Deja Vu All Over Again for Biden

During last months forum with pastor Rick Warren at Warren's Saddleback Church Barack Obama identified Clarence Thomas as the supreme court justice who he would not have appointed. Obama went on to cite Thomas' thin legal record at the time of his appointment, and not their differences in opinion as the reason for why he would not have chosen Thomas. I didn't make much of Obama's point, but for some reason it stuck with me--mostly because more than any other period in my life, this year's presidential campaign has made it virtually impossible for me to get Clarence Thomas out of my mind. The impulse has not been to compare Obama to Thomas, but instead a strong longing to get Thomas's perspective on this historical moment. In all the conversations about how Obama may represent a new black politics, it has become easy to take full stock of the many ways in which the civil rights generation has been eclipsed and/or made ephemeral in American politics and public discourse writ large, a process that Clarence Thomas played a seminal role in shaping.

When George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas in 1991 for the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Thurgood Marshall it was clear to everyone that Thomas was picked primarily because he was black. Thomas's race was to pull double duty symbolizing both an allegiance between him and Thurgood Marshall in terms of physical appearance and political orientation, while at the same time representing a break, an advancement from Marshall in terms of both physical appearance and political orientation. In other words the blindness being promoted with Thomas's nomination was character not color. This is not to suggest that Thomas has no character, but rather that his political orientation was different from Marshall's, and it was to this distinction that we were to turn a blind eye.

This plan worked because rather than a full-fledged referendum on whether Thomas should be on the court, and a honest national conversation on what kind of judges should be on the court (this government has never given a reasonable justification why there shouldn't be a civil rights appointment to the supreme court), we became embroiled in whether Thomas had sexually harassed Anita Hill. The strong questioning that Thomas received from the senate judiciary committee prompted him to equate his nomination hearing to a "high tech lynching."

Since he was now one of their own, Republicans turned a blind eye to the fact that Thomas likely culled this rhetorical gem from his readings of Malcolm X or The Black Panthers, just as they are now turning a blind eye to Todd Palin's secessionist cravings, Sarah and Todd's neglect of their children as they pursue their own ambitions, and most importantly, Sarah Palin's incredibly thin resume that is ominous not because it sheds light on her lack of experience, but more so because it makes evident that she has neither the fluency in neither foreign nor fiscal policy to balance out her running mate's shortcomings much less this country's needs. Through her GOP affiliation Palin like Thomas has been rendered untouchable, and also like in Thomas' case, the person at the forefront of the opposition's strategy is Joe Biden.

Biden as some may remember was the chair of the senate judiciary committee during Thomas' nomination hearings, and therefore was the person inciting the "high tech lynching" to which Thomas referred. In spite of his working class background, and 'Average Joe' charm when placed across from either Palin or Thomas, Biden can not help the fact that he represents, "the man," "the white man." He's part of the "old boy" network that Palin alludes to, and the quintessential white liberal whose interactions with African Americans are likely limited enough to take it personal when confronted with a comment like Thomas' "high tech lynching " statement. Biden is the quintessential white liberal race man, which means he rarely has to think about his race and gender, which is actually a shame because he likely could learn a lot by doing so.

For example, it would be interesting to see Biden ask Palin on precisely what grounds she is distinguishing between him and McCain when talking about the old boy network? It would be interesting to see him engage her on precisely what she means by small town values, considering that he's from a small town himself? It would be interesting to hear him ask her precisely how she plans to reform Washington given the fact that the vice-president (a job whose duties last month she admitted to being unclear of) has very little power to reform Washington, and that it's the voters who would have to kick out the scoundrels? Moreover, if she wanted to reform Washington why not run for Ted Stevens's old senate seat since she'd have more power in changing the senate from within? Having been prodded by community organizers all his life, Biden might ask why Palin decided to poke fun at average Americans who are serving their communities? Wasn't she doing a similar thing when she was in the PTA? Finally, ask her whether she has been well-served by the leaders of her country over the last eight years?

The key for Biden in undoing Palinmania is understanding that as with Clarence Thomas, he has a broader responsibility, and that this election is not about her or him. Thomas won his nomination because at the end of the day people lost sight of the issues. One can argue that democrats ended up relinquishing too much ground on issues pertaining to Thomas's judicial philosophy--but this was not because of Anita Hill--it happened because in the rush to proclaim racism as an irrational concept of form of behavior, we have forgotten that it lays dormant in many of the founding principles of this nation. A similar logic applies to sexism; therefore acquitting, Biden, Obama or McCain of sexism does very little for the advancement of women's rights.

Clarence Thomas was elected to the supreme court not only because he was black, but because forty years after Marshall's pioneering work as a Civil Rights attorney, Civil Rights was (and is) still an ephemeral concept in this country. Seventeen years later, Biden will have a chance to undo some of the mistakes of the Thomas hearings by helping the citizens of this country realize that women's rights are not only real and necessary, but also not the responsibility of women, and therefore the Joe everybody knows has to find a way to channel the Joan that nobody knows.

Follow Ferentz LaFargue on Twitter: www.twitter.com/professorf

Comments

[Ironquill]

Gtreat work. There are lots of politically incorrect things I would like to say about Palin around the issues of personal and family practices, but that would be sexist.
It was intended that Thomas embarass the Democrats if they didn't confirm him and it worked perfectly. Maybe Biden was an enabler, but I want to think that this time it will be different.
What's the same is the Republican tacttics, Thomas, Palin, Iraq War Resolution, Bailout Resolution. Put Democrats in a corner. Impugn their integrity and patriotism. Biden has to keep focusing on Palin's extremism. Her extreme beliefs, from raping wildlife to abandoning women who have been raped. In the end, most Americans are moderate, we don't like extreme behavior.
Maybe Palin could explain where the sportsmanship is in shooting a defenseless wildlife creature from an airplane for money.

[socratiskiss]

Obama put COUNTRY FIRST when he chose Biden; McCain put Politics first when he chose Palin. She is clearly not qualified to be Vice President of ANY country let alone Vice President of the United States. Palin is a Joke!

[sdskelton03]

You lost me when you accused her of neglecting her children.

Sure, her teenage daughter is pregnant, but that doesn't equal neglect. Please, why don't you add some support behind that statement.

[Ferentz LaFargue - Huffpost Blogger]

For a person whose narrative arc of her political career has been built around relationships to her children, beginning with her work on the PTA to branding herself as a hockey mom, their seems to also be a impulse in her biography to also minimize these relationships as well. Tales about her hiding the details of her recent pregnancy from her children to returning to work three days after giving birth shows a willingness to overemphasize her role as governor, and promoting parenting habits that some might find "heroic," but which in fact are not as straightforward as they at first appear. This is an idea that I have often thought about in relation to male public figures who in spite of the public's knowledge of the lengthy amounts of time they spend away from their families, we're still quick to laud them as family men whenever they roll bring out the wife and kids for photo-ops.

[sdskelton03]

I appreciate your response, but none of that even comes close to neglect. I still think that "neglect" is a very poor choice of words. Neglect is child abuse. Her children don't seem to have been abused.

You believe that she isn't striking the correct balance between career and family, and that is your right. I would, however, caution you that your characterization is at best anti-feminist and some (not me) would even say sexist.

[quadman]

So your definition of neglect includes a woman who wants to have a career as well as a family? What other progressiv­e/feminist ideals are you renouncing?

You look petty and obsessively partisan with the neglect charge.

[jimbobre]

My first response to the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin was to compare her to Clarance Thomas. In fact, I commented to an earlier post on Palin that Democrats should link her to Thomas in opposing her nomination. Both were nominated for reasons (race/sex and ideology) other than their qualifications for the job.

[neworleanslady68]

My first response too.

[ReelBusy]

Great article

[LizM]

Senator Biden always seems to catch a lot of flak over how he handled the Thomas (and Bork) nomination to the Supreme Court. I guess most people see what they want to see and believe whatever supports their vision - the facts be damned! There is not much to be done about that except to hope that the majority of people are fair-minded and understand what really happened.

The truth of the matter is that Chairman Biden presided over these nomination hearings with grace and valor and conducted the proceedings with fairness and respect. He worked hard to ensure that the judicial philosophy of the nominees took center stage and tried to protect the privacy of their personal lives as well as the privacy of the personal lives of the witnesses, at every turn.

For this he is condemned by liberal and conservative forces, alike. All I can say is thank God that Joe Biden will be at President Obama’s side to provide wise counsel in the selection and nomination process for future Supreme Court Justices.

As for Senator Biden’s debate preparation and performance...well, that process is in very good hands, too. Unfortunately, the format of this debate has apparently been set to preclude the kind of give-and-take that we would clearly prefer over the structured affair it may be. But, regardless of the format, the vice presidential debate will be a defining moment in this presidential race with consequences that may be significant and entirely unprecedented.

[exhale09]

Joe Biden is one of the most honorable, honest, competent Senators in Congress.
When Obama chose Joe for his running mate, he was not throwing a GIMMICK at us for votes. He chose the best qualified VP he could have chosen.

Another example of Obama's respect for the American people and our country.

[Clavis]

Agreed.

Anybody who truly cares about what kind of Presidents McCain or Obama would make needs to look at the one Presidential decision either candidate has yet made -- the selection of their VP.

McCain chose for the campaign. Obama chose for the office.

END OF CONVERSATION. Obama/Obiden/O8!

[DonkeySerenade]

LizM, I totally agree with your commentary and especially your assessment of the VP Debate.
I have made virtually the same comments over the past couple of weeks. Never in my (long) lifetime has a VP debate been so obviously of major import. I know I will be on the edge of my chair that night. I just hope Gwen Ifil is up to the task. She is a brilliant woman and I can only assume she is well aware of the significance of her role and what promises to be an event that will resonate historically.

[Ferentz LaFargue - Huffpost Blogger]

Trogenhorse, I agree with you regarding Rice and Powell, they have distinguished themselves in a way that Thomas has not come close to doing. Powell's role in advocating for this war is unforgivable on many counts and brought a sad end to an otherwise strong military record.

I imagine a lot of women will be cheering Biden during the upcoming debates as well, and hopefully people will be able to keep sight on the issues at stake. Actually, I hope the debate moderators don't go overboard with their irrelevant questions as their sometimes prone to doing.

[ReelBusy]

Palin's Celebrity presence...
A rare opportunity for objective public questioning...
the moderator: Gwen Ifill of PBS.

The odds are 50/50 you get your wish Ferentz.
If it was Moyers it would be 100%

Let's cross our fingers.

[Trogenhorse]

I don't see Joe that way. In his home state he is adored by African Americans. Don't forget many African Americans were watching those hearings and cheering with Biden. Thomas did NOT fool African Americans he fooled others. It was an insult and still is that he now sits in T. Marshall's seat.
For years, Thomas was not welcomed at the National Bar Association meetings. He will never be admired in most AA homes. That's really saying something considering C. Rice, C. Powell are regarded with respect even if they are not agreed with.

[DiBaskin]

I agree. I am AA. I really like and respect Biden. I have never liked Thomas. He is a disappointment. I am not even sure he likes being Black. I don' t think he can relate. I don't care for Rice but I do respect her. I have high regards for Powell. I think he was used.