EDITORnThomas FlemingnASSOCIATE EDITORnTheodore PappasnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSnChilton Williamson, ]r.nEDITORIAL ASSISTANTnEmily Grant AdamsnART DIRECTORnAnna Mycek-WodeckinCONTRIBUTING EDITORSn]ohn W. Aldndge, Harold O.J.nBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelnFrancis, George Garrett, Russell Kirk,nE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonnCORRESPONDING EDITORSnJanet Scott Barlow, Odie Faulk,nJane Greer, John Shelton ReednEDITORIAL SECRETARYnLeann DobbsnPUBLISHERnAllan C. CarlsonnPUBLICATION DIRECTORnGuyC.ReffettnCOMPOSITION MANAGERnAnita FedoranCIRCULATION MANAGERnRochelle FranknA publication of The Rockford Institute.nEditorial and Advertising Offices:n934North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.nEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.nAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5811.nSubscription Department: P. O. Box 800,nMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.nFor information on advertising in Chronicles,nplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.nU. S. A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,nSandusky, OH 44870.nCopyright © 1992 by The Rockford Instihrte.nAll rights reserved.nChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishednmonthly for $ 24 per year by The RockfordnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,nIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.nPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tonChronicles, P. O. Box 800, Mount Morris,nIL 61054.nThe views expressed in Chronicles are thenauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot benreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressednstamped envelope.nChroniclesn4/CHRONICLESnVol. 16, No. 8 August 1992nPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnOn ‘Clarence Thomas’nI sure wouldn’t want to cross LlewellynnH. Rockwell, Jr. In his semihysterical,nmean-spirited diatribe (Cultural Revolutions,nJanuary 1992), he manages toncharge Supreme Court Justice ClarencenThomas with perjury, perversion, andnracial opportunism. And that’s just fornopeners. Although I probably lost count,nthere are some twenty-five negative referencesnto Thomas’s character, ideology,nor intellect. Being the Antichrist is aboutnthe only thing Rockwell doesn’t accusenThomas of (although “another ThurgoodnMarshall” may be the Rockwelliannequivalent).nGranted, President Bush considerednThomas’s race in selecting him as thennominee. Would Rockwell have rathernseen Robert Bork renominated? Remember,nthis is a more liberal Senatenthan the one that rejected Bork for beingn”out of the mainstream.” Or wouldnRockwell prefer another “stealth” candidate,nlike David Souter? Unless he cannname a better candidate who would alsonbe viable, he himself deserves then”whiner” label he pins on Thomas.nAs most everyone concedes, the confirmationnprocess is highly political.nBush had to win over a Senate that hadnbecome increasingly hostile to conservativennominees. An affirmative-actionnnomination of a black conservative wasna brilliant move that eventually succeeded,ndespite a last-minute sexual harassmentnbrouhaha. (Could any othernnominee who had expressed reservationsnabout affirmative action be confirmed?)nApparently, though, success does notnsatisfy Rockwell. Better to be defeatednand remain ideologically pure, I suppose.nFinally, I would note that affirmativenaction is not morally objectionable sonlong as it is voluntary. It is only whennracial or other preferences are codifiedninto law (with punishments specified forntransgressors) that they become anathemanto freedom.n—Pfiillip GoldsteinnBrooJilyn, NYnMr. Rockwell Replies:nMr. Goldstein is right. There is nothingnmorally wrong with hiring and promot­nnning on the basis of race. As RichardnEpstein of the University of ChicagonLaw School demonstrates in ForljiddennGround, homogeneous firms also tendnto be more efficient.nFor the Supreme Court, we shouldnseek homogeneity as well: no intellectualnlightweights, let alone a 1970’s liberalnversion. We need smart, courageous,nand scholarly right-wingers. Mr. Thomas’snghostwriter did criticize “quotas.”nBut during his confirmation hearings,nMr. Thomas testified under oath, againnand again, that freedom of contract andnassociation should be violated for egalitariannsocial engineering. We now known:that, as an appeals court judge, Mr.nThomas endorsed affirmative action fornblacks while opposing it for white women.nDid we really have to accept this neo-n;Con nonentity (or do I repeat myself)?nNot if we had a man in the WhitenHouse. Patrick Buchanan as Presidentnwould nominate one brilliant conservativenjurist after another, making a nationalnfight over each. Eventually, thenSenate would have to confirm one, andnin the meantime, the public would learnnabout the nature of a constitutional republic.nThe Thomas hearings, on thenother hand, were one long victimologicalnaria. As to those more qualified thann;Mr. Thomas, Chronicles refuses to allownme the rest of this issue for the A’s.nOn ‘Germany’nJacob Neusner, in his “Letter From Germany”n(December 1991), assesses thenacademic apathy of Germany, pointingnout that “the National Socialists got ridnof the talent as well as the entrenchednmediocrity.” Which is to say thatnNazism destroyed not just the “drags” ofnthe old Germany, but also the society’snprotected classes, and the true “aristocracy.”n’This is a “truism” that, like most, isnindeed true. And is brilliant in its simplicity.nIndeed, the statement is very applicablento current events. It seems as ifnmost Americans have now forgotten thatna similar purge took place in the SovietnUnion, as it does in all ideological societies.nTo simply presume that the peoplenof Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia,ncould be remade without any lingeringn