Clarence Thomas, Tough Fathers, and the Partisan Divide over Policing

The other day I watched a recent PBS “American Masters” on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas seems to be emerging from his shell a bit—he is actually asking questions during Court arguments, something he hasn’t done for decades, and now this biography, which consists largely of Thomas sitting alone and describing his life and thoughts.  

Thomas has long been a spokesman and model for black conservatives. As I write this the US is in the grip of racial unrest following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. I have no idea of Thomas’s thoughts on the current protests, but judging by his general views it is safe to say he doesn’t approve.  Unlike most African-American leaders, Thomas sees black progress as almost entirely a matter of individual effort.  Neither government programs or mass action are useful; in fact they harm African-Americans by diverting them from acquiring self-discipline and self-responsibility.  Complaining about the ‘system’ is a sign of weakness. How did he reach conclusions so at odds with the mainstream views in the African-American community?    

Thomas has a compelling life story.  He grew up poor and isolated in rural Georgia and Jim Crow Savannah.  His single mother basically gave up trying to raise him and his brother and turned them over to her parents.  It was his maternal grandfather who, according to Thomas, stamped him permanently and for the good.  He was a tough, unsentimental disciplinarian who taught that the world owes you nothing and you have to fight for everything you get.  He broached no compromises.  In 2007 Thomas wrote a biography with the revealing title My Grandfather’s Son; a review summarizes Thomas’s own description of his grandfather like this:

  • “ He never praised us, just as he never hugged us.” Beatings with belt or switch were frequent. Eventually, Thomas writes, Anderson [the grandfather] bought a new truck for his business, but he took out the heater. “The warmth, he said, would only make us lazy.”
  • His grandfather was Catholic, and in high school Thomas embarked on a program aiming for the priesthood, then quit because of the insufferable racism of his classmates and teachers (Thomas was the only black student).  His grandfather unceremoniously turned him out of the house for violating one of his key rules, always finish what you start. 

Thomas in college and law school was something of a radical, though more in his politics than his daily life.  He supported civil rights and black empowerment.  But over time his views shifted.  According to his story, when he graduated from Yale the only job offer he could get was for a position in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, offered by its Republican Attorney General, John Danforth.  In Thomas’s view,  this was because prospective employers all believed he had gotten his degree not because of individual merit, but on account of affirmative action.  (I personally find it very hard to believe that in the 1970s a talented black graduate of Yale couldn’t have more options, but it certainly rings true that Thomas would have detected skepticism about his qualifications.)

When Danforth was elected to the Senate, Thomas followed him to Washington and a series of Reagan era appointments culminating in his nomination to the Supreme Court by President Bush.  

  • Along the way he fell under the spell of natural rights purists from the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank in the Straussian orbit; it is unclear what sort of views Thomas had about Constitutional interpretation before this.  
  • With help from the conservative black economist Thomas Sowell and reading Ayn Rand—Thomas used to require his staff to watch the movie version of “The Fountainhead”—he began to tilt ever more firmly towards the hard-core originalist views he is known for today. 

In the PBS show you can see how much Thomas revels in the certainty and clarity of his newfound opinions.  When he describes how a natural rights interpretation of the law makes everything clear and simple, his eyes light up, his voice lifts, the clouds roll away.  Ambiguity and uncertainty, even about such difficult matters, clearly fills him with scorn.   

What struck me in watching is that his professional evolution in a conservative direction coincided with his embrace of his grandfather’s worldview.  After being kicked out of the house, there is no evidence Thomas had all that much contact with his grandfather.  His death seems to have come as a surprise; Thomas didn’t know his health was failing.  In the film he says this is one of his great regrets.  But as a mature adult it is the voice of his grandfather—who Thomas says is “the greatest man he ever knew”—that he begins to channel.  

The Lakoff Model. I have been thinking of this as I read a book by the linguist George Lakoff, Moral Politics.  Lakoff is a liberal Berkeley professor who is famous for a theory about the difference between conservatives and liberals that centers around different views of the family.  Conservatives, he writes, are shaped by “Strict Father Morality,” which starts with a dark view of the world and of human nature.  Life is a struggle, most people are weak and sinful, and you only succeed by developing self-discipline and a strict moral code.  Trust in others, especially people who are different in race or religion or background, is risky and naïve.  Children have to be raised with lots of “tough love,” and shaped to go against their natural inclinations to sloth and indulgence.

This underlying worldview, according to Lakoff, carries over into views of politics and public policy.   Government should be limited to a few essential tasks.  Government coddling is immoral and destructive, because it encourages weakness and dependence.  People (and businesses) need to be left to sink or swim without government interference, whether in the form of social programs or taxes and regulations.  Success, especially in business, is the truest indicator of moral virtue.  Blaming failure on a bad environment or poverty or racism is a sign of weakness.  

In conservative eyes, liberals who embrace a different model, “Nurturant Parent Morality,” are guilty of corrupting the youth by offering social programs that short-circuit the development of self-restraint.  Liberal values that emphasize tolerance and concern for the poor and disadvantaged actually hurt their intended beneficiaries.

For Thomas, affirmative action and everything associated with preferences for minorities are prime examples of liberal immorality.  Liberals deny individuality by assuming there is only one ‘correct’ way to be black. Thomas sees his conservatism as proof that he is not defined by his race or by membership in some larger group. (It is hard not to see the self-doubt here, since Thomas’s own career largely depended on special treatment.  He knows his professional rise and his Court appointment have everything to do with his race.  He has constructed a story that denies the obvious, and wrapped it in a worldview that he uses to justify claims of persecution and reverse-racism). 

Thomas seems a textbook example of the Lakoff thesis.  A boy molded by an extreme version of the “strict father” grows up to hold extreme conservative views, and to worship the man who, as he sees it, deserves praise for living according to his beliefs.  Never mind that his grandfather offered no warmth, no encouragement, nothing but criticism, punishment, and, ultimately, rejection.  This was, for Thomas, the right way to bring up a child, the only way to harden him against the slings and arrows sure to come his way.  

When they do come, in the form of Anita Hill and his confirmation hearings, Thomas is ready.  Despite ample evidence supporting her accusations (Thomas admits that during the time they interacted, he was drinking heavily and his personal life was in tatters), Thomas is adamant that it is all fabricated.  He blames not Hill so much as liberal elites who see him as not entitled to his own opinions, as not “genuinely black.” 

The Lakoff model is powerful but limited.  In real life few people are as clearcut as Thomas; most liberals have an inner “strict parent” they can draw on, and most conservatives have a nurturing side.  This is a strength, not a weakness, especially when mapped onto the larger community or the nation.  We need both worldviews, the one correcting for the other, and each available to meet the needs and crises of a changing world.

I would go further and argue that a good dose of Strict Father Morality is probably a helpful framework for the poor, the disadvantaged, the persecuted.  For most African-Americans the world is indeed a dangerous place, and success is going to require more than ordinary discipline, effort, and perseverance.  A nurturing and liberal view is more appropriate for people who live in greater comfort and security.  

This is the overall finding of the World Values Survey, a major cross-national set of opinion polls that tries to track views across cultures.  In poorer and more fragile societies, where prospects are uncertain and the ability to get an education and a job is often limited, people typically hew closer to some version of a Strict Father model, reflected in Traditional values.  As incomes and education rise, Self-Expression values come to the fore.  Over the three decades of the survey one can track clear shifts in Western Europe and North America, with support for issues like gay marriage gaining strength in synch with rising GDP, higher education levels, and greater urbanization.  

Conservatism and Reaction. What the WVS does not quite capture, however, is the interaction between these worldviews.  The transition from one to the other is not placid and seamless.  As conservative values decline, their adherents become angrier and more afraid.  What were once largely unquestioned judgments, viewed as simply natural or obvious, are attacked as partial and conventional.   Here in the US every year the number of “others”—minorities, educated urbanites, coastal elites, the unchurched—seems to grow, while the number of white rural Protestants declines.  The adherents of the new “nurturing morality” can be contemptuous of the old ways.   A reaction often sets in that champions more uncompromising versions of traditional or religious values.  

We saw this dynamic consume Islam and produce spasms of incredible violence.  Here in the US it has not come to that.  Yet. 

Thomas is clearly a product not of some original “Strict Father” unreflective conservatism, as practiced by his grandfather.  He is a champion of a new, harder-edged, self-conscious and ideologically-informed conservatism.  He is, I would argue, no longer a conservative but a reactionary.

The deliberate, conscious choice of a reactionary path may explain one of Lakoff’s most telling observations, that conservatives are much more effective in messaging and articulating their values than liberals.  They are more aware of how views of family and morality relate to politics.  Liberals seem to think people vote, or should vote, in accord with reasoned appeals to their self-interest.  This is largely wrong.  People vote on the basis of their identities and perceived values.

Liberals are continually surprised when voters act against their “self-interest,” usually understood as the immediate economic benefits of picking one party over the other.  Conservatives understand that prejudices and strongly-held worldviews can often overcome self-interest.  Republicans have directed their appeals to self-interest narrowly at the rich and powerful few, while making emotional appeals to the identities and perceived moral values of the lower-class many.

I think this self-awareness is a product of the transition described above.  Conservatives, on the defensive from massive social and economic changes, have been forced to figure out how to defend themselves.  Liberals, who generally see their cause as inevitable and historically-determined (on the “right side of history”), have been complacent.  

Policing. The divide between conservative/reactionary and liberal views is now at the center of our debate over police violence and the best response.  For decades Americans have largely chosen to beef up the police and the rest of the criminal justice system on the assumption that more law enforcement, more “strict fatherhood,” will eventually teach criminals their lesson. 

The video of George Floyd being slowly and calmly killed has temporarily cracked this worldview.  It has forced its defenders to acknowledge that something is badly wrong.  All this toughness has inevitably fallen most heavily on African Americans and other minorities. Arresting and incarcerating African American men at shocking rates (African Americans are incarcerated at over five times the rate of whites) has eviscerated whole communities and furthered not just distrust of the police but alienation from the entire American system.  

Will this lead a majority to rethink a reliance on force and intimidation as the correct, moral, rational way to reduce crime?  Maybe. Thomas himself recently argued that the Supreme Court should re-consider the legal doctrine of immunity for police actions.  But advocates of de-funding the police want to shift resources from policing to community services: less punishment, more support.  This goes against the core values of most conservatives, and not a few middle-class liberals, who have a deep fear of disorder and see the poor (and minorities) as threatening forces who must—for their own good—be taught discipline and respect for the law.

What Thomas is Up To. I noted at the start that it is surprising to see the normally reticent Thomas speak up.  I do not think for one second that this is without some strategic intent. My best guess is that he is trying to tear down Joe Biden and influence the coming election.  During the documentary we see frequent clips of the confirmation hearings, with then-Senator Biden leading the interrogation and allowing Anita Hill to make her case.  

Thomas clearly despises the entire process, and the film is his opportunity to give Biden a beating.  Biden for instance asks Thomas a question about natural law, and Thomas in the movie says:   “I have no idea what he was talking about. One of the things you do in hearings, is you have to sit there and look attentively at people you know have no idea what they’re talking about.”  

The Thomas hearings were not Biden’s best moment, though maybe not for the reasons Thomas thinks.  Thomas may judge it useful to remind voters of this episode in Biden’s career.  

The System is Blinking Red, Part Two: Scenarios

In Part 1 I laid out the argument for thinking that Trump and many of his supporters would welcome an opportunity to use the military and/or domestic police forces, together with supportive white militias, to impose martial law or force an armed confrontation with their opponents.   In Part 2 I consider how this might happen. 

Key Findings 

The most direct opportunity will come with the November election.  A close election, whichever side wins, provides opportunities for Trump to instigate violent confrontations and call on militias and security forces. 

A clearcut victory for Vice-President Biden would make violence and instability less likely, but not impossible.  If Trump sees his prospects for victory declining, he could try to manufacture a domestic crisis before November as a vehicle to increase his popularity, or postpone the election. 

The lack of a widely-accepted and impartial arbiter for election disputes increases the chances of violence and political instability. The response of the military could end up being decisive.

Scenarios

Big Biden Win.  The best case for American political stability is an overwhelming win for Joe Biden.  If the popular vote and electoral college numbers are so lopsided that even Fox News is forced to admit defeat, it will be difficult for Trump loyalists to mobilize and take to the streets.  Not impossible—it is almost certain that Trump will try to make a case for voter fraud or some other rationale for losing.  But it will be difficult to gain traction if the electoral result is not close.

Trump could try to resist the results on substantive rather than procedural grounds by claiming that his defeat paves the way for “socialism” or some other catastrophe.  Having Biden as the candidate, however, makes this tactic more difficult.

  • It is hard to make the centrist Biden the poster child for a radical Left-Wing takeover.  
  • Trump’s attacks are likely to focus more on Biden’s choice for Vice-President, especially if she is a progressive and/or a woman of color.

A big win for Trump appears highly unlikely.  His popularity has been declining as a result of his mishandling of COVID-19 and his incoherent response to the killing of George Floyd.  The fear of losing power, however, could make him prone to try and force some kind of confrontation with perceived opponents before the election to cement his reputation as a law and order leader, or to create conditions to postpone the election or justify restrictions on how it is held.  

A Close Biden Win.  A Biden win where the electoral college numbers are close will produce a spike in political tensions that is almost certain to include violence.  Such a result is certain to be disputed by the Trump campaign.  Narrow Trump losses in some of the “battleground states,” particularly those with Democratic governors like Wisconsin and Michigan, would make room for a narrative of fraud and manipulation.

  • The Republican Party and associated private groups are putting together a coordinated effort to aggressively monitor polling sites as a way to intimidate voters and lay the grounds to claim widespread voter fraud, according to the New York Times. 

A path to declaring a state of emergency or martial law would open up if Trump refuses to concede, opponents take to the streets in large numbers and there are confrontations and violence.  It is easy to see a strategy of encouraging armed militias to oppose protestors, sow violence and disorder, and using that as a pretext to refuse to recognize the election results and/or declare a state of emergency.   

A Close Trump Win.  A narrow Trump win in the electoral college, similar to 2016, would also set the stage for political and social instability.  Such a victory, especially if Trump again loses the popular vote by a wide margin, would likely be seen as illegitimate by many Americans.  Democrats would blame voter intimidation and external intervention by foreign actors, such as Russia, who attempted in 2016 to intervene on Trump’s behalf and seem poised to do the same again.  

A large number, perhaps a majority, of Americans would see four more years of President Trump as an existential threat to our democratic system and to specific vital interests.  Political norms—the independence of the judiciary and the FBI, free and fair elections, an independent press—and policy priorities—women’s rights, minority rights, healthcare, global warming and the environment, America’s standing in the world, the treatment of immigrants, economic equity and well-being—would be threatened.  The corruption and dismantling of the federal government, already well underway in the past four years, would likely become irreversible.    

In this scenario it would be a mistake to assume the reaction would be peaceful or adhere to traditional norms.  We could expect massive demonstrations—the 2017 Woman’s March on steroids—against a continuation of the Trump Administration.  Some state or city governments could become loci for opposition and resistance to Washington, and the country could threaten to divide between red and blue states.  

Trump retains the largely unqualified support of a hardcore of committed partisans, Fox News and other media outlets, and most nationally elected Republicans.  Trump and these backers  would be inclined to welcome the opportunity to create a climate of fear that would make it easy to paint opponents as radicals and justify strengthening executive power.  

An important variable affecting the intensity of the response could be election results in the Senate.  If Democrats win both Houses of the legislature, they might accept this as a sufficient check on the President, with the possibility of successful impeachment as their ace in the hole.  This result, however, could lead quickly to instability. 

  • The national government could expect policy gridlock for the foreseeable future, with no progress on key issues, and near-constant attempts to block Administration appointments and investigate White House decisions. 
  • Democrats would at some point almost certainly restart impeachment proceedings, a recipe for further confrontations and a plausible impetus for a desperate White House to find an excuse to mobilize supporters and impose a state of emergency. 

Lack of Legitimate Arbiter. A grave danger is that with a contested election there may be no institution that would be accepted by the majority of Americans to adjudicate the results.  It would be easy for both sides to cast doubt on state election systems, demand recounts, and challenge results in court.  Competing claims will confuse many Americans and make it easy to default to partisan preferences.

  • Trump has spent considerable time and energy saying vote by mail is illegitimate and establishing the grounds for rejecting election results.   
  • Liberal opponents have zeroed in on voter suppression, as well as biased electoral commissions, gerrymandering, foreign interference, and failure to plan for election safety under pandemic conditions. 

The federal judiciary is not likely to be viewed as impartial. The Administration and the Republican majority Senate have over the past three years prioritized appointing loyalist judges throughout the federal judiciary.  Attorney General William Barr has consistently supported unrestricted Presidential authority and can be expected to enthusiastically back the White House in any legal challenges to unfavorable election results.       

Democrats have a much more negative view of today’s Supreme Court than Republicans, and may not accept its rulings on charged issues of party politics.  The current 5-4 conservative majority is the result of Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s 2016 decision to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement for Antonin Scalia.  

  • Democrats believe a conservative majority Court intervened questionably on the side of Republicans in 2000.  They are unlikely to accept a similar ruling again. 
  • Rulings by this court in favor of Biden would have considerable weight with both sides because it would be seen as going against the Court’s ideological bias.  Rulings for Trump, however, would likely be rejected by Democrats and liberals as further evidence that the Court is not impartial.    

Military Response Crucial.  In the US, as in many cases of internal conflict and instability around the globe, the response of the military could be decisive.  From the start of his term, Trump went out of his way to portray himself as a supporter of the military.  He appointed serving and retired military officers to key positions—Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and Chief of Staff.  He advocated large increases in the military budget, and lavished praise on people in uniform. It is plausible to assume that this was designed to win the military to his side in the event of a political crisis.  

How effective this has been is unclear.  Trump has blasted senior military leadership (in 2017 he called the Joint Chiefs of Staff “dopes and babies”) and interfered with decisions normally seen as the prerogative of the services; his ignorance of national security issues, and his disrespect for former Senator and military hero John McCain, have cut into his support. Senior (mostly retired) military officers have recently taken Trump to task publicly over the use of the military against domestic protestors, and more generally over his leadership style and foreign policy choices.  Polling in the military suggests that half of the men and women in the ranks now disapprove of Trump; officers are even more critical. 

Nevertheless the military is predisposed to obey a sitting President and is extremely reluctant to be seen as taking political sides.  It is unclear how military leaders would react if ordered to impose martial law or stop violent protests under conditions of uncertainty and competing appeals from elected officials.

No Plan, But a Consistent Aim. There is no evidence of a careful plan to seize power or postpone the November elections.  As with many Trump goals, we see inclinations and leanings, along with acts and tweets designed to “test the waters” and judge how the country might react.  Trump has, however, consistently expressed strong admiration for authoritarian methods of rule and tough leaders, and frustration with every aspect of the American constitutional system that restricts the President’s autonomy and freedom of action.  

The run-up to the election could be particularly dangerous if Trump continues to lose  ground.  Psychologists, biographers, and people who have worked closely with Trump have described a personality that is extremely narcissistic:  sensitive to slights, eager to avoid any perception of weakness, highly self-absorbed, and prone to lash out or act impulsively when under stress.  

The prospect of losing would bring out the worst aspects of this narcissistic psychology.  Trump has gone to great lengths to claim popular support, such as his false assertions about the size of his inauguration crowd and the reasons he lost the popular vote in 2016.  If Trump sees a majority of the population turning against him, there is no limit to what he might say or do to show strength and shore up his self-image.