Clarence Thomas' Remarks on Progressivism, its Foundations, History and Impact

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominent among them, the 28th president of our country, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism. Since Wilson's presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life.

It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever. Progressivism was not native to America.

Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck's Germany, whose state-centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power, nearly perfected. He acknowledged that it was a foreign science speaking very little of the language of English or American principle, which offers none but what are, to our minds, alien ideas.

He thus described America still stuck with its original system of government as, quote, slow to see the superiority of the European system. But 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. Progressives strove to undo the Declaration's commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident.

To Wilson, the unalienable rights of the individual were, quote, a lot of nonsense. Wilson redefined liberty not as a natural right attendant and acedent to the government, but as, quote, the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests. In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.

The government, as Wilson reconceived it, would be, quote, beneficent and indispensable. Progressives such as John Dewey attacked the framers for believing that their ideas were immutable truth, good for all times and places, when instead they were, according to him, historically conditioned and relevant only in their own time. Now Dewey and the progressives argued those ideas are to be displaced.

Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.

You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people. Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as, quote, selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, and foolish. He lamented that we do too much by vote and too little by expert rule.

He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as tools. He once again aspired to be like Germany, where the people, he said admiringly, were docile and acquiescent. The century of progressivism did not go well.

The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao, all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our declaration are based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.

It was a terrible mistake to adopt progressivism's rejection of the declaration's vision of universal, unalienable natural rights. Wilson's claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress could justify the greatest mistake in our history. In Plessy versus Ferguson, my court upheld Louisiana's system of racial segregation because, quote, separate but equal, it observed, was reasonable in light of the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people and with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order.

It comes as no surprise that the progressives embraced eugenics. Progressives believed that Darwinian science, the idea of ever-advancing progress written into biology itself, had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races. It was only a small step for Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce.

It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce, upheld by my court in Buck v. Bell in an opinion written by no less a figure than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. We can argue over whether you believe in immutable, absolute natural rights or the Wilsonian idea of ever-progressing history. Indeed, your school of civic leadership was created to host just such arguments.

But let me ask you to consider the consequences. European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world with its weak, decentralized government and strong individual rights. They say our 18th century declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government.

But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bonds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Fascism, which after all was national socialism, triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions. The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people.

This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good of notions of history, progress, or as Thomas Sowell has written, the visions of the anointed. None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the declaration. Tocqueville's Democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule, root and branch.

Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the declaration, and I quote, if all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.

If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which they can proceed historically is not forward but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individuals, no rule of the people.

When Abraham Lincoln addressed the assembled crowd at Gettysburg, they had gathered to memorialize the past, but Lincoln's address urged them to not do so with complacency. Instead, Lincoln said, they should look to the past as inspiration to take them to greater heights in the future, and I quote, it is rather for us to be here, dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we were highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. As we are gathered to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, it may be tempting to do so, if we, it may be tempted to do so as if we are passive spectators.

It may be tempting to enjoy our tea and crumpets, treat the Declaration like a shiny object or a keepsake, and listen to the sound of our own voices. We could get into debates over whose conception of the founding is better, over how we are so much better than our founders were, over what we would do differently. We could be careful to not do anything that exposes us to criticism, costs us friends, or hurts our career prospects, but in my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had, so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.

Each of you will have opportunities to be courageous every day, whether your calling in life is as a day laborer, a stay-at-home mom, a small business owner, an educator, an office worker, a judge, or some other endeavor. It may mean speaking up in class tomorrow when someone around you expects you to live by lies. It may mean confronting today's fashionable bigotries, such as anti-Semitism.

It may mean standing up for your religion when it is mocked and disparaged by a professor. It may mean not budging on your principles when it will entail losing friends or being ostracized. It may mean running for your school board when you see that they are teaching your children to hate your values and our country.

It may mean turning down a job offer that requires you to make moral or ethical compromises. One thing I do know to be true, it will mean waking up every day with the resolve to withstand unfair criticism and attacks. These are the choices that will confront you, and you must decide whether to respond with timidity or with courage.

As the signers of the Declaration did. It will, of course, not be easy, it never is. But if, like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and to sustain you through it all.

You will disappoint people you thought were friends and endure personal attacks, as well as attacks on those you care about. But if you stand, you will find that courage, like cowardice, can be habit-forming, and it will become a part of your life and a part of who you are. And I may dare say it is liberating.

You will also be a living example for others to emulate. So by all means, celebrate the Declaration of Independence. It is the most important act of American history, the foundation of our Constitution, and as Lincoln said, the sheet anchor of our republic.

But I implore you to celebrate it by standing up for it, by defending it, and by recommitting yourselves to living up to its ideals. Channel the courage of the men who faced down a king and signed it, or a president who led the nation in a civil war, rather than permit this house to be divided by the great contradiction of slavery. Take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure.

And with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, let us mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Thank you, and may God continue to bless our country.