In my postings here, I have always strived to be honest about potential conflicts of interests between the contents of my posts and those of my personal life. Where I might have an interest in something I say online, I have done my best to disclose that interest for the record and my readers. I am about to do so again here, because I will be delving into a subject that had a significant--and painful--impact in my personal life, one that has also surfaced in several recent news stories that will subsequently be the focus of today's post.
In my mid-20s, a painful period in my professional life, the pain was brightened for a time by a romantic relationship I had for several months with an African-American woman I had met at Oberlin. I was forced to end the relationship due to circumstances beyond my control and hers, involving racism directed at us from a quarter I did not expect. It was my decision, but one that I felt at the time was in the best interests of both of us. Nevertheless, it has always remained a painful memory, and in any case not a proud one. At the same time, whenever I meet an interracial couple, or see one in the news, I find a measure of solace in knowing that my own failure to do the right thing did nothing to dent the arc of history in this area to bend toward justice.
So, then, is interracial romance the subject of my post? Well, yes and no. I intend to use interracial relationships that are, in one way or another, a part of current events to underscore not only the hypocrisy of the modern/contemporary Republican Party, but its sole, unchanging purpose. Without further ado, then.
Although it did not receive as much coverage as the other two stories I will be discussing, I was nevertheless fascinated by the recent decision, which you can read about here, by U.S. Senator Mike Braun of Indiana, a Republican, to say the quite part out loud when it comes to his stance on the constitutionality of interracial marriage. True, like all politicians who let their mouths wander into trouble, Braun hastily issued a "correction" of his previous statement on the subject. On the other hand, as with all cases of "corrections" that are issued only in the wake of substantial public blowback, the rest of us are free to evaluate its sincerity.
And this one fails that test on two accounts. One, Braun was offered a chance to make a clarification during the interview in which he decided to torch any reputation he had for tolerance, and failed to take advantage of it. Second, Braun is a member of a Senate caucus led by Mitch McCONnell, whose leadership is distinguished by a level of message and voting discipline that might make even a Prussian blush. McCONnell doesn't gladly suffer any member of his caucus doing or saying anything that might stub a toe in his effect to regain his iron grip on the upper chamber of Congress. So I think it's fair to apply the Maya Angelou test here and conclude that, when Senator Braun told the American people that he and his party are racist, the American people should believe them.
But what about Clarence and Ginni Thomas, then? The current Supreme Court Associate Justice and his politically active spouse are an interracial couple. If this is a rule, why are they the exception?
Because Republicans are willing to allow for exception of this sort if they are politically useful. And, when it comes to political usefulness, for Republicans, Thomas has been the gift that keeps on giving. First, there was his confirmation hearing, where he managed to turn a sordid episode in his professional life into a moment of unjudicial rage in which he got to accuse Democratic Senators of performing a "high-tech lynching" of him for being "uppity." They were, in fact, investigating an allegation against him of sexual harassment, but that didn't stop the Senators in question, led by the now-President Biden, from dropping the investigation. That was 31 years ago, and since then, Thomas' voting record has helped paved the way for a dramatic reversal of the Court's role in championing and advancing social justice.
And second, there was Mrs. Thomas, who has used the political connections forged by way of her marriage to create a power center of her own, in concert with various right-wing political organizations. In fact, so powerful has she become in the process that it has opened up the question of conflicts of interest between causes she has advanced and their connection with cases before the Court. This question, which has been previously explored in the press, exploded in news outlets this past week when it was learned that the congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol has records of texts between Mrs. Thomas and then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in which she urged him to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Perhaps this explains why her husband was the lone dissenting vote in the Court's decision requiring the White House to hand over to the committee its records relating to the attack.
Both Thomases have denied the existence of any conflicts of interest, insisting that their personal and professional lives are completely separate. These assertions, which should by themselves strain the credulity of virtually every married person in contemporary America (me included), are as phony as the Justice's attack on his Senate interlocutors. You need look no further that this tweet from a former Heritage Foundation intern, whose recollection makes it clear that the Justice and his activist spouse are "a team."
And a mighty useful team they are. This is why Republicans, in spite of the white nationalism that is their only institutional glue, are willing to tolerate them. Republicans don't really care about people having abortions, as long as they're the only one who can afford them. They don't really care about what kids are reading in schools, so long as their kids are the only one who can afford a decent education. They don't even care about high taxes, so long as they're the only ones not paying them. And they absolutely, positively, do not care about limited government in the roles of Americans. After all, government can be a great way of controlling the people who don't support you. This is why we have a criminal justice system that marches African-Americans to the electric chair, and lets white Wall Street thieves go back to their the thievery. This is why we have a religious climate in this country that allows one religion to dictate what religion means for everyone else. And this is why we choose to spend our public resources on making war rather than making wealth for all. And by war, I'm not just talking about overseas conflict; I'm talking about violence against our fellow citizens, and disgusting attempts to joke about it.
Goodies for we, but not for thee. That's the Republican philosophy, past, present, and future, reduced to the size of a bumper sticker in the hope that a majority of the American people can digest it. And if the GQP can get away with hiding it by manipulating the racism of poor undereducated whites, then shame on all of us. So why should they care about Clarence and Ginni Thomas' interracial marriage? So long as they don't have to see them too often, and they're otherwise spectacularly useful, it's all good.
Contrast this with this past week's third story in which interracial marriage was a factor: the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for a seat on the very Supreme Court where Clarence Thomas would be one of her colleagues. The Republicans questioning Judge Jackson made every attempt to not merely question her patriotism, but to sexualize her public image by profiling her rulings in cases involving child pornography. She did not rise to the bait even once, which merely underscored the demeaning behavior to which she, her white husband, and her biracial daughter were subjected, as well as the naked racism on which that behavior is based.
This, along with her other qualifications, is why she will make this country proud as the first African-American woman to sit on the highest Court in the land. And it is one more reason why I am grateful for all of the multiracial families in America. More than anyone else, you demonstrate our ability to become one out of many. More than anyone else, you are the proof that this country and its people will not succumb to the base instincts of one political party, but will continue rising to the heights promoted by the Constitution, and those who not only advocate its ideals, but live them as well
No comments:
Post a Comment