Tempest in a Very Peculiar Teapot

 

The discussion of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas' benefactor's unusual collection of Nazi memorabilia amongst his other bits of art are probably most charitably described as tacky and eccentric. Amusingly, he received vociferous support from a variety of conservative pundits, who he had also cultivated and collected over the years. 

In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."  If that doesn't describe a lot of right-wing media, I don't know what does. 

When I was a kid, I had an uncle who got me interested in numismatics, and I collected things like buffalo nickels and Mercury dimes. The little coin shop where I poured over affordable collectibles sometimes had antiques--small historical artifacts, like medals and patches from someone's grandaddy's old footlocker. Anyway, I remember one time there was a patch with a swastika, and I just wanted to see it for a minute. 

The owner asked me did I know where it was from, and I was all of ten or eleven and I knew. Would I like to buy it?  And I decided it was interesting, but I didn't want to own a part of what it was. I was fascinated that I could touch it and handle a symbol I knew was associated with a great evil. But actually bringing it into my parents' house would have felt like doing something wrong to me. I knew what it was; that was enough. 

I think I would have that same feeling as an adult, being shown that collection by an acquaintance, and I would know we wouldn't be friends. We would stay acquaintances, and not close ones. If I were a Black Supreme Court justice, seeing that, I would understand very well why someone was trying to make friends with me. Wouldn't you? And if that same person had a portrait of me next to his Nazi trinkets, I would understand I was made part of a collection that I agreed to be displayed with. Wouldn't you?  

The news that Harlan Crow bought Clarence Thomas' mother's house and then renovated it to the tune of several thousand dollars while she remained in it, reminds me a bit of how Trump paid for Allen Weisselberg's various personal expenses. Thomas never reported that, just as he never reported the vacations, just as he was dilatory in reporting his wife's various revenue streams.  For years. 

And now, it comes out that for years, he's been reporting income of $50K-100K since 2006 of a business that isn't actually generating any income, or shouldn't be? Which prompts a serious question--is that to legitimize a revenue stream that couldn't be labeled some other way without raising many questions that would have to stay unanswered in order to retain the vaguest hope of propriety?

I don't think we can continue pretending this relationship was something other than influence when the sober-minded judge saw fit over and over again to fail to report the parts of his lifestyle that most made him look like he was under financial influence--it looks like he knew it was wrong, and preferred they not be seen. I also don't think that a hearing about this would be unpopular--in that I feel like the cries of "high-tech lynching" would demonstrate now, that it was a hollow and shameful attempt to use Mr. Thomas' race as a shield against real considerations about his character.

In other words, why in the world would liberals accept conservatives, of all people, trying to play "the race card" instead of judging what he has or has not done based on the facts, as opposed to his identity? How unlike what MLK would have expected, that we judge a person not by the color of their skin, but their character--as revealed by what they do. 

Having seen the teapot, I have some very clear ideas about the tea. That is all.