Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Reflection on The Enigma of Clarence Thomas by Corey Robin


               In this book, Corey Robin investigates Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence through three lenses: race, capitalism, and the Constitution. Robin is a liberal, and he offers a critical look at Thomas’ opinions, though I think he also does a good job of explaining them in a fair way. I finished the book with a greater understanding of and more respect for the Supreme Court justice. You learn a lot about Thomas the judge and Thomas the person because his upbringing, according to Robin, had a big effect on his philosophy.
               Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia and lived in that community until he was about seven years old, when his family moved to Savannah. He lived the rest of his childhood and teenage years there before moving to Massachusetts to study at and desegregate Holy Cross College. Robin writes that, “In college, Thomas wore a Panthers-style leather jacket and beret. He sported Black Power buttons, including one that said, “No Vietnamese ever called me Nigger” (attributed, wrongly, to Muhammad Ali). He signed his letters “Power to the People.” He championed the cause of Black Panther leaders and of Communist Party member Angela Davis, in flight from the government after being charged in connection with a politically fraught kidnapping and murder.” He was truly a radical on the left wing of the Democratic Party. But during college, he became disillusioned with liberal ideas for race relations. He decided that racism would always exist and that he preferred the racism of the South, which was obvious and apparent, to the racism of the North, which was hidden. He preferred that cruel honesty.
               Thomas is not a big believer in integration if he believes in it at all. For example, he dissented in one case in which the Court ruled against racial segregation in California prisons. Thomas argued in his dissent that it is reasonable to respond to the social reality of racism by segregating prisoners, which he thinks keeps them safe. Thomas sees separation as necessary to black success. He points out that under Jim Crow, blacks could become successful and develop their own capitalist middle class. Under integration, they ended up buying most products from white people. He would perhaps support optional integration, rather than the legally enforced integration of Brown v Board. Thomas is quoted when speaking of his own youth that, “the problem with segregation was not that we didn’t have white people in our class. The problem was that we didn’t have equal facilities. We didn’t have heating, we didn’t have books, and we had rickety chairs.… All my classmates and I wanted was the choice to attend a mostly black or a mostly white school, and to have the same resources in whatever school we chose.” The author Corey Robin writes, partially quoting Thomas that, “Thomas believes that the very fact of race mixing can be a harm to black people. When white liberals trumpet the benefits of diversity—thinking mostly of the white students who will go on to lead a diverse society, or of abject black students in desperate need of exposure to the mind and manners of whites—they overlook the fact that ‘racial (and other sorts of) heterogeneity actually impairs learning among black students.’” I understand Thomas’ perspective as trying to get out from under the system to create a parallel, rather than rising up within the system. It makes me think of Jews and Native Americans, who tend to be pushed out, rather than just down in white society.
               There’s a really strong theme in the book of the powerful and defiant black patriarch, which Robin sources to Thomas’ maternal grandfather, Myles Anderson. He respected that his grandfather created his own business and succeeded under Jim Crow and developed a preference for a free market, entrepreneurial economy, because black businesses offer ways to achieve autonomy and control. Thomas recalls his grandfather telling him that, “Once you accept [aid from the government] they can ask you whatever they want to. They can tell you whatever they want to. They can come into your home whenever they want to. They can tell you who can come and who can go, and I’d prefer to starve to death first,” and that “I never took a penny from the government because it takes your manhood away.” Robin says that Thomas’ goal is to persuade black people and especially black men to give up the idea that politics can improve their situation since they are such a small part of the population and to focus their effort on the economy, which offers African Americans more opportunities. This is where I really couldn’t understand Thomas, since the economy and politics are so closely tied together. Power in one is inherently tied to power in the other. I do, however, understand the basic idea of manhood and why taking government money can diminish that. That idea of the “defiant black patriarch” as Robin calls it comes into Thomas’ analysis of the Second Amendment. Robin writes that, “When white conservatives think of the right to bear arms, they imagine sturdy white colonials firing their muskets at redcoats and then mustering in militias, or modern-day whites guarding their doorways against government tyranny and black criminals. Thomas sees black slaves arming themselves against their masters; black freedmen defending their rights against white terrorists; and black men protecting their families from a residual and regnant white supremacy.”
               This is a highly recommendable book to anyone interested in Thomas or constitutional law. Thomas has very unique opinions on the law and is at least interesting to probe what they are for someone like me who doesn’t really agree. He seems to be an impressive thinker, though the book still leaves me with doubts. For example, if Thomas doesn’t believe in a government role in helping black people, why is he so accepting in a government role in punishing and harming them? I suppose he views the government, even in racist actions, as improving people by punishing them, but it feels inconsistent to me. This is a great book that is very clearly written. I really liked Robin’s style and he made case law come to life.

No comments:

Post a Comment