Corey Robin's Blog, page 21

Politics in a Time of Plague

I hope this post finds all of you healthy and safe. It’s been a terrible month, more than a month, for so many people.

The New York Review of Books asked me to write something about pandemics and politics. How, they asked me to consider, is it possible to do democracy under quarantine?

I decided to flip the question. Much of what is called democracy, after all, presumes the quarantine of vast parts of the citizenry, that they be kept isolated, politically if not physically.

So the real question, it seems to me, is how have isolated and separated men and women, often under great duress, nevertheless managed to create democracy over the ages?

That’s what I wrote about here, with a little help from Frederick Douglass, Betty Friedan, Primo Levi, and the best of the best: Frances Fox Piven. Here’s a small excerpt:

When people express concern about the consequences of pandemic politics for democracy, they are thinking of a fairly familiar, and limited, repertoire of activities—voting, primaries, conventions, marching in the streets. But the counter-tradition of inauspicious democracy teaches us that the world of established institutions and familiar tactics, even if those tactics once belonged to protest movements past, is not the only place to look for democracy. It presses us instead to look at those networks of interdependency that Piven spoke of, to see how subordinate classes might use as leverage the dependence of their superiors (and society) upon these subordinates, to bring about a greater democratization of the whole.

Isolation, it has been pointed out, is a luxury many men and women in the United States cannot now afford and will probably never enjoy. For many in the working class, and some in the professional classes, there is no withdrawal from public spaces to a place of greater safety at home. These men and women are picking lettuce, boxing groceries, delivering packages, driving buses and trains, riding buses and trains, filling prescriptions, operating registers, caring for the elderly, taking care of the sick, burying the dead. Though these disparities understandably arouse a sense of deep unease, and guilt among those who are their beneficiary, there is a dimension to this inequity that has gone overlooked. The state designates these men and women to be “essential workers,” and while that designation has earned those workers little more than a patronizing thanks for their “selflessness” from President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, and other worthies, the designation is nonetheless a recognition of their potential power right now. Power that some have begun to wield.

You can read the rest here.

A couple of months ago, I wrote another piece for the New York Review of Books website. It seems like from another world. But it was about the Iowa Caucuses and what they mean for democracy. I don’t think I ever posted about that piece here, so I am now.

I’ve got two more pieces coming out in the coming weeks/months: a long essay on American communism, which doubles as a review of Vivian Gornick’s Romance of American Communism and Jodi Dean’s Comrade; and another long essay on Max Weber. I’ll post them here when they do.

To everyone who’s reading: I hope that if you are healthy, you are healthy, and that if you’re sick, you get better.

2019 In Writing

I did a lot of writing this year. This is a brief list of some of my favorites.

My book, The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, came out. It got some pretty great reviews. You should buy it.

I began writing for The New Yorker Online, which has been a joy.

My first piece was on political converts, men and women who make the journey from one ideology to another, and why the move from left to right has mattered more, over the course of the last century, than the move from right to left.

My second piece was on Eric Hobsbawm, a Communist and a historian, and how his failure at the first made possible his success at the second.

My last piece was an excerpt from my book on Clarence Thomas. It was selected by The New Yorker as “one of our biggest stories of 2019.”

I wrote three other pieces for other venues.

The first was a lengthy essay in Dissent on a bunch of memoirs from the Obama administration. It was at the top of the list of the magazine’s “most read pieces” of 2019.

The second was a much shorter piece I did for Boston Review on what Hayek has to teach the left about politics, morals, and economics.

The last was a very short piece for New York Magazine on what happens when journalists get too close to academics, and vice versa. This, as it turns out, was one of the more controversial pieces I’ve written over the years. A lot of people didn’t like it; there was a lot of argument about it on social media. It also was the occasion for an interesting discussion on On the Media.

Speaking of journalism and academia, I’m working on a long piece on Max Weber, a scholar who did journalism (and tried to do politics). Stay tuned for that some time in the new year.

I’m also working on a combined review of Jodi Dean’s Comrade, which I’m loving, and Vivian Gornick’s The Romance of American Communism, which I’ve long been a fan of and which is being reissued this coming year.

And once I’m done with that, I’ve got a piece to do on Adam Smith, empathy, and markets.

Oh, and Alex Gourevitch and I have written an academic article on freedom and the left. It should be out sometime in the coming year (though academic publishing schedules are wonky).

On a completely unrelated note, I taught, among other things, a new intro course in political theory this past fall. We read Plato’s Republic, Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth. That was it. I’ve never taught a course with so few texts, but it was a great experience. The students, almost all of them first-years, were amazing, finding connections between these three very different texts that I hadn’t seen or considered. We did a lot of very careful and close reading. I hope it was as much fun for them as it was for me.

Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year.

P.S. You’ll notice that the blog has a slightly new look. Thanks to designer Remeike Forbes for all the work on it these past few months and over the years.

On C-SPAN tomorrow, a conversation between me and Jamelle Bouie on Clarence Thomas

If you missed my conversation with Jamelle Bouie at the New York Public Library about The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, not to worry: it will be aired tomorrow night, Saturday, October 12, at 9 pm (East Coast time) on C-SPAN.

Also, if you want to see a conversation in person, I’ll be talking with Rebecca Traister about the book at the Community Bookstore in Brooklyn, on Thursday, October 24, at 7 pm. Really looking forward to that event.

Doug Henwood interviewed me about the book on his show Behind the News. We talked about how Thomas’s views echo some of the arguments set out by Max Horkheimer in his famous 1936 essay “Authority and the Family,” and why it’s the wrong question to ask for evidence of where Thomas breaks with the right.

In case you missed it, there was a fantastic review of the book by Orlando Patterson (I still can’t get over this) in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. It’s already online and should be appearing in print in the coming weeks. There was also Jennifer Szalai’s rave review in the daily New York Times.

The Harvard legal scholar Kenneth Mack had an excellent review of the book in the Washington Post.

And there will be more reviews and interviews coming up; stay tuned.

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas on sale today!

 

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas goes on sale today, with the help of a rave review in this morning’s New York Times. In the Times, Jennifer Szalai writes:

It’s a provocative thesis, but one of the marvels of Robin’s razor-sharp book is how carefully he marshals his evidence. He doesn’t have to resort to elaborate speculation or armchair psychologizing, relying instead on Thomas’s speeches, interviews and Supreme Court opinions. Just as jurists make ample use of the written record, Robin does the same.

…

The result is rigorous yet readable, frequently startling yet eminently persuasive.

…

It isn’t every day that reading about ideas can be both so gratifying and unsettling, and Robin’s incisive and superbly argued book has made me think again.

The book was excerpted two weeks ago in The New Yorker. It also has been widely reviewed—in Bookforum, The Atlantic, Harper’s, and National Review, which, despite the criticisms, called the book “thoroughly researched and engagingly written…a valuable and overdue engagement,” and elsewhere.

You can buy the book at Amazon, or if you prefer other vendors, there’s a list here.

Enjoy—and look forward to hearing your thoughts!

They Came From Everywhere

Last night, my wife Laura organized a terrific debate watch party for Bernie Sanders supporters at a local bar. About 40 to 50 people showed up.

The best part of it was that while most people were firm Bernie supporters, a fair number were not. They were Bernie-curious, but undecided. They came because of friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, and so on, who brought them there. So it felt like a base-expanding moment.

Even better, I had an interesting conversation with one woman, who is a definite Bernie supporter, and her boyfriend, who is less certain about Bernie. They’re both nurses. Her parents immigrated from China about 30 years ago. She lives in Sheepshead Bay. So she told me she identifies with Bernie at that level: Bernie and she are both children of immigrants who grew up in Brooklyn. Her boyfriend likes Bernie because he, the boyfriend, has a ton of student debt. She likes Bernie because he’s got new ideas, she said.

It all made me think of that opening line in Vivian Gornick’s Romance of American Communism: They came from everywhere.

When Politics Becomes Professional: From the Obamanauts to the New Deal

The historian Josh Freeman has an excellent review of Michael Walzer’s Political Action, which came out in 1971 but has been reissued by NYRB Books. Freeman compares Walzer’s short pamphlet to the Manual of Practical Political Action, another how-to political guide, prepared in 1946 by the labor movement’s National Citizens Political Action Committee (NCPAC), one of the first modern PACs. Both texts were written at moments of political deceleration, when the velocities of change were about to alter dramatically or already had.

But here’s what Josh says about that earlier moment that’s relevant for today:

For NCPAC…organizing requires strategies that are not inherently progressive. Somewhat apologetically, the Manual suggests borrowing techniques from commercial advertising, presenting detailed guidance, much of it derived from standard business practices, about newspaper advertising, radio spots, and direct mail. The Popular Front from which it had emerged well understood the mechanics of persuasion, with one foot in working-class movements and another in the creative professions, from theater to cinema to advertising and the graphic arts. The idea of organizing as a politically neutral enterprise requiring specialized knowledge has had a long afterlife. Perhaps its most influential reincarnation was through Saul Alinsky and his many followers. Glimpses of it can be seen in Barack Obama’s account of his community organizing days in Dreams from My Father.

But, of course, technique goes only so far. For all its meticulous cataloging of knowledge needed for effective organizing, from billboard advertising rates in thirty different cities to how to use skits to enliven meetings (include ones written by Arthur Miller about inflation and civil rights), NCPAC got creamed in the 1946 congressional elections. The Republicans, campaigning against the New Deal, organized labor, prices increases, and the ineptitude of the Truman administration, won control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1930. Among other things, the Democratic defeat opened the door to the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, the beginning of a rollback of labor power that has continued ever since.

How quickly and easily a Popular Front-inspired left-wing cultural politics got turned into, and ultimately reduced to, a Madison Avenue-style campaign of political advertising!

Radical organizers always know that the work they’re doing is not simply political; it’s also ideological and ultimately cultural. They really are transforming people in fundamental ways. (This fall, I’m teaching Plato’s Republic for the first time in many years, and it’s hard to think of a more concrete instance of the kind of soulcraft that Plato describes there than the labor movement in its heyday.) In the case of the left wing of the New Deal, that cultural politics had an additional side to it: left-wing cultural producers in Hollywood, on the radio and TV, and on Madison Avenue (of which there were more than a few) saw themselves engaged in a task of radical transformation, changing souls through the popular arts.

(For a wonderful look back on this moment from a different vantage, read this interview Josh Cohen just did with the economist Samuel Bowles, whose father, Chester Bowles, was in the Roosevelt Administration. After the war, Bowles wrote an economic pamphlet that sought to popularize and explain Keynesianism to a mass audience. Bowles, too, had his origins in Madison Avenue, and he sought to use all the skills of persuasion he learned there on behalf of a consumer’s republic.)

But like all politics, cultural politics has its ebbs and flows. The entire left got creamed in and after 1946—not just the Democrats in Congress but also the hundreds of thousands of strikers who launched one of the most massive strike waves in American history that year, only to see their efforts ultimately met by Taft-Hartley and the general repression of the McCarthy era. But in the case of cultural politics, we see demolition and winnowing, an efflorescence turned inward, the sprawling movements that connected labor to Hollywood to Madison Avenue reduced to professionalized advertising.

I’ve just finished a lengthy piece on the memoirs of the Obama administration, and one of the most striking elements of those reminiscences is how fluidly and fluently the Obamanauts channel the activist traditions of the 1960s into the professional (neo)liberal politics of the Democratic Party since the 1980s. That translation had already begun in the 1970s, with the election of black mayors and other black officials. Back then, however, there was more awareness that the electoral turn was a diminution (perhaps necessary but nonetheless a diminution) of the mass movement in the streets. As one representative publication of black activists put it: “The marching has stopped.” Professional politics was what replaced it. By the time of Obama’s election, that awareness of diminution had been completely lost. His election was viewed as simply another step forward.

If you read the Obamanauts too quickly, theirs can seem to be a story exclusively about race and the civil rights movement and politics since the 1960s: how the motifs of the black freedom struggle are translated into the election of the first black president. But read against the arc of the New Deal, the Obama neoliberal story comes to seem part of something larger and longer. The labor movement, the Popular Front, the left—they all had a similar moment of professionalization.

To be clear: all movements need leaders, elected officials, bureaucrats, and, yes, professionals. While bureaucracies and leadership get a lot of shit from the left for shutting down radicalism, there’s a strong argument to be made (and that I largely agree with) that bureaucracies and leadership help sustain radical activism at its most powerful moments and that they help preserve the fruits of that activism long after it has died down.

The tragedy of the stories Freeman tells and I’ve read in the Obamanaut memoirs is how easy it is to forget the radical origins and roots of those bureaucracies and leaderships, how once the work of repression (and other political factors) is done (often with the help of those leaders and bureaucracies, as we saw during the McCarthy era), all we’re left with is a professionalized political class, who can’t even mix memory and desire, who have not even the wish, much less capacity, to stir dull roots with spring rain.

Book Launch with Jamelle Bouie at the New York Public Library

I’m thrilled to announce the launch of my book, The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, at the New York Public Library. I’ll be in conversation with New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie. The launch will be on Monday, September 23, at 7 pm. It’ll be in the Berger Forum, on the second floor of the main branch of the library, at 42nd Street and 5th Avenue. Tickets are free, but they’re on a first come, first serve basis, so reserve them now. You can do so here. Hope to see all of you who can make it!

When you hear a familiar voice at the other end of the line…

About six weeks ago I got a call from a number in DC I didn’t recognize. I answered the phone warily, saying hello more as a question than a greeting. At the other end, I heard, “Professor Robin?” “Who’s this?” I asked. “It’s Nina Totenberg from NPR.” I started cracking up, almost uncontrollably, and finally said, hi, hi, of course, Nina Totenberg. She noted that I sounded “furtive.” I noted that I didn’t recognize the number.

Anyway, we wound up having a lovely chat about Clarence Thomas. Totenberg is as warm and friendly and personable on the phone as she is on air.

On Friday, a small bit of our conversation made it into the segment she did on Thomas in Morning Edition.

Here’s some other book-related news.

The first advance review of the Thomas book is in. It’s at Kirkus. They call it “a penetrating profile of the Supreme Court’s longest-serving justice.”

Here’s the full review:

Analyzing speeches, court opinions, and Thomas’ writings, Robin (Political Science/Brooklyn Coll. and CUNY Graduate Center; The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Donald Trump, 2017, etc.) argues persuasively that Thomas’ right-wing conservatism and black nationalism make him “the most extreme justice on the Supreme Court.” Thomas, writes the author, believes “that racism is permanent, the state is ineffective, and politics is feeble.” Noting that he rejects “virtually all of Thomas’s views,” Robin warns against dismissing them, and he presents them in detail along with critiques from other justices and analysts. Central to Thomas’ beliefs is the valorization of the black male provider and protector, “a figure of authority whose word is law for the women and children under his care.” Black men, “stolid, moral, responsible, authoritative, upstanding,” are essential to the black community. For Thomas, white racism and liberal politics combine to undermine black interests. Blacks, therefore, “should cease to look to electoral politics as a means of bettering their situation; any involvement in electoral politics will only confirm white power and reinforce black powerlessness.” Efforts such as affirmative action, for example, reinforce black powerlessness by failing to treat blacks and whites as equals, defining blacks as “inferior and deficient.” When Thomas considers the incarceration rate for blacks and liberals’ cry for judicial and prison reform, he counters that “the racist dimensions of the carceral state” actually benefit African Americans: Harsh policing protects black neighborhoods from crime, and stringent punishment fosters law-abiding behavior. Adversity—even slavery and society under Jim Crow—“helps the black community develop its inner virtue and resolve.” Acknowledging that we are all trapped “in the same historical moment” as Thomas, Robin asks readers to examine the premises underlying their own social and political views. Thomas’ “beliefs are disturbing, even ugly,” Robin acknowledges; “his style is brutal. I want to make us sit with that discomfort rather than swat it away.”

A penetrating profile of the Supreme Court’s longest-serving justice.

We’re lining up events in New York, DC, and elsewhere; I’m going to be in conversation with Jamelle Bouie, Rebecca Traister, and others.

For the political scientists among you, there’s going to be an author meets critics panel at APSA, with a great lineup of commentators that includes Dahlia Lithwick, Lawrie Balfour, Brandon Terry, Mark Tushnet, and Adrienne Davis, and is chaired by Jodi Dean.

I’ll have a fuller schedule of events, with dates and times and places, as the summer unfolds.

But for now, you can, um, pre-order the book!

For academics in search of a public audience

I often get requests for advice from academics who are writing a book for a university press but who want the book to reach a broader non-academic audience. Despite getting useful scholarly critiques from anonymous reader reports, these academics want someone to help them with the style and structure of the book. They want to write a book that will crossover, that will speak not only to their peers in the field but also to readers outside their field, ideally outside the academy. They just don’t know how to do it; they need help figuring out how.

While most academic presses don’t have such editors, there is something called a development editor who can do exactly that kind of work for you. The legal scholar Sam Erman recently wrote about working with a development editor on his latest book, and it sounds as if the process was extremely productive, utterly transforming the book.

I know such an editor who I highly recommend to all of you. His name is John Pallattella. John was for many years the literary editor of The Nation, where I worked with him on multiple essays—on everything from Hannah Arendt to conservatives in the 1960s and 1970s to the politics of freedom in the United States (some of these essays eventually became chapters in The Reactionary Mind; John also worked closely with me on revising that book for its second edition). I wrote about the experience of working with John as an editor here.

John is now working as a development editor, and whether your concerns are how to translate the abstruse findings of your discipline to the common reader or how to craft a strong opening chapter that will grab the reader’s attention or structuring the book into different chapters and pieces, John has the kind of eye—and equally important, ear (John is also a poet who who’s attuned to the music of a sentence)—you’re looking for.

If you’re interested in talking to John about this kind of work, he can be reached at jpala14@gmail.com.

How on God’s green earth did Clarence Thomas just write an opinion on race and jury trials that was well to the right (or was it?) of Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and even Neil Gorsuch?

In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of Curtis Flowers for murder; he had been on death row in Mississippi for 22 years. The Court held, in Flowers v. Mississippi, that the trial court had wrongly concluded that the prosecution’s decision to strike a potential juror, who is black, was not motivated by racial discrimination. Flowers, who is also black, has been tried six times for the same murder by the same prosecutor. There is a long record of the prosecutor striking potential jurors who are black.

What’s interesting about the Court’s opinion is the line-up. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority decision; he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, as well as the Court’s four liberal justices. The only two dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

A lot of the social media commentary I’ve seen has focused on Thomas’s dissent. How is it possible for Thomas to deny a claim of racial discrimination so overt and patent and persistent that even Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Alito were forced to acknowledge it? “The numbers speak loudly,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Over the course of the first four trials, there were 36 black prospective jurors against whom the State could have exercised a peremptory strike. The State tried to strike all 36.” That stark background reality clearly influenced the majority opinion, as Alito took pains to emphasize in his concurrence. How could Thomas pretend otherwise?

As always, it pays to read the whole of Thomas’s opinion. As is often true of a Thomas opinion, this one is long. Forty-two pages long—far longer than Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. The first 32 pages of Thomas’s opinion focus on the facts of the case and the various rules for determining whether discrimination is present, whether peremptory strikes are invalid, and so on. There Thomas gives the specific reasons why he thinks the majority is wrong in its conclusions about this particular case.

But, honestly, that’s not where the real action of Thomas’s opinion lies. It’s in the last 10 pages—the part where Gorsuch is so freaked out by Thomas’s reasoning that even he takes flight from the opinion (this often happens in a Thomas opinion; the Court’s conservatives join him in a few parts but get the hell out of there when he starts showing his hand)—that Thomas unveils his real argument, what the whole case is really about for him. As is often true of Thomas revelations, it’s of a secret that’s been hiding in plain sight for decades.

Simply put, Thomas does not believe that the Constitution should prohibit the state or the defense from striking down potential jurors on the basis of race. What’s even wilder is his reasoning for that claim. Thomas believes that the role of racism in jury trials (as well as society as a whole) is so intense—”racial prejudice exists,” Thomas writes in his dissent, “and can affect the fairness of trials”—that the only protection, or at least the main protection, a black person will have against that racism is his or her ability to strike down potential jurors who are white. Because “race matters in the courtroom,” he concludes, Thomas would “return to litigants one of the most important tools to combat prejudice in their cases.”

That “return to litigants one of the most important tools” is a reference to racially based peremptory strikes, which were declared unconstitutional by the Court in the 1986 case Batson v. Kentucky. Peremptory strikes are decisions by the defense or the prosecution to strike a potential juror without having to give a reason. In Batson, the Court held that the prosecution could not use such strikes to strike jurors on the basis of race. Later, it extended that rule to the defense. Neither side can strike potential jurors on the basis of race.

From the moment he joined the Court, Thomas has taken issue with Batson. In one of his very first cases, Georgia v. McCollum (1992), Thomas challenged the Court’s ruling that a white defendant should not be allowed to strike down potential jurors who were black. While the Court’s other conservatives focused their ire on the Court’s ruling that a defendant was a state actor and thus constrained by the Batson rule—Scalia called that claim “sheer inanity”—Thomas took the utterly novel approach of swapping out the actual white defendant in the case for a hypothetical black defendant. Suppose, he said, a black defendant was facing the prospect of a majority-white or all-white jury. Would we not want that defendant to have the power to strike down potential jurors who were white?

Even more explosively, Thomas reached back to a post-Reconstruction-era case, Strauder v. West Virginia, which struck down the state’s blanket prohibition on blacks serving on juries, to argue that the Court had once claimed, and “reasonably” so, that “all white juries might judge black defendants unfairly.” Thomas made the added critical point that such claims about all-white juries being prone to racism can be sustained, under Strauder‘s reasoning, even “without direct evidence in any particular case.” In other words, even when there is no evidence of racial bias, a court can assume that jurors or juries will be biased for reasons of race. In 1992, Thomas insisted, as did the Court in 1880, that “the racial composition of a jury may affect the outcome of a criminal case”—whether or not there was any evidence of that racial composition affecting the outcome in the particular case. “I do not think that the premise of Strauder has become obsolete,” he concluded. So patent and persistent was the significance of race.

Fast forward to 2019. In Flowers, Thomas again invokes Strauder, claiming again (he almost uses the same phrasing from Georgia v. McCollum) that “the racial composition of a jury could affect the outcome of a criminal case.” He adds: “The racial composition of a jury matters because racial biases, sympathies, and prejudices still exist. This is not a matter of ‘assumptions,’ as Batson said. It is a matter of reality.” He even cites several academic studies, in journals like Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin and the Journal of Ethnicity and Criminal Justice, that he claims confirm the role of racial bias in jury trials. “Academic studies appear to support this commonsense proposition.”

What’s more, he says, the Court knows that “race…matters.” Yet it “continues to apply a line of cases that prevents, among other things, black defendants from striking potentially hostile white jurors.” Citing his own earlier opinion, he concludes, “I remain ‘certain that black criminal defendants will rue the day that this Court ventured down this road that inexorably will lead to the elimination of peremptory strikes.'”

His big take-home point?

The more fundamental problem is Batson itself….I would return to our pre-Batson understanding—that race matters in the courtroom—and thereby return to litigants one of the most important tools to combat prejudice in their cases.

This is the heart of the opinion, as I say. And again, it’s telling that this is exactly the part of the opinion that Gorsuch refuses to join. Precisely because it’s where Thomas most distinguishes himself from other conservatives on the Court: by insisting that racism is such a pernicious and pervasive force in the courtroom that the best weapon against it is to empower black defendants to use their peremptory strikes in order to create juries that look more like them.

How this conclusion can be squared with the first 33 pages of the opinion—where Thomas repeatedly denies that racism played a role in the prosecutor’s decision to strike various jurors—or in his many other opinions where he seems not to be particularly bothered by the role of race in policing and prisons, is a complicated issue. But luckily, I’ve got a book coming out in September, The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, that seeks to make sense of these and similar puzzles. You can buy it here.

The book has gotten some great blurbs.

“Only a political diagnostician as keenly incisive as Corey Robin could render such a complex and fascinating portrait of Clarence Thomas. This meticulous analysis of the touchstones and turning points in Thomas’s life finds ideological consistency in the seemingly quirky patchwork of his thought: an odd amalgam of ultra-libertarian revanchism, patriarchal fundamentalism, black nationalism, and state-backed authoritarianism. Robin delivers a riveting guide to the multiple paradoxes that underlie Thomas’s unusually self-protective persona, and masterfully shows their resonance in the juridical rulings that govern us all.”

—Patricia Williams, author of The Alchemy of Race and Rights

“It requires the ferocious curiosity and intellectual courage of a Corey Robin to rush into the heart of one of the most vexing mysteries faced by modern Supreme Court watchers: How to reconcile Justice Clarence Thomas’ radical conservatism with his unforgiving use of race as jurisprudential lodestar? For political conservatives who have been blinkered to Thomas’ essentialism on race, and liberals who have refused to reckon with his lived experience with black marginalization and stigma, this book will be equally discomfiting. Robin steps into the grey space we have all largely ignored in assessing Justice Thomas, in order to marry the constitution of a black nationalist to the capitalism, sexism, and integration-skepticism of an ascendant movement conservative. Robin’s Clarence Thomas is less an enigma than an Invisible Man; a living jurisprudential testament to the doctrine and dogma of a jurist who utterly rejects liberal claims to a monopoly on legal racial equality, even while insisting that Trump-era political conservatism is the best engine for promoting the same. Robin’s Clarence Thomas is neither silent nor marginal. Our failure to understand why that is, how it occurred, and what it implies, comes at the peril of both conservatives and liberals alike.”

—Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor, Slate

“Clarence Thomas is by far the Supreme Court’s most interesting and perplexing Justice, criticized by many and understood by few. Patiently working through all of Thomas’ writings, Corey Robin tells a remarkable story about a remarkable figure—a man of complex views whose austere philosophy has been hiding in plain sight. Robin shows us Thomas’s black nationalism, his deep pessimism about race relations, his fervent embrace of capitalism, and his stern demand for a severe and uncompromising system of criminal justice. What emerges is a portrait that is as fascinating as it is disturbing. You may think you know who Clarence Thomas is. But you don’t know the half. This book is a revelation.

—Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School

“When Clarence Thomas took his seat on the Supreme Court, no one could have predicted that he would have become the silent justice and the most influential justice. Corey Robin’s elegant and insightful analysis shows how Thomas’s blend of black nationalism and conservatism helped him fashion a jurisprudence that will shape American life for years to come. This is the book Court watchers—which we all should be—have waited for.”

—Annette Gordon-Reed, Pulitizer Prize-winning author of The Hemingses of Monticello