, that Justice Thomas was innocent.

For freekin’ months afterwards, though, dimwitted women’s-studies majorettes would submit published letters to the editor, “Remember Anita.” Curiously, no such action was ever taken in response to Juanita Brodderick’s more serious—and more plausible—allegations over then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton.

feminism’s all about politics and power, not benefitting women.

Although speaking of “high-tech lynching” it was still disappointing to see Mr. Thomas resort to the race card. He called it “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.” I doubt his race would have made any difference; it was his conservatism that his opponents disliked.

Before Anita Hill however, there was the question of his past drug use. He acknowledged that he had taken ‘a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette’ in college — and then again in law school. There was a question as to whether he had lied about it to get into law school, or to acquire his first position as a judge, but I don’t recall that this was ever answered. (An unprincipled exception perhaps? I guess for some folks lying is only a problem when perpetrated by liberal democrats.)

A similar admission had derailed President Reagan’s nomination of Douglas Ginsburg, (thanks to which we ended up with Anthony Kennedy.) But now the White House of Bush Sr. insisted that in Mr. Thomas’s case, it was “inconsequential” and “not disqualifying.”

I saw one news report the day the hearings started of a demonstration of marijuana activists who demanded to know why it is “inconsequential” for Judge Thomas to have smoked marijuana, raising again the question of whether he had previously lied about it, and calling on the Senate to question him on it.

Certainly if there had been a pattern of not paying his parking tickets, or something much less serious than consuming an illicit drug he would have been called to give an account. Of course, he was never asked about it. Meanwhile, over 300,000 were arrested for it that year.

Another unprincipled exception?

I must respectfully disagree with Joel on this. Thomas was targeted the way he was precisely because he was black, namely a black conservative. Right after his nomination, a black liberal (I forget his name) had an op-ed in the Times comparing Thomas to a snake (meaning a traitor to blackness), and ending the column saying, “What do you do with a snake? You chop its head off.” This was a call for a political assassination in the New York Times.

As everyone knows, the apostate is the most threatening thing. A black conservative was far more offensive and threatening to the left than a white conservative. Why do you think, even after his nomination was approved and Hill was largely discredited, that the left continued the unique hate campaign against him, so that, by a year later, even though no new facts had been presented since the hearings, public opinion had turned against him? Do you have any concept of the psychological cruelty this man has been subjected to, of the wounds this man has had to overcome in to order to go on with his life?

Thomas had every right to say what he said about “a high-tech lynching of an uppity black.” I remember having a discussion about this with an intelligent white racialist years ago. He was quite blind to the incredible cruelty of what had been done to Thomas. He obviously had not followed the hearings closely, but just heard Thomas’s line about “high-tech lynching,” and automatically assumed that here was another black playing the racism card. Well, if someone can’t play a rough card when he’s been treated as Thomas was, I guess he was just supposed to sit there and let himself be lynched.

Also, Joel has the facts wrong on the comparison to Douglas Ginsberg. What sank Ginsberg was not marijuana use. It was marijuana use when he was a professor at Harvard Law School, in his thirties, smoking marijuana openly at social gatherings at which there were (if my memory serves) students present. That was not youthful adventurousness, that was serious, repeated, public misbehavior by a man occupying an adult responsible position.

Finally, on a supposed double standard regarding punishment for marijuana use, what does Joel want—that 80 percent of the people born between, say, 1940 and 1955 be barred for life from high public office?

Mr. Auster has made a persuasive case on how race did play a role in the hearings. I accept his statement on that point and retract mine.

I had recalled the ‘uppity blacks’ quote from reading “Paved With Good Intentions,” from which I’ll not venture any guesses. ;-)

I made reference to ‘a similar admission’ on the part of Judge Ginsburg. I won’t argue that there should be a higher standard for those in a position of authority. But a student in law school is still an adult, where a certain amount of responsibility is inferred. And at the time Justice Thomas engaged in this behavior it was a felony in every state.

The question of whether he had lied about his prior use was raised in several quarters, with the note that questions such as this were regulary asked at the time he first became a judge. I would think THAT should be a matter of concern in any case. I can’t vouch for the validity of it; I mention only that the questions were raised — and conspicuously unanswered.

Undoubtedly race DID a play a role in his not being asked about this by conservative senators. They needed a black to replace Justice Marshall, and they properly wanted a conservative. But conservative black jurists are few and far between, and they weren’t about to let this question interfere with getting their man confirmed.

The dems wouldn’t touch this question for obvious reasons. Besides, they dream of putting liberal ex-hippie losers on our courts. Who would have raised the issue anyway? Sen. Gore? No — he had already acknowledge having been a regular marijuana smoker. Sen. Kennedy? That would have been perfect.

“what does Joel want—that 80 percent of the people born between, say, 1940 and 1955 be barred for life from high public office?”

Of course not. For what it’s worth I have great respect for Justice Thomas as a principled jurist, one of only 3 on the high Court that I genuinely admire. You can guess the other 2. ;-)

What I want is for the now 700,000 annual marijuana arrests — over 85% of which are for simple possession — to cease. And let’s be realistic on one point. If Justice Thomas, or President Bush, (who simply refuses to answer the question,) or William J. Bennett, (who also refused to answer the question when he was about to become Drug Czar,) had been arrested and convicted for drug use, they effectively WOULD have been barred from public office.

Assuming that ANY of the current politicos in office had been found guilty of such an offense, their careers would almost certainly have been deep-sixed. The ONLY reason they can be in office is because they weren’t caught, because they escaped the ramifications of a policy which they gladly turn around and impose on everyone else.

Should Clarence Thomas have been arrested as so many others were and have been? Or are we not glad that he escaped the legal sanction so that he can be where he is? But then why the others and not him? The only real alternative to what you rhetorically ask and what I call for is simply to accept that a certain random number of people will face these consequences whilst others may advance their careers with so much impunity. There’s a double standard there somewhere.

As far as real double standards go, they are most eggregious in the cases of the sons and daughters of politicians who are caught with narcotics — including dealing — and then get off with a slap on the wrist where ordinary folks regularly get YEARS in the slammer.

A few examples can be found here:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4440
But these cases are legion.

It is a sorry spectacle to see a politician go from clamoring for mandatory sentences for drug offenders to pleading before a judge to go easy on poor junior.

Those who are in favor of maintaining our current drug prohibition have little choice but to accept this double standard. If politicians had to experience in this first-hand way the effects of the policies they so readily impose on the less well-connected, they would probably change the laws in a hurry.

I am astonished to hear that there are 700,000 arrests per year for mere marijuana possession; I find that figure way too high to be credible. Also, I just don’t think that many people people have had their lives and careers ruined by marijuana arrests, as Joel is suggesting.

I also think George W. Bush was exactly right in not telling anything about his earlier behavior. The left would just have used it against him. He was asserting himself as a leader. To be a leader, there needs to be a certain curtain drawn about behavior that had no public significance. If he (and we don’t if he did) took cocaine on occasions decades before entering public life, and was not arrested for it, I don’t think it’s anyone’s business.

There are, after all, grey areas in life. A period of time in which a very large part of the country was violating drug laws is obviously going to produce some grey areas.

As for the idea of extremely differential sentences depending on the family background of the defendant, that’s obviously wrong. But I don’t know how extensive that is.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on August 4, 2003 12:23 AM
“I am astonished to hear that there are 700,000 arrests per year for mere marijuana possession; I find that figure way too high to be credible. Also, I just don’t think that many people people have had their lives and careers ruined by marijuana arrests, as Joel is suggesting.”

it doesn’t seem off if you divide it down. it comes to 38.35 arrest per day, per state.

The number arrested in 2001 was 723,627, according to the Lindesmith Center’s figures.

http://www.lindesmith.org/news/10_31_02arrests.cfm

1997 was the year that it reached near 700,000.

http://www.mpp.org/arrests/fas61699.html

The figure for 1965 was 537,780; for 1996 it was 617,528.

NORML’s state by state breakdown is at:

http://www.norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=5070&wtm_format=wide

Dr. Jon Gettman provides the most detailed collection of data.

The figures sometimes vary — the Libertarians reported the 1997 figure at 641,642. Dr. Gettman placed it at 663,639.

But overall you can see where the general figure comes through. That’s a whole heapin’ lotta people. These figures are not disputed by the government; they COME from the government.

BTW, I agree with your commending the President for not having answered the question. I agree that such things are nobody else’s business — that’s sorta the point here. ;-)

But you seem to have missed what I was saying. It’s only because he wasn’t arrested that he’s president today. Look at what happened over that last minute revelation of his drunken driving.

Which takes me back to your first point. An arrest even for marijuana can be a very damaging experience in many ways. For instance it can disqualify someone from receiving student loans. If all they did was kill or rape someone they are NOT disqualified.

And as to the number of people that this affects, you simply were not aware of how many people indeed are. I wonder how many Thomas’s or Bush’s or Bennett’s there might be among those arrested?

I’m not sure what Joel’s overall argument is here. Legalization? I oppose that. I’ve always disagreed with WFB on this. I think marijuana ought to be illegal; maybe a misdemeanor for private use. But anyone using it in a public place should be arrested. Public, common use of a drug like that is a sure sign of third-worldom. It is inconsistent with the sort of society traditionalists believe in.

Considering further the matter of race in the Anita Hill fiasco I have a few more thoughts.

Recall what happened to Robert Bork. Certainly nothing like what happened to Justice Thomas — things like publishing the titles of movies he had rented; still rather low. His character was certainly trashed.

Then look what happened to Bob Packwood. Granted in that case the complaints may well have been justified. But are we to believe that liberals really take the question of truth into account here?

If they could have found some skeleton in Mr. Bork’s closet, or contrived some similar smear, are we to believe that they would not have employed such a tactic just because he’s white?

Look at the way the President’s nominees are being treated today. Would liberals hesitate to use such tactics if they saw any kind of opening no matter how baseless?

They gave Mr. Clinton a pass. And Sen. Kennedy — during the Hill fiasco it was quite revealing the shamed silence he held with guilty looks on his face and nervous shiftiness. And there was hardly much made of former Rep. Gus Savage’s non-scandal involving his alleged sexual assault on a peace corp worker. They were given a pass no matter of what race because of their liberalism.

Mr. Auster rests his case in some respects on intent without apparent regard for whether such tactics would be employed against any conservative irrespective of what other ulterior motives might be present in so doing. I’m not sure that’s the best way to consider the question. (Citing a New York Times editorial is all well and good, but that writer wasn’t in the Senate making the decision.)

In order to accept Mr. Auster’s assertion fully, it would have to be assumed that such tactics would not be (or have been) applied to someone who was not black. I’m not sure I’m willing to give liberals that much credit.

I’ll leave the last word on the marijuana question to Mr. Auster, other than to note my agreement with him that its use in public should never be permitted anymore than with alcohol.

I suspect this will become much more of a visible issue in coming years as the US position becomes increasingly isolated in the Western world, and there will be much more to say about it at that time.

To Joel,

Of course the left goes after conservatives and seeks to discredit and destroy them. But the left bears a particular hatred for Thomas, and has sought and still seeks in particular ways to harm him; and that has to do with the fact that he’s a black conservative, an “uppity black” who left the liberal plantation.

However, Joel makes a good point that if a sexual harrassment charge such as Hill’s had come up against a white nominee, the left would have probably run with it as well.