Clarence Thomas's America
Justice Thomas is an odd duck. Unlike the four other conservative members of the Supreme Court, Thomas makes no bones about his desire to repeal the New Deal and the Civil Rights Era and return America to the utopian days of the Hoover Administration:
In a series of decisions beginning with U.S. v. Lopez, Justice Thomas would have restricted Congress' power to enact economic regulation to a point unheard of since the Great Depression. It's difficult to count the laws which would cease to exist under Thomas' approach, but one commentator lists "the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the sick leave portions of the Family and Medical Leave, the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act, as well as minimum wage and maximum hour laws" as likely suspects. In Clarence Thomas' America, whites-only lunch counters are permitted, but basic labor protections are forbidden.
So I'm not particularly surprised that, at a recent speaking engagement, Thomas apparently bad-mouthed the Bill of Rights and was reluctant to identify the Fourteenth Amendment as the most significant post-Civil War development in shaping the way Americans view the Constitution.
What I find most revealing about Thomas' remarks, however, is a romanticization of austerity that seems out of place this far west of Sparta. At one point, Justice Thomas asked his audience "how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?" At another, he complained about people who think they are "owed" such audacious "luxuries" as a telephone.
When you set aside the vitriol, however, Thomas' remarks are quite probative into just how the conservative mindset differs from that of other Americans. Conservatives like Thomas start from a position that deprivation is the state of nature, and that any upward departure from the most bare bones lifestyle has to be earned. Two things follow from this mindset. The first is that basic human rights like freedom from discrimination or the maxim that a fair wage is the price of labor have no place in the law. The second is the fallacy which teaches that if freedom from deprivation must be earned through one's own efforts, than those who are free from deprivation must have actually earned that freedom themselves.
Progressives believe something different. First, while we do not believe -- as Thomas suggests in his remarks -- that everyone has a fundamental right to own a television, we do believe that there are certain basic needs which one is entitled to have fulfilled merely because they are a human being. Foremost among these rights are those things which enable people to take their lives into their own hands: education so that they may compete in the workforce, nutrition and medical care so that they do not grow up stunted physically or mentally, basic access to modern communications so that they can speak with potential employers and discover the opportunities that are available to them, and the ability to be judged according to their accomplishments -- not because of traits they are unable to control. Clarence Thomas escaped from poverty because he worked very hard to do so, but he also escaped because a generous society rightly chose to reward his talent and hard work with scholarships; and Justice Thomas is wrong to forget this.
And this, of course, leads to the second thing that differentiates progressives from conservatives. Progressives understand that hard work is an essential part of accomplishment, but we also know that wholly unaccomplished men and women enjoy stunning opulence not because of their own efforts, but because they were lucky enough to be born into the right family. Policy cannot eliminate the inequalities bred from luck, but progressives understand that a just society cannot allow birth to become destiny. We understand that by investing in education, health care and a basic safety net we can ensure that hard working Americans achieve whatever their talents will allow them -- even if they were born poor -- and we understand that the entire nation is enriched when its most talented members rise to the top regardless of what their parents did for a living.
It's sad that, after defeating the twin dragons of racism and poverty, Thomas has spent his career working to ensure that no one will ever follow in his footsteps, but I'm also grateful for his honesty. His America is a nation of silent children marching lockstep behind the flag and the cross, or cast aside because of their unwillingness or inability to do so. It is not an appealing vision, but it is the vision conservatives offer, and I have nothing but faith that America will reject it.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author's own, and should not be understood as representative of any organization he may be affiliated with.
(Cross posted at Overruled.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Too bad that Clarence Thomas forgets he was rewarded with scholarships for racial minorities and benefited from affirmative action. Now he seems to think those rewards lessened his achievement. Ironically, he would not be where he is without them. Thomas should come to peace with himself. Rewarding someone a scholarship for hard work or giving them the chance to participate on a playing field with others where they would otherwise be excluded for financial or whatever reasons is not the same as undermining morale or talent. It is helping talent be actualized. Thomas forgot somehting very human and now he seems disconnected from almost everyone and everything. He is a case study in self-pity.
The reasons Justice Thomas is on the bench are many. However, I blame the Congress for allowing a delusional person to sit on the bench at all. I consider anyone who believes in any god delusional and therefore, conclude that most of our public servants are delusional, as well as, being an arrogant, self-centered, ego-manical, power-hungry bunch that have no critical thinking skills and must surround themselves with idiots that can do nothing but kow-tow and "yes" their bosses to the point of nauseum. Our political system is run by delusional ego-maniacs, so whatever comes of their decisions should logically be -- delusional and self-serving.
I will be forever shocked that this man was made a Supreme Court Justice. I well remember the grace, elegance and truth of Anita HIll when she gave her testimony. She was believed by the entire world, including the congress, but Orin Hatch and Bush Sr. pushed this mediocre man's appointment through. He is the least effective Supreme Court justice in memory and is as irrelevant as the Republican party that appointed him.
Don't forget the outrageous conduct of Arlen Specter and the ineffectivenss if Biden and Kennedy.
I find Thomas' reminisce about a childhood schoolyard far different than mine. For those of us who went to Catholic schools the nuns who ran those schools were strict and downright tyrannical and mine was in California. Though I got a good education, I remember the fear I had every day during my 1st and 2nd grade years. My second grade teacher was notorious for her screaming rants and her slapping students. I was slapped on two occasions and I was a very obedient child. My crime was trying to tell her that I didn't do what I was being accused of doing. Her usual response (for talking back) was a slap across the face. I then pee'd on myself because I was so afraid. She than slapped me again for peeing on myself and made me clean up the floor and wear the wet clothes the rest of the day.
I didn't tell my parents because during that time, the mindset was that the teachers were always right, and if you got in trouble in school you could expect a second punishment when you got home. Sometime around the 3rd grade I guess, I stopped being afraid and began to enjoy school. Heck even the slaves at some point had enjoyable moments during their life away from their tyrannical owners. I think those days as a young boy in catholic school that Clarence Thomas choose to reminisce about may exist in his head only.
Another example of his self-serving view of his world. Simple narcissism dressed up as history.
I take issue with the idea that Thomas "defeated" racism . Rather he capitulated totally. Only those who actually fight can be said to be victorious.
"Justice Thomas is wrong to forget this."
Whatever struggle he went through or what he cares to remember or edit about his struggle, it's clear that he has been personally damaged by it. Mental illness and/or severe character flaws will never allow him to remember even a semblance of the truth.
At his "moment of triumph" when Bush 1 cynically nominated him as the "best man for the job" he nearly prevailed. But history already records Thomas' hypocrisy and mediocrity in the revelations of Anita Hill. He knows he was deprived of the victory he neither deserved nor earned, and he will die a bitter man, even as he votes for odious laws which hurt as many disenfranchised people as possible.
I am somewhat on both sides of this post. I don't believe anyone is exactly owed many of the mentioned benefits from the government, even education. But I also believe if the people and the government so decide that taxes will be levied to provide services to the citizens every citizen is entitled to those services no matter their station in life or the beliefs or their race. I also believe in a progressive tax system but one that is fair to rich and poor alike. And I believe if the government is capable that providing benefits and opportunities to its' citizens is something that should be done. I also believe in offering greater opportunities to those who have been downtrodden and alienated in the past, hence equal opportunity. I was hardly rich but was fortunate enough to be raised by loving and caring parents. To me I therefor had a huge head start from the beginning that a large percentage of the population does not. I don't exactly owe someone else something because of this but if in all fairness someone in dire conditions could benefit from the government helping them more than me I think that is good and worthy. I know too many rich people who are only me, me, me without considering they had chances to get their position that many people never will. I don't belittle their accomplishments, I only think it is fair to provide reasonable opportunities to as many people as possible.
Unfortunately, the republican mind set is that you are on your own....except when it comes to matters of what goes on in your bedroom, or what you choose to imbibe.
Does anyone work for an unfair wage? If so, why do they work there? No town in this entire country has only one employer and if none of the employers in town will offer a better wage, move. Will life be tough? Yes, but no one promised you a rose garden.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon that article of the Constitution that granted to the Congress the authority to spend on objects of benevolence the money of their constituents. James Madison couldn't find that article either and he wrote the thing. Some people will claim that the General Welfare clause gives Congress this power but if that were the intent why specify what powers are given to the Congress? If Congress can do anything why list any specific power?
If Liberals want to change the Constitution and add an amendment that would provide for universal health care or telephones and education for all from the Fed govt then pass that amendment. Stop trying to find things in the Constitution that aren't there.
"No town in this entire country has only one employer and if none of the employers in town will offer a better wage, move."
How would you suggest they pay for that move?
Good question, but this clown has no compassion for anyone.
He's happy with the Constitution as long as judges find what he likes in it, but if others get something he hates, then it doesn't "appear" in HIS CONSTITUTION... and a right is being "invented" ....BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Utter nonsense of course and therefore, the guy is a rank hypocrite.
so we have a right to an education, healthcare, telephones and the fed govt has to pay our moving expenses too?
"Does anyone work for an unfair wage?"
Sounds good in theory but most are stuck where they are, even if they are lucky enough to have a job.
There's a cruel tone in your comments, blaming the victim because he's not happy selling his soul to the company store.
Who is your favorite president? Hoover or Reagan? Maybe Bush 2? You obviously hate FDR.
I'm graduating with a JD from a top 100 law school. I graduated cum laude from one of the nation's best public universities. I am stuck where I am because I cannot afford to move to another job market. I can't imagine how hard it must be for people who are actually at a disadvantage. Your try at being pithy is really just a pathetic expose of how out of touch you are with reality.
The same way right wingers try to say that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own a uzi...."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously the intent was to always have a standing army for each state in a time when we didn't have a national force to protect our national/state interests. It was also written in the 1700's when we had muskets, not like now where people have body armor and legally purchased AK-47s!
Right, but the issue has always been the imposition of power, not a real interpretation of the Constitution. It's always their way or the highway, which is the equivalent of the Fascist boot in your face. In short, they are corrupt because they disguise a rabid dictatorial frame of mind with mindless cant about "inventing" rights, especially when one has the nerve(in their view) to push back against the boot.
Wow! This writer refuses to make any room for responsibility. So someone can just choose to bring a child into this world without taking into account if he has the wherewithal to provide for this child? How do I automatically become responsible for providing for someone else merely because they made a bad decision? He say that people have a right to education. Wrong, they have the right to pursue an education, not to have it provided for them at someone else's expense. Same for medical care.
"(T)hey have a right to pursue an education, not to have it provided for them at someone else's expense."
What does it mean to have a right to pursue an education if one does not have a right to an education? How can you pursue something you don't have a right to?
And, you use the extreme case to make your point of someone who brings a child into the world without the means of providing for that child. What about all the people who didn't have children who help fund your schooling? What about people who have never had a property fire who help fund the fire department that assists you when you do? What about the people who walk or ride a bike to work who help fund the roads you drive on? Can these people make the same argument of you benefiting at their expense?
People always seem to be willing to spread risks whenever possible but refuse to spread rewards or benefits, even when they, themselves, benefit from this spreading.
Let me go slow for you here. A right is not a grant. A right exists prior to the formation of government and is not granted by it, but acknowledged. The bill of rights creates a line that government may not cross to take away. To say that someone has the right to an education is to imply a positive grant and thus obligation to provide for it.
As for your extreme case, it is not extreme but all too common, otherwise my money would not be needed for someone else. No one is funding my schooling nor has. Roads are a benefit to all that benefit society equally. Where are these people going to work if not at a place that people arrive by various modes of transportation? How would the materials for the building get to the site so that a place of work can be built. Office supplies, furniture, etc. Your logic is appallingly limited and stops short of proper conclusions.
You are a perfect example of the different mindsets the author wrote about.
You and your ideas are the minority.
And, given your scenario about a child, why does the child have to suffer privation and lack of education because someone else - his parents - made a "bad" (your formulation) decision?
I agree that potential parents should only bring a child into this world that they can and will love and care for. But I do not agree that if they choose to do otherwise, then too bad for that child.
Perhaps you read a different piece than I did. Just because I might have understanding for those who didn't grow up with my advantages doesn't mean that I think that I think people should have things handed to them. I doubt that the author of the piece feels any differently. Here's the difference between you and I. While you look at someone without and say to them "best of luck pulling yourself up the ladder" which is out of reach, I think that the *least* we should do is make the ladder available to them. So, for you, pursuit of education is fine but if education is too far away and moving too far into the distance for you to catch up, you would likely argue that the person run faster. While I would want to bring that person up to the place where they *can* pursue education. One worldview starts with compassion as non-optional while your view, as far as I can discern it from your postings, has compassion as optional. This difference is why I started my adult life a conservative and became a liberal.
Cheers
LF
Living in a civilized world does not equate to abdication of responsibility. Civilized people care for each other because it's the right thing to do for society at large. Anyone assuming they got where they are today--wherever they happen to be--on merit alone is living with their head in a warm, dark place. We are all in the same boat, and it's our duty to keep it from becoming a ship of fools.
What amazes me about Thomas is his disdain for the very struggle and constitutional given rights that propelled him where he is today, he wants to repeal them. He actually believes that he is on the court because hes qualified. He has been brainwashed, whats worse is the fact that his mentality is like ' Ive got mine minorities, now get your own without any basic civil rights' . What a sad and lockstep hell to be in. This guy will never get it.
How and why he was named and approved as a justice is just beyond me.. Even the vetting was dumbfounding...
The work of George Bush the first. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Thomas has also blinded himself to the privilege of his own early education in a private school. An educational opportunity that is not available to the majority of children, because their parents can't afford private schools.
Thomas has also blinded himself to the fact that, because of the era he was born into, and not because of some god given entitlement or superiority, he, as a black, was give special treatment and special accesses because of his race.
He still stands as the least qualified Supreme Court Justice in history, and gained his position solely because of his race and the political need to conservatives to appear to not be racists.
I agreed with the "politically correct" positions concerning “quotas” in the 60's and still do. The so called underclass cannot achieve without a helping hand, since as children, they start life in the bleachers, compared to someone as worthless as George Bush, who was already all the way to home plate simply by the accomplishment of surviving his own birth.
It is unfortunate that so many who succeed, regardless of their origins, assume that they somehow are the only ones who work hard, the only ones to have diserved success, the chosen ones, that success is owed them, and no one else is so deserving.
How ever Clarence Thomas get where he is, under whatever circumstances, he could have made sure that he was the best. Instead of harboring resentment all of these years, he has squandered an great opportunity to do something good for himself, his country and the world at large.
The ends don't justify the means.
Oh I wish I could accommodate Justice Thomas and whisk him back to Savannah, GA 1856, where he would be a slave and most definitely not a "HOUSE SLAVE". He does not deserve the breaks that he received from others beatings, killings and marches to bring about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 Voting Rights Act, 1968 Fair Housing Act. He would have truly been a hero had he declined the various scholarships and grants associated with his entry into Yale. His acceptance and soaking up of everything Affirmative Action programs offered to him and then his denial of these same opportunities to others is what makes him villified.
Justice Thomas merely doesn't want laziness and shiftlessness to be rewarded. BFD!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
