Andrew Sullivan: THE 'INGRATITUDE' OF THOMAS

andrewsullivan.com ^ | 06/25/03 | Andrew Sullivan

[Pokey78]

It would be hard to find a more appalling example of racial animus than in Maureen Dowd's column this morning.

For some reason I guess I do understand, Clarence Thomas isn't just opposed by many on the Left; he is hated. He is hated because he is, in Dowd's extraordinary formulation, guilty of "a great historical ingratitude."

The good negroes, in Dowd's liberal-racist world, are those grateful to their massas in the liberal hierarchy: they are grateful to Howell and Gerald and Arthur; and they know their place.

For them to express the psychological torment of being advanced for racist reasons, to explain in graphic, brave and bold terms the complexity of emotions many African-Americans feel as 'beneficiaries' of racial preferences, is unacceptable.

To describe such a person who has been courageous enough to put these feelings into a powerful dissent as "barking mad" is nothing short of disgusting.

Yes, there are all sorts of psychological inconsistencies in Thomas' journey. But that, in part, is the point! If Dowd supports "diversity" as a good thing in elite institutions, why isn't it a good thing for one black Justice to contribute his own experience as part of a landmark judicial ruling?

Of course I don't know whether Dowd supports diversity in this sense. That would require her to argue something - of which she is apparently incapable.

And then Dowd, of all people, complains that Thomas is more interested in his own personal dramas than "bigger issues of morality and justice."

When was the last time you read a Dowd column that grappled with "bigger issues of morality and justice"?

[Pokey78]

Sullivan ping!

[MarkDel]

Sullivan is terrific. His summary here is right on target and exposes Maureen Dowd for the vermin that she is.

[tiamat]

Ouch!

[Callahan]

Dowd's blather belongs in People Magazine, not a serious newspaper. Oh yeah--she writes for the NY Times.

[Mr.Atos]

Reading Maureen Dowd is like watching a wretched pig lick the filth off its own flesh.

I'll let you derive the benefit of that experience.

[Cicero]

To borrow an apt biblical metaphor, Maureen Dowd isn't worthy to remove Justice Thomas's sandals.

[Tacis]

Many of the good negroes in politics today are, of course, in the fully segregated, step-n-fetchit, Congressional Black Caucus. There, they are allowed to shuffle to do the bidding of the massas of the dem party. Massa Wille got a good lie? They's happy to confirm it as gospel.

Sure, there are a couple of real America-haters hiding and working as field hands in this caucus. America has no more dangerous enemy than Congressman Conyers from Michigan.

These are the folks that make Dowd proud.

[Ann Archy]

It's prety obvious that Mad Mo got her job because of Affirmative action, so she thinks All minorities get there because they really AREN'T good enough to do the job, but whitey-man felt guilty and took pity on these dolts and gave them real jobs. Mad Mo is BORING.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What can be added? Sullivan nails Dowd perfectly!

[7 x 77]

To borrow an apt biblical metaphor, Maureen Dowd isn't worthy to remove Justice Thomas's sandals.

That metaphor would mean that Maureen Dowd is the greatest person on earth, and I would find scant consolation in her being the last in heaven.

[AndyTheBear]

If Dowd supports "diversity" as a good thing in elite institutions, why isn't it a good thing for one black Justice to contribute his own experience as part of a landmark judicial ruling?

More so, Why didn't the court rule that the universities should favor new faculty members who aren't radical leftists?

[7 x 77]

Sullivan is terrific.

Agreed, he has wisdom to share, but I'm wary of his ideas because his gay life is bound to have corrupted a fair number of them. Let's say I don't want to embrace him.

[utahagen]

When Dowd first got her Times column, she resorted to cutesy, pop culture references and to cheap putdowns much less frequently, and her opinions usually seemed to be her own. When Dowd realized she eventually could be nominated for a Pulitzer, the opinions she began expressing were clearly those most likely to woo the liberal elite, although the tone of her writing remained fairly serious. Since winning the Pulitzer two years or so ago, Dowd has gone truly haywire. She resorts to pop cultural references and to glib dismissals of serious people -- e.g., Rumsefeld is ALWAYS "Rummy" -- so frequently that it really is embarassing to read her columns.

I predict the Times may dump Dowd in the not-so-distant-future. Since Dowd replaced a woman (Quindlen, the Times could dump her without provoking cries of "Sexism" (cries from anyone besides Dowd herself, that is). The reason that I believe the Times may dump Dowd is that her columns are embarassing and surely the Times could find someone else to say what the editors want him (or her) to say without being so childish.

Freepers, what do you think: have Maureen Dowd's columns become too poor for even the NY Times?

[witnesstothefall]

I don't understand Dowd's standing as a writer at all. She lacks wit, sincerity and substance. I just don't get it at all.

Her treatment of issues is often moronic if not downright diversionary. I guess what I am saying, is that I have a hard time accepting that she fulfills the role she does based on her writing or her knowledge.

[cksharks]

She reminds me of a dog licking his b---s. Totally digusting but natural for a dog -liberal.

[Always Right]

Agreed, he has wisdom to share, but I'm wary of his ideas because his gay life is bound to have corrupted a fair number of them. Let's say I don't want to embrace him.

Sullivan is a brilliant man who has flaws, but so does everyone. Sullivan has let his lifestyle corrupt his moral outlook, which is unfortunate. But at least he writes intelligently even when he is wrong, unlike Dowd who writes like a fool no matter what the subject.

[aristeides]

More and more, I am thinking that it would be a stroke of political genius for Bush to nominate Clarence Thomas to be the new chief justice when Rehnquist retires. I think it would kill the DemocRATs.

Of course, this could only be done if Thomas agreed. And after what he went through at his last confirmation, I could certainly understand it if he were not willing. But it would really be delicious if he were.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The reason that I believe the Times may dump Dowd is that her columns are embarassing . . ."

But The Times' unsigned editorials are themselves embarrassing, so they probably think Dowd is great. Dowd is beginning to resemble Molly Ivins, specializing in sarcasm and shameless out-of-context quotes which falsify the meaning and intent of the person quoted.

[Michael.SF.]

For those like me who prefer not to frequent the times, I lifted the following:

What a cunning man Clarence Thomas is.

He knew that he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.

So he made a powerful psychological argument against what the British call "positive discrimination," known here as affirmative action. . . .

The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received. It's poignant, really. It makes him crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his race. . . . Maybe he is disgusted with his own great historic ingratitude

The above was lifted from Taranto's column, in the WSOJ, which makes for an excellent reading on this issue.

So I wonder if Dowd feels that all negroes are uppitty ingrates , who got where they are just because of their race. Would she include Thurgood Marshall in that description?

BTW, Thomas graduated from law school in 1974, back in the days when blacks were really oppressed (according to some). How sad that we now have to remind people like Dowd that he succeeded inspite of obstacles, which may have been thrown in his way. He is a better man for it and a far better person this dowd.

I have always admired people who rose above adversity, one who struggled to achieve a high position, and then in doing so demonstrated that they were better then those who sought to keep them down. They did so by being strong, courageous and moral. Jackie Robinson being the most classic example of a man who prooved he was superior, not just in his skills, but in his behaviour on a daily basis.

dowd simply seems to demonstate that she must have been raised with a silver spoon in her mouth. One who felt the negro maids and gardeners, should be thankful that her family was so nice to them, by giving them a job. But one who also felt the negro needs to be reminded of 'their place.'