Up from Pin Point - Clarence Thomas: A Biography - Review

National Review, Dec 3, 2001 by Ramesh Ponnuru

Clarence Thomas: A Biography, by Andrew Peyton Thomas (Encounter, 661 pp., $29.95)

Clarence Thomas, the most famous justice on the Supreme Court, is also the most fascinating. His rise from segregation and poverty is a compelling story; so is his political evolution from liberal to conservative. But until now, the only story that has been told about Thomas, certainly at book length, is that of his stormy confirmation hearings. Andrew Peyton Thomas corrects this deficiency in his new biography of Justice Thomas (to whom he is not related). While giving Anita Hill's allegation its due as a pivotal moment in Justice Thomas's life, the book also covers his career both before and after the hearings.

The book's most newsworthy revelation is that-contrary to his 1991 testimony-Thomas had in fact discussed Roe v. Wade on several occasions, and concluded that it had been decided incorrectly. Nobody, not even his handlers, believed his claim never to have had such discussions. (The author reports that they were incredulous when he made the claim in their prep sessions.)

But what will probably come as a bigger surprise to conservative readers is the news that Thomas was not a Reaganite when he served President Reagan as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In Reagan's first term, Thomas often clashed with conservative appointees who wanted to abolish racial preferences. The author attributes his softness not to intellectual disagreement but to personal ambition: "His comments on racial preferences at this time . . . reflected not so much anguish over choosing the right policy as an elaborate and ultimately unsuccessful attempt . . . to avoid being pinned down one way or the other on the highly charged issue." Thomas moved rightward on the issue after Reagan's re-election, a shift the author interprets as Thomas's attempt to get reappointed.

Thomas did not run the EEOC in line with liberal wishes either. He regarded its mission as enforcement of civil-rights protections for individuals, rather than the use of class-action suits to achieve social change. But much of his energy was spent on an even more basic task: rescuing the agency after the mismanagement of his predecessor, Eleanor Holmes Norton. He was largely successful, as the Washington Post acknowledged in a 1987 editorial titled "The EEOC Is Thriving." His traditionalist, chivalrous instincts led him, however, to one fateful mistake: supporting the use of civil-rights law to criminalize "sexual harassment."

Andrew Thomas's treatment of the EEOC years is typical of the book in two respects: He is very tough on what he regards as Thomas's failings, and he views Thomas as a canny, ambitious politician. He notes that Thomas expressed interest in joining the Supreme Court even when he had just started working in Washington, as a legislative assistant to John Danforth. It took him only twelve years to realize that desire. The author also reports that what he calls "the Pin Point strategy"-the emphasis during the confirmation battle on Thomas's humble beginnings in Pin Point, Ga.-was devised by Thomas himself, not any White House spinner.

The book is generally excellent on the confirmation hearings. All the familiar characters from ten years ago-the book's release was timed for the anniversary-make their appearance. Here is columnist Carl Rowan saying, "If you gave Clarence Thomas a little flour on his face, you'd think you had David Duke talking"; Joe Biden promising to defend Thomas, and then weaseling out; Nina Totenberg, prejudiced and peevish. The book also reminds conservatives that among their most effective allies during the confirmation battle were two of their least favorite Republican senators, Alan Simpson and Arlen Specter.

Andrew Thomas observes that Specter's "cross-examination of Anita Hill would serve as both roadmap and foundation for all subsequent analysis of Hill's charges." Hill was evasive or self-contradictory about her alleged fears of losing her job while working for Thomas and about her dealings with Democratic staffers. Two FBI agents disputed her account of their interview of her. And Hill has been slippery ever since. (These conclusions do not rely on David Brock's book on Hill, which is good since Brock himself has called the book's credibility into question.) The author also notes that Hill's charges do not fit with what we know of Thomas's personality. He is less persuasive in speculating about what Hill's motives were in defaming Thomas.

In the end, there were ironies on both sides: Liberals tried to use traditionalist sentiments about proper comportment around ladies to sink Thomas, but what ultimately saved his nomination was that blacks put racial solidarity ahead of their political views-something Thomas would generally not do. Southern Democrats, leery of offending Thomas's black supporters, put Thomas over the top.

Thanks to Hill, Thomas became the most famous justice on the Court; but he was also the most misunderstood. Until quite recently, liberal journalists have depicted Thomas as a "Scalia clone." That putdown was never justified. Thomas has generally been willing to go further than Scalia in reconsidering precedents that depart from the original understanding of the Constitution. Justice Scalia is seen as the bolder jurist in part because of his verbal pyrotechnics; Thomas-influenced by Justice Byron White-has avoided sharp rhetoric in his opinions.