When self-loathing becomes law: Clarence Thomas story (part I)

by David R. Hoffman

Whenever America commemorates past wars, or wages new ones, one persistent theme is how a particular war was essential to “the defense of freedom.”

Although the United States has fought some wars where its liberty interests were at risk, in recent times this “defense of freedom” mantra has become little more than a subterfuge to conceal the fact that America’s military is increasingly being deployed so that multi-national corporations can plunder the human and natural resources of weaker nations, and/or to divert the electorate’s attention away from the economic or political corruption engaged in by the plutocrats who truly control the country and its government.

In fact, despite all the pontificating about “freedom” that American politicians spew in their speeches, the sad reality is the document that many view as the cornerstone of American freedom, The Bill of Rights, is one of the most reviled documents in the nation.

There are two reasons for this. The first is because The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the fundamental rights of America’s minorities. This includes not only racial or ethnic minorities, but also those who espouse opinions, practice religions or make lifestyle choices that substantially differ from those of “mainstream” America. Since many Americans have been indoctrinated with the idea that “the majority rules,” they naturally look askance at anything that contradicts this ideology.

The second reason The Bill of Rights is reviled is because it was designed to serve as a check on the corrupting influence of political power. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates who wanted the United States to have a strong federal government—the Federalists—sought to assuage the fears of delegates who desired a weak federal government—the Anti-Federalists—by creating three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. In theory each branch was supposed to serve as a “check-and-balance” on the other.

The Anti-Federalists, however, were not convinced that this “check-and-balance” system would adequately protect the governed from abuses by the government. So they demanded that The Bill of Rights—a list of freedoms considered so sacrosanct to the individual that neither the majority nor the government could take them away—be added to the new Constitution.

Throughout American history, however, the provisions of The Bill of Rights have been selectively enforced, protecting those who serve the power structure, while often being non-existent to those who criticize it.

A salient example of this can be discerned in the diametrical responses to two academics who chose to exercise their right to “freedom of speech”: Ward Churchill, a former professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and John Yoo, currently a law professor in California.

Shortly after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, Churchill wrote a controversial essay calling many who perished in these attacks “little Eichmanns,” a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a member of Hitler’s notorious SS. The right-wing, corporate-controlled media suddenly forgot how often their pundits compared “liberals” to Nazi figures, and rapidly made Churchill’s essay front-page news.

Seizing the opportunity to politically exploit the outrage over Churchill’s essay, Colorado’s governor at the time, Bill Owens, appeared on national television to demand that Churchill be fired, and allegedly threatened to reduce funding for the university if this wasn’t done.

Although the university claimed that Churchill could not be fired for exercising his free speech rights, a conveniently timed “investigation” into his background allegedly disclosed that he had engaged in plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct. This, in turn, was used as the basis for his dismissal.

Contrast this with the lack of outrage directed against John Yoo. Prior to obtaining his current position, Yoo was a loyal devotee of the Bush dictatorship, working in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. During his tenure there, he authored a controversial memorandum proclaiming that the fraudulently elected George W. Bush had the authority to suspend The Bill of Rights—in particular the rights to freedom of speech and press—and to arrest American citizens without legal due process or access to the court system.

Yet this is the same George W. Bush who, shortly after the September 11th attacks, claimed that terrorists hated America because of its freedoms. Who then is more repugnant: the man who used an offensive metaphor to analyze the actions of terrorists, or the man who wanted to capitulate to them by calling for the destruction of the very freedoms the terrorists themselves allegedly sought to destroy?