By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a speech at the University of Texas at Austin that began as a celebration of the Declaration of Independence but quickly became a critique of progressivism. Thomas asserted that progressivism was intertwined with 20th-century atrocities, including those committed by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, as well as racial segregation and eugenics. This address, analyzed by Slate’s Amicus podcast co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, was characterized by its grievance-filled narrative and a solipsistic focus on Thomas himself. The analysis highlights the irony of Thomas thanking his billionaire benefactor, Harlan Crow, in a speech that decried corruption and self-dealing.
Read the original article here
It’s genuinely disheartening when public figures, especially those in positions of immense influence, seem to lose touch with historical realities and foundational principles. Recently, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a speech that left many scratching their heads, and frankly, feeling a profound sense of sadness. The core of his remarks, as interpreted by many, was a rather jarring assertion that progressivism, in essence, paved the way for Hitler and the atrocities of the Nazi regime. This perspective, to put it mildly, feels like a profound distortion of history and a troubling example of victim-blaming on a grand scale.
The disconnect between the reality of progressivism’s aims – often rooted in advocating for equality, social justice, and the protection of marginalized groups – and the horrific outcomes of Nazi ideology is stark. To suggest that the former somehow directly led to the latter feels like a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation, of both movements. It’s a narrative that seems to ignore the vast historical context of the rise of fascism and, instead, points a finger at efforts to uplift and equalize society as the root cause of its antithesis.
This particular line of reasoning also brings to mind past controversies surrounding Justice Thomas, most notably the Anita Hill hearings. There’s a persistent echo of a past where criticism or allegations were met with deflection, and a seemingly unwavering conviction in one’s own perspective. The current speech, for many, feels like a continuation of that pattern, where complex societal issues are distilled into simplistic, and in this instance, historically dubious, causal relationships. It’s as if the very idea of progress is being cast as the villain, rather than the oppressive forces that progressivism has historically sought to combat.
One can’t help but feel a pang of disappointment when witnessing such a statement from a figure holding such a significant judicial role. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret laws and uphold the Constitution, a task that ideally requires a nuanced understanding of history, society, and the evolution of rights and freedoms. When that understanding appears to be so significantly skewed, it raises questions about the very foundations of reasoned jurisprudence. It’s a stark reminder of how removed some in positions of power can be from the lived experiences and aspirations of the broader populace.
Furthermore, the notion that progressivism is responsible for his current position as a Supreme Court Justice is, ironically, a testament to the very progress that figures like him seem to discount. It was, in part, the evolving societal landscape and the push for greater inclusivity that opened doors for individuals from diverse backgrounds to ascend to positions of power and influence. To then use that very platform to critique the forces that enabled it feels like a disavowal of his own journey and the broader struggles for civil rights and equality.
The rhetoric also carries a deeply unfortunate undertone of blaming the victim. Instead of acknowledging systemic issues or the historical oppression faced by various groups, the focus shifts to a perceived overreach or perceived annoyance of progressive ideals. This kind of narrative often serves to absolve those in power of responsibility and deflect from the need for continued societal improvement and the redress of historical injustices. It’s a disappointing stance that seems to disregard the ongoing fight for fairness and equality for all.
In essence, the speech, by attempting to link progressivism to the horrors of Nazism, feels less like a profound historical analysis and more like a sad, perhaps even desperate, attempt to reframe a complex past and present. It’s a narrative that fails to resonate with the lived realities of many who have benefited from progressive movements and who continue to strive for a more just and equitable society. The overall impression left is one of profound disconnect and a lamentable lack of historical and social understanding, making the entire spectacle, as many have observed, deeply, and regrettably, sad.