More Than Just the Measure of the Man : Thomas Sets ‘90s Political Agenda

If the American people think the U.S. Senate, specifically the Judiciary Committee, is simply debating the qualifications of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice, they should think again.

The debate swirling around the Thomas nomination has far greater implications than one more conservative on an already conservative court. This debate has opened up old wounds, set the tone for the 1992 presidential election, brought the issue of abortion to the forefront and shattered a consensus in the black community. Perhaps most important, it has raised the question of whether the Republicans have given the Democrats an opportunity to develop an anti-court message in the 1990s that could help resurrect the party--much like Warren Court bashing helped the GOP in the 1960s.

One sign of this debate’s political consequences came in the form of pro-Thomas, anti-liberal commercials produced by some of the same crowd that made the infamous Willie Horton ad for the ’88 campaign. The ads excoriated Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), suggesting their ethics were so tainted they couldn’t judge the judge.

The White House quickly distanced itself from the ads, with the President saying they were “offensive” and “totally counterproductive.” A mild rebuke for slanderous ads--but what else is new?

Though Bush pretended to distance himself from the Horton ad in ‘88, the ad, nonetheless, did his dirty work for him. Ah, deja vu ! The same group emerges to “help” Thomas by producing mudslinging ads that just happen to assassinate high-profile liberal Democrats at the start of the ’92 presidential race. How convenient. This time, though, they were defending a black; in ‘88, they were frying a black man.

So Bush used Horton in ’88 to beat Michael S. Dukakis into a convict lover and now uses Thomas to begin bashing liberal Democrats. Not only does Thomas open the ’92 campaign, he also fills the only affirmative-action goal Bush believes in: his quota seat on the Supreme Court. But there are other stories behind these ads.

Revenge is sweet, or at least satisfying, for those right-wing conservatives who sat and watched in 1987 as Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork was badgered, humiliated and ultimately rejected in what the Right saw as a political hanging. Most people would agree that Thomas, barring a major revelation, is a lock for confirmation. Why was it necessary to release ads attacking three Senate Democrats? The truth is these GOP thugs were sending a message to the Left that it is pay-back time for Bork.

The ads also send another message: Democrats beware! If you thought 1992 was going to be a kinder, gentler campaign, without the likes of Willie Horton, think again. Negative campaigning has been at the forefront of GOP campaign strategies for 20 years, and it is not about to change now.

So, Tom, Bill, Bob, Paul, Doug, watch out! Sometime before the end of 1992, whoever gets the Democratic nomination can expect an assault from an “independent” group (a.k.a. Bush’s henchmen) that will hit you with a vicious attack ad or two that may well have a black man prominent. Or maybe, if they get creative, a black male prostitute in drag.

But the attacks ads are not the only implications of the Thomas nomination that have little to do with the judge; here are three others:

First, will Thomas vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Of course he will. I know we are not supposed to prejudge this issue, just as our President said. But, come on! Bush needs to deliver the head of Roe vs. Wade to the right-to-life crowd as pay-back for their support in 1988. Most court watchers believe the votes to overturn Roe already exist without Thomas, but his vote will insure its demise. Good news for Bush, but not right now.

What the GOP didn’t need going into 1992 was a rekindling of the abortion debate. They know if Roe is overturned in ‘92, it will hurt Republicans from Bush on down. But I believe they have figured out a way to avoid this. Since Republicans have appointed more than 70% of the federal judges, don’t be surprised if the various court cases working their way through the judiciary are slowed down for perfectly legitimate legal reasons--(Bull!)--so that the Supreme Court can avoid a Roe ruling during a presidential election year. In other words, what Bush wants is a back-alley abortion decision.

Another aspect of this controversy is Thomas’ bootstrap philosophy: The idea that the best way to succeed is to take advantage of what opportunities you have, create others and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. The bootstrappers argue that the Democratic/civil-rights community/NAACP welfare state has done the opposite of what it was intended to do. Instead of helping blacks up, it has held them down through a system of demeaning handouts and incentives to stay home and collect welfare. The civil-rights community calls this for what it is: a bogus argument intended to divide a black community already seeing its political power diminishing.

This is not a new debate in the black community. It has simmered since President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and began to actively recruit conservative blacks for his Administration--including Thomas Sowell, Alan L. Keyes Michael L. Williams and Thomas. These blacks, a decided minority within a minority, have been looking for a way to turn the debate into a public dialogue.

Enter Thomas, who, more than any of these black officials, set the stage for this debate and hosted the coming-out party for black conservatives. By the end of his tenure as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he had:

--Stopped using minority hiring goals and timetables to correct imbalances;

--Abandoned the use of class action suits in favor of personal discrimination cases;

--Allowed more than 900 age discrimination cases to lapse past the deadline for prosecution;

--Abdicated to the Justice Department the EEOC’s once powerful role in civil-rights issues.

With the Thomas nomination, this debate is out of the closet. Bush sees this as a healthy debate, others see it as a cynical effort to pit black against black. If nothing else, history will record that Thomas triggered this debate.

At a time when the gains of the civil-rights movement are being whittled away and racial tensions are again building to incendiary levels, Thomas sees reverse discrimination as the issue of the day.

Finally, the Thomas confirmation will secure a conservative lock on the Supreme Court for decades to come. “Bad news,” say the Democrats. “Finally,” says the GOP. The Democrats should stop moaning--this is the price they pay for occupying the White House only four of the past 20 years.

There is, however, a silver lining. This court has already shown a lack of sensitivity to: women’s right to make reproductive choices; preservation of individual privacy and the right of citizens to be served rather than abused by the police--a la Rodney G. King.

These decisions, contrary to what the conservatives believe, are not going to sit well with the U.S. electorate--particularly baby boomers who hold the right to privacy sacred. Democrats may have a lot of opportunities to attack the court on political issues through the ‘90s that could well bring young voters back into the fold. The Democrats can use these issues to rebuild their party just as the GOP did by bashing the Warren Court in the ‘60s.

The GOP cry then was that the Warren Court legislated instead of adjudicated. But they don’t seem upset now about the current court’s attempts to finish the Reagan Revolution through judicial activism rather than congressional mandate.

After the confirmation of Thomas--and he will be confirmed--these issues will continue to reverberate. The questions raised here go far beyond the qualifications of one African-American from Pin Point, Ga. Rather, they set the stage for the politics of the ‘90s. They cover issues of privacy, race and the reach of governmental powers. And they will be nasty.