Crunchy Con

Justice Thomas and fatherhood

Monday October 8, 2007

Categories: Family
Andrew Sullivan finds this passage from Clarence Thomas's autobiography to be troubling (he lifts it from a favorable Bill Kristol review of the Thomas book): It really was as simple as that. Daddy had to raise us, but he only...
Advertisement
Comments
cantemir
October 8, 2007 4:49 PM

I'll never forget hearing an old Polish immigrant bragging that his son was a high-school physics teacher. From this man's perspective, his son had accomplished the key act of moving from the working class into the educated class.

ChuckDFW
October 8, 2007 4:54 PM

Does this show how Thomas (and Rod?) see(s) discipline as the principal value in raising children? (cf. Lakoff's Moral Politics for a discussion of all this in the context of the moralities of right and left)

Daniel
October 8, 2007 5:09 PM

Like with all things invoving Thomas, I think the story is interpreted based on ones perception of Thomas. Rod appears to believe that the upbringing shaped a fairly heroic figure. Others would argue that the upbringing shaped a profoundly troubled and angry man who has some serious character flaws. Tomato, tomatoe.

The social consensus has shifted on beating your kids and using the kind of cruel disinterest Thomas' grandfather appeared to demonstrate. He was a product of his time. It's hard to get beyond that, since we've seen the ramifications of those kinds of approaches with children.

Bugg
October 8, 2007 5:09 PM

Haven't read the book. My understanding is Rod's analysis is correct, that Mr. Anderson was a demanding parent. But the impression SUllivan's post is that Anderson was 24/7 nonstop disciplinarian, and there's no way in any family anyone could be that hard all the time. May be Anderson's idea of affection isn't quite what Beltway pundits in 2007 would think ideal. But so what? Look at the results, and Justice Thomas clearly still loves the man and his memory. And he couldn't have been a hardass all the time or both his grandsons would've blown him off way before they grew up.

And my other suspicion is that Sullivan, like many people who are not (yet?)parents, doesn't understand that once you are a parent, you cannot always be pals with your kids. There are days when you have to be hard(and I'm talkiing about being the "bad guy", not being physical), or you aren't doing your job. There's no great irony or subtlety when you're raising kids. You do what you have to do. Think about that the next time you see a hot and bothered parent dragging a disobedient child out of ToysRUs in the mall.

Larry Parker
October 8, 2007 5:41 PM

This goes right up there with "dog bites man," simply removed one generation.

It is the way of the world that fathers are incredibly tough with their sons and incredibly doting on their grandchildren. In this case, we're just taking "grandson" and "great-grandchild," given that Thomas was raised as a son by his grandfather (thus the book's title).

Brian Finlayson
October 8, 2007 6:03 PM

"The social consensus has shifted on beating your kids and using the kind of cruel disinterest Thomas' grandfather appeared to demonstrate. He was a product of his time. It's hard to get beyond that, since we've seen the ramifications of those kinds of approaches with children."

The social consensus is right of course. I mean look at how well adjust and upstanding today's youth are. Those poor kids raised under strict discipline never got to experience the self-centered hedonism and materialism like todays kids. Oh and don't forget the rainbow parties. What character the baby boomers have instilled in their children!

caroline
October 8, 2007 7:52 PM

He had been such a success with the grandson that he could turn over the discipline approach to the father of the great grand son with confidence! And just enjoy his great grandson. Makes perfect sense.

Normally grandparents can go easy on grand kids who are being brought up properly by their well brought up parents. It's the reward the seniors get. And it adds a dimension to the child's life. In this case it skipped a generation.

Daniel
October 8, 2007 8:54 PM

"Those poor kids raised under strict discipline never got to experience the self-centered hedonism and materialism like todays kids."

That's because the grew up to be dysfunctional adults, thus leading to the 1960s and 1970s. Remember, the sainted grandfather raised Thomas' dad, who abandoned his own son. So much for successful parenting and the impact of not sparing the rod.

A generation of alcoholics, child abusers, and wife beaters would suggest that maybe that strict discipline wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Larry Parker
October 8, 2007 9:25 PM

Brian:

Is it just possible BOTH extremes are wrong?

Don Altabello
October 8, 2007 10:24 PM

Or maybe it is just that this whole conversation on such a prudential aspect of life is completely ridiculous?

hermitian
October 9, 2007 10:42 AM

Note that Sullivan only writes critical reviews of books he hasn't bothered to read.

Dale Price
October 9, 2007 11:17 AM

A generation of alcoholics, child abusers, and wife beaters would suggest that maybe that strict discipline wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Generalize much? The data indicates that alcoholics are more likely to raise alcoholics, child abusers more likely to raise child abusers and wife beaters more likely to raise wife beaters. I'd like to see the data on task masters.

Oh, and Anderson was Thomas' maternal grandfather. Thus, it's a leap to lay Thomas' dad's behavior at Anderson's feet.

Dale Price
October 9, 2007 11:26 AM

More to the point at hand (and ignoring Sullivan's derivations): familial relationships are more complex than any of us want to credit. In my experience, my parents and mother in law are much more likely to indulge our kids' behavior than they were to indulge us. "Spoiling" the grandkids is a pretty common phenomenon. My mother-in-law (no disciplinarian herself) is far more demonstrative with her grandchildren than she was with her children. For whatever reason, the hugs, kisses and "I love yous" flow more easily to the grandkids than to their parents. It understandably bothers my wife and in-laws, but they've learned to react to it as reflected love. Our minds are forests at night, and we don't have a good grip on our own motivations and reactions, let alone those of others. Even beloved family members.

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.