Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered an insightful and important speech at the University of Texas recently that I wish every American could have heard.
Because that wasn’t possible, I will do my best to report and interpret what Justice Thomas, a staid originalist and rigorous champion of the Constitution, said.
Speaking to commemorate the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, he offered a pointed critique of progressivism, which he described as an “existential threat” to the nation’s founding principles and to America itself.
“Progressivism holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,” Thomas said. “It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.”
Strong words to be sure. But Justice Thomas backed them up with a solid argument constructed of logic and reason, not the crutch of emotion and mawkishness that proponents of progressivism rely on.
He focused on the ideological conflict between the founding principles of 1776 and the “Progressive Movement” that emerged in the early 20th century.
Thomas argued that progressivism is fundamentally opposed to the Declaration of Independence. He stated that while the Declaration views rights as God-given and inalienable, progressivism holds that rights and dignity come from the government.
He traced the roots of modern progressivism back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Thomas argued that Wilson and his contemporaries sought to “undo the declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights” and instead promote a system of government by experts in which our rights are given to us by the government, not a deity.
“Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement—with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War—to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration of Independence,” he said.
Justice Thomas warned that the two philosophies cannot live together indefinitely, saying, “It is not possible for the two to coexist forever.” He suggested that progressivism requires a level of “subservience and weakness” from the people that is incompatible with a Constitution based on individual liberty.
“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” he said.
Thomas linked the rise of global progressivism today to the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century, including Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Maoist China. He argued these movements were intertwined with the rejection of natural rights that the American Founders championed. He urged the audience—specifically younger generations—not to be “passive spectators” as the 250th anniversary of America approaches. He called for a recommitment to the “devotion” and “courage” of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence to defend the country’s founding ideals.
“The principles of the Declaration of Independence, as I encountered them, are a way of life,” Thomas said. “They’re not an abstract theory that you only learn in college or law school, but the basic premises of our Constitution.”
He noted that progressives “strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident.”
In his closing remarks, Justice Thomas urged the audience to actively defend these founding principles rather than remaining passive.
“I think if we don’t stand up and take ownership of our country and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think,” he warned.
“If you think it’s losing confidence, then you get up, and you participate. You don’t sit on the sidelines,” Thomas continued. “In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.”
Thomas referred to his own upbringing in the segregated South to illustrate why he believes the Supreme Court must be courageous.
“For 60 disgraceful years, the court’s Plessy v. Ferguson ruling made American children like me grow up in a racial caste system because it was easier to do nothing than to do the right thing.”
Justice Thomas has hit a nerve here, demonstrating the drawbacks of the modern progressive movement and the socialists and communists who have commandeered the Democratic Party.
When I examine the tenets and precepts of progressivism, I see a substantial list of reasons why I agree with Justice Thomas—not that he needs my affirmation. As I said before, Thomas is an originalist who possesses a deep respect for the Constitution as written, not one that can be molded like putty to fit every social and political fad or whim that some progressive decides to adopt.
For example, progressivism is responsible for creating today’s vast administrative state, and as a result, power has shifted from elected representatives to unelected “experts” in federal agencies, creating a “fourth branch of government” that lacks direct accountability to voters. That’s a key portion of the Washington swamp that conservatives often condemn.
Moral relativism is another segment of the progressive agenda. By viewing rights and laws as evolving rather than “natural” or “inherent,” progressivism undermines the stability of the legal system.
There is also the progressive movement’s constant economic Intervention. Progressive regulations and redistributive policies stifle innovation and infringe upon individual property rights.
Then, there is the progressive view of the Constitution itself. The Founders viewed the Constitution as a fixed framework that could be changed only through formal amendment. Early progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson, argued that it should be a “living” document that evolves with societal needs, rather than the slow process of amendments.
The Founders emphasized negative liberty (freedom from government interference). Progressivism pursues positive liberty (government-provided resources), which requires a much larger and more active federal role than originally envisioned in 1776.
The Founders designed a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power. Critics argue that progressivism seeks to bypass these “deadlocks” to achieve social goals more efficiently.
Rather than viewing the government as a “night watchman” whose only job is to protect existing rights and property, progressives believe the state has a responsibility to intervene in the economy and social structures to ensure fairness, equity, and progress.
But I have to ask, who is the final arbiter of this fairness, equity, and progress? In today’s administrative state, it is often those unelected bureaucrats in dozens of bloated government agencies—not the voters or their elected representatives.
The fact is, while proponents see progressivism as the engine of human advancement, opponents see it as a path toward over-regulation and the loss of individual liberty in favor of collective goals.
The loss of individual liberties in favor of collective goals? Collectivism? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?”
Sounds like communism to me.
In any case, thank you, Justice Thomas, for reminding us that our Constitution is not inviolate. It needs our constant surveillance and protection from those who view it as a catalog of quaint ideas that can be effaced and rewritten whenever the social and political winds shift.
–30–
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to ForeignCorrespondent and tell your friends to subscribe. “It’s free—what a deal!” If you’ve received this from a friend and would like to be added to our distribution list for future blog posts, simply enter your email in the notifications box to sign up:
https://ronaldyatesbooks.com/category/foreign-correspondent.
You can also find my commentaries on Substack at https://ronyates.substack.com/ and the American Free News Network at https://afnn.us.
Please feel free to comment: We genuinely love hearing from you!
