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
"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."
I've read the Constitution; doesn't say that anywhere. If the states want to be "progressive" than the Constitution doesn't stop them.
I'm not arguing Thomas is some judicial wizard. He completely ignores the Constitution when it suits. But most of the examples given as progressive were completely beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
Doesn't the concept of a topic sentence have any relevance here? Both the declaration of independence and the preamble to the constitution come closer to enumerating the intent of the founders to "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
More just than the founders? That's just silly. If you take the words to mean to something other than what the founders said, you are saying something else. How does this simple logic elude you?
A return to grade school writing advice ("topic sentences"). What a wonderful way to solve complex con. law problems! Maybe we'll enforce a five sentence paragraph structure rule as well?
See Ian Millhiser's Profile
The method of interpretation that you suggest---which limits the rights protected by the Constitution to those specifically enumerated in it---is expressly forbidden by the Ninth Amendment, which provides that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That said, it is certainly true that essential programs such as universal health care are best provided by the Legislative Branch. What makes Thomas so offensive is that he would strip Congress' authority to enact even uncontroversial statutes that have existed since the Roosevelt Administration. Thomas doesn't just refuse to see basic human rights in the Constitution, he believes that the Constitution actually forbids Congress from providing for those rights.
Millhiser, these rights refered to in the 9th amendment do not have to with providing resources to people. It exists so that none will be taken away. How does someone have to health care if someone else is denied the freedom to choose not to provide it or pay for it. You use some of the most tortured logic possible to arrive at your "rights". You are essentially saying someone has the right to my labor and time to their benefit. Government exists to protect liberties, not provide benefits.
I'm glad there is a disclaimer, though we'd be better served if it were in bold red capitals.
Sheer eloquence! Now if only progressives can make that clear distinction loud and clear on the national stage, over the din of right-wing blather.
Isnt the question why is CT rustling about now, showing the machinations of his mind?
What a travesty that such a man should be a Supreme Court justice.
Worse even,and ultra insulting, thanks to George Bush Sr, is that Clarence Thomas, took Thurgood Marshall 's seat.
Great post. Thoughtful and thought provoking - unlike anything Clarence and his Ayn Randian overlords on the Court have ever written. Theirs, and all of "conservative" ideology, is not so much an intellectual system as a frayed and baseless dogma pandering to the very worst in human society - frantic urges and infantile impulses, political theology masquerading as thought. No wonder the job tires him so - as he so ruefully explains in the address quoted in the cited New York Times article. It's a job that sometimes requires people to at least act as if they are thinking rather than merely reacting. And since it tires him so, Theo suggests that Mr. Clarence go ahead and tender his resignation.
Cheers,
Theo
And conservatives wonder why they are in exile.
What continues to eat at Justice Thomas? White hot anger and extreme vindictiveness should not be elemets of the judicial temperament. The Justice should be a proud and joyful example to mediocrities everywhere that a seat on the Surpeme Court might well support the rear end of at least one of them.
It's the old: "It's great that I got here! Now quick, pull up the ladder so nobody else can climb up!"
Or, to put it more succinctly, "I Got Mine, You Get Bent."
I do believe you have something there. In his need to see himself as unique he needs to diminish others. A look see into his background would probably show the source of this lack in humanity and character. His mention of the crucifix in the classroom sounds ridiculous. Today there are still crucifixes and pledges in catholic schools. Is he saying that should be in all schools? This says something about his belief in his own elitism. He seems to have picked up very little of the lessons taught in that school he attended.
I would have thought that since conservatives believe that things like freedom is God-given to everyone, they might have a different view of things like Human Rights etc. But then, that might be logical and make sense.
Freedom is god-given --the freedom to be poor, sick, marginalized, lonely, abused by the rich and powerful, believe as you are told to believe, and, of course, the freedom to die when those who matter are done with you.
Thomas is a "man" who would hold his sister up to public and historical ridicule for going on welfare while she took care of an elderly great-aunt. He did not contribute to the help of this family member as I understand it. His sister was only on welfare during a short period of time. Previously and after, she worked to support herself. He is not a man of character and lives in a fantasy world where he is an imagined person of honor. He benefited from affirmative action and from the rights that other died for so he could be a Justice of the Supreme Court. How sad. No wonder he is bitter and alone.
Thank you!
This is exactly how I fell also.
Justice Thomas has disgraced himself
in the black community and has reinforced
negative images of black men in particular.
Justice Thomas should never have been given the job
and he's doing everything that he can to "drive" this
country back to the '50's-
What is even more disturbing about Thomas' mind set is that he has specifically criticized the "Loving Decision" which struck down Virginia's law against marriages between mixed race couples. He is married to a white woman (which he has every right to be) but his attitude on the subject goes beyond disgusting.
He is bitter because he is still smarting over being questioned about his sexual harassment of Anita Hill.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
