OPINION:
COMMENTARY:DENVER
As I sit here in Denver, reporting from a Democratic convention that is turning out to be anything but conventional, I am reminded of the struggle that black conservatives have had to endure by going against the grain. In many ways, Sen. Barack Obama’s ordeal within his own party mirrors that of black conservatives; the fact that he has to go to the convention under a cloud of uncertainty; the fact that he has struggled for respect and legitimacy from the old guard, whether it be the Clintons or Jesse Jackson. All this harkens back to a time over two centuries ago when a convention of sorts was held to judge the legitimacy of one of America’s first black conservatives; the poet Phyllis Wheatley.
Wheatley’s first book of poetry, published in 1771, contained a curious note “The Publick” in the forward. It seems that a panel of 18 of the “most respected characters in Boston,” including the then-governor of Massachusetts and John Hancock, one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, had convened to consider the authenticity of her work. Given the prevailing attitudes about blacks in that day, it was beyond belief that a slave girl could have composed poetry of such impeccable quality; everyone questioned their authenticity, and it took a panel of recognized experts to quell the doubt of a disbelieving public.
Not everyone was convinced, though. In response to a French colleague’s praise of Wheatley’s work, President Thomas Jefferson retorted, “[T]he compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism.” Jefferson’s response not only revealed his contempt, but by using the term “published under her name” expressed a serious doubt as to whether Wheatley had even written the works ascribed to her. Mr. Obama’s comments about Justice Clarence Thomas’ qualifications, made in response to a question put to him last week by political forum moderator Rev. Rick Warren, are resoundingly similar to those of Jefferson’s rejection of Wheatley. When asked by Rev. Warren which of the Justices he would not have confirmed, Mr. Obama blurted out, seemingly without consideration, “I don’t think [Mr. Thomas] was a strong enough legal jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation; setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.” To paraphrase his jargon for the non-jurists among us; before we even reach the issue of what Justice Thomas thinks, we must first dismiss him as a non-thinker. Setting aside for the moment that ad hominem attacks of this nature are beneath the dignity of the office of the president, Mr. Obama’s response reveals his intrinsic prejudice against black conservatives.
In 2005, when opposing the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Obama claimed that “the test for a qualified judicial nominee is not simply whether they are intelligent.”
Curiously though, his stated reason for opposing Justice Thomas was that he did not believe Justice Thomas to be a “strong thinker”; yet he praised Justices Scalia and Roberts, whose philosophies he also opposes, as “intellectually brilliant” and “smart.” In drawing this contrast, Mr. Obama is trying to call attention to what he believes to be the implicit incoherency of black conservatism. To Mr. Obama, the distinguishing factor is that he believes that black conservatives’ opinions are “published under” their names, but authored by someone else.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Black conservatives, perhaps more than any other political faction in America, have earned their stripes the hard way. Their ideas, precisely because they do not enjoy popularity, become by necessity self-reflective, constantly examined and rigorously applied. What’s more, Justice Thomas has been vetted by the same top institutions and legal minds that give Mr. Obama his air of authenticity. Why then don’t Justice Thomas’ credentials earn them the assumption that their views are honestly held?
As Mr. Obama addresses the convention, seeking an equity stake in this country’s leadership, he has to be seen as having clean hands. Because of disadvantages implicit in his age, experience and background, he does not have room to resort to prejudice, lest the first stone be cast at him.
Perhaps, in voicing his doubts about the capacities of Justice Thomas, Mr. Obama seeks to mask his own insecurities. Perhaps he believes that Justice Thomas’s accomplishments, in some way, diminish his own. But one thing is for certain; by cavalierly belittling black conservatism, Mr. Obama has unwittingly belittled himself.
Armstrong Williams’ column for The Washington Times appears on Mondays. “The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast on WPGC-AM 1580 in Washington and XM Satellite Power 169.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.