Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | "Zero-Sum Justice"

Slate Podcasts | July 15, 2023

Overview of the Episode

This episode of Amicus explores the narrative of "zero-sum" justice—how myths of scarcity and zero-sum thinking underlie many current Supreme Court decisions and broader American social and political dynamics, particularly in terms of race and equality.
Host Dahlia Lithwick first interviews Joel Anderson, host of the podcast Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Thomas, for an incisive look inside the psyche and personal history of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, connecting Thomas's life story to recent jurisprudence, particularly on affirmative action.
In the second half, Dahlia is joined by Heather McGhee, author of The Sum of Us, to discuss how the zero-sum paradigm of race and scarcity has shaped not only courts but also the entirety of American public life, and why solidarity and hope can counteract self-defeating zero-sum politics.

Part 1: Justice Clarence Thomas and the Zero-Sum Court

Guest: Joel Anderson, host of Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Thomas

Thomas’s Search for Identity and Belonging

• Instability and Restlessness
  Dahlia opens by reflecting on Thomas's "instability of identity," observing the "famished for home" quality that led him to ping-pong from the priesthood, to black nationalism, and eventually to championing conservative legal movements.

  “If I could knit together the whole narrative of the person that you offer, Joel, it’s just somebody who’s looking for a home, and he's so famished for home that he just keeps landing in these situations that are almost like parodies of political or intellectual movements.” (03:25)

• Unmoored Childhood and the Desire to Be Wanted [04:43]
  Anderson describes Thomas as “a person without people,” shaped by a lack of warmth and affection in his youth and a longing to be valued.

  “He was desirous of having people that appreciated him… The GOP pipeline today—and certainly 40 years ago—was very seductive.” (04:43)

Public Persona: Warmth and Rage

• Duality: Gregarious vs. Angry
  Lithwick and Anderson discuss the contradiction between Thomas's public displays of bonhomie (infamously, his booming laugh) and accounts of deep anger, especially visible at his confirmation hearings.

  "He’s both… He shows that side to a lot of people… but I think the people that he presumes are enemies or critics, that’s where you get all the anger. And I think that anger...goes all the way back to his youth.” – Joel Anderson (07:51)

Preference for Harshness and “Directness” in Political Allegiance

• Harsh Upbringing and the Embrace of ‘Tough Love’ [10:33]
  Thomas is said to prefer outright, even openly hostile, honesty (as experienced with some Republicans) over “falsity” from liberals, relating back to the stern cruelty of his grandfather.

  “He thinks that the people that treat you the worst are the people that...are telling you the truth. Like, he thinks that harshness is a form of love or affection… That’s actually the way that he was raised.” – Anderson (10:33)

Family, Alienation, and Class

• Visit with Thomas’s Mother [12:07]
  Anderson narrates the intimate, unguarded experience of visiting Thomas’s mother, noting her warmth but emotional distance from Thomas, and her closer ties to his late brother and first wife.

  “I can't imagine that very many people have ever knocked on that door or even thought to do it… She talked about how she was closer to his first wife, Kathy Ambush, as opposed to Ginny Thomas.” (12:54)

Affirmative Action: Personal Wounds as National Policy

• Thomas’s Path and the Affirmative Action Decision [17:45]
  Lithwick and Anderson address Thomas’s fierce opposition to affirmative action, despite being a beneficiary himself. Anderson suggests Thomas’s views are shaped by profound psychological wounds from being dismissed as unworthy after entering Yale Law School as part of a special program.

  “Each instance of it makes him feel smaller and more full of kind of shame and judgment by the world… it’s just a psychic wound that's being played out on the biggest national scale.” – Lithwick (17:45) “Instead of getting mad at the people that feel that way about him, he's...mad at people who have benefited similarly. And he just thinks, ‘I was actually special. You all got in because of preferences.’” – Anderson (17:45)

Gender, Pain, and the Limits of Empathy

• Black Women’s Pain and Anita Hill [24:41]
  The conversation highlights the erasure of Black women’s pain in Thomas’s worldview, connecting it to his fraught relationship with his own mother and his lack of appreciation for the obstacles faced by Black women.

  “Clarence Thomas feels victimized in a way that supersedes anybody else… I think that he's a sexist, that he fundamentally doesn't have respect for the challenges that women have.” – Anderson (22:34) “When [Anita Hill] said in that confirmation process, he got race. I was left with gender. And that is less. It is less.” – Lithwick (24:41)

Part 2: Heather McGhee and the Cost of Zero-Sum Thinking

Guest: Heather McGhee, author, The Sum of Us

Why Americans Vote Against Their Interests

• Race as a Wedge: The Hidden Cost of Racism [30:06]
  McGhee recounts her journey from economic policy expert to investigating why Americans—especially white voters—adopt and defend policies that undercut their own economic well-being, concluding that racial division is the key.

  “It turns out that it really is, in a way that we hadn't really tallied, the hidden costs of racism in our politics and our policymaking that is driving inequality.” (32:42)

The Supreme Court and a “Zero-Summiest” Term

• Scarcity Mentality in SCOTUS Decisions [34:18]
  Lithwick observes that the latest term was driven by zero-sum, scarcity-based logic where every gain for one group is cast as a loss for another (affirmative action, environmental law, etc.).

  “This myth of scarcity, this myth that if other people, particularly people of color, get any goods or benefits or services, you are somehow diminished..." – Lithwick (32:42)

Debunking Zero-Sum Logic: Shared Prosperity

• Roberts’s Student Loan Analogy [34:18]*
  McGhee rebuts Chief Justice Roberts’s argument opposing student debt relief by noting both its inaccuracy and the broader folly of pitting neighbors against each other.

  “It’s very zero sum… Why would you set up a zero sum argument as if it's somehow bad for someone with a lawn care business to have more people in their community be free of $10 or $20,000 of student debt?… That zero sum thinking makes us root against our own team.” – McGhee (34:18)

Historical Roots: How Slavery and Segregation Hurt Everyone

• The Parable of the Drained Pool and the Southern Economy [42:17]
  McGhee cites Hinton Rowan Helper’s 1857 argument that slavery impoverished most whites, too, and the famous phenomenon of southern cities draining public pools rather than integrate them, hurting the whole community.

  “I wanted us to question the role that racism plays in shortchanging our public goods and really expand the aperture to see that… We all pay a cost. Not an equal cost, obviously, but we all pay a cost.” (45:25)

• Palmer v. Thompson (1971): The Drained Pool as Law [46:24]
  The Supreme Court upheld the closure of public pools rather than require integration, institutionalizing the “drained pool politics” metaphor McGhee centers in her book.

Neoliberalism, the New Deal, and Undelivered Promises

• Exclusive Benefits, Then Drained Pools for All [51:21]
  McGhee observes how New Deal and postwar public goods (schools, housing, Social Security) largely benefited whites, but when integration became possible, white voters often chose to withdraw support for public goods altogether—hurting themselves and everyone else.

The Role of the Supreme Court

• Court as Barrier, Not Protector [49:08, 55:20]
  McGhee argues that faith in the Supreme Court as a shield for minority rights is often misplaced; more frequently, SCOTUS defends the interests of the powerful at the expense of the public.

  “The courts need to play a smaller role in deciding these questions…when we keep perfecting our democracy…we’re going to very much change the shape of the Court.” – McGhee (46:24)

Hope and Solidarity: Real-World Stories

• The ‘Solidarity Dividend’ and Case Studies [62:03]
  Drawing on episodes from her podcast adapted from The Sum of Us, McGhee describes instances where cross-racial, interfaith, local movements have won real economic and social victories—for example, stopping a polluting pipeline in Memphis through Black–white coalition.

  “There are real gains that we can unlock, but only by coming together across those lines of race—like cleaner air and higher wages and better funded schools.” (62:03) “The fact that I was able to find so many stories of hope, of unlikely victories, means that they're happening.” (66:23)

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On Thomas’s “tough love”:

  “Cruelty is love in that household.” – Dahlia Lithwick (21:20)

• On the erasure of women’s pain:

  “He got race. I was left with gender, and that is less. It is less.” – Anita Hill, recounted by Lithwick (24:41)

• On zero-sum logic in student debt:

  “It’s actually like the stupidest example you could give because what is the number one reason that young people are finding it hard to buy their first homes? Student debt, right?” – McGhee (34:18)

• On hope through action:

  “And the way I’m going to have more power than doomscrolling is to organize.” – McGhee (68:48)

Key Timestamps for Segments

• 03:25: Dahlia and Joel Anderson on Thomas’s elusive sense of belonging
• 07:51: Thomas’s dual personalities: warmth and anger
• 10:33: Anderson on Thomas seeking harsh honesty as a form of love
• 12:54: Anderson’s visit to Thomas’s mother; family complexities
• 17:45: Thomas, affirmative action, and psychic wounds
• 22:34: Gender and pain: Thomas’s disregard for Black women’s experiences
• 32:42: Heather McGhee introduces the economic cost of racism
• 34:18: The Supreme Court’s zero-sum logic; student debt decision
• 42:17: Hinton Helper and the economic harm of slavery to whites
• 46:24: Drained pool metaphor and Supreme Court complicity
• 51:21: New Deal legacies, integration, and the drain on public goods
• 62:03: Hopeful case studies; solidarity dividend in practice
• 68:48: Practical advice—ordinary people can drive change

Tone and Language

• Dahlia Lithwick combines incisive legal analysis with empathy and narrative flair, while Joel Anderson brings reporting nuance and historical detail, and Heather McGhee grounds her arguments in personal experience, research, and optimism.
• The conversation is both critical of systemic failures and ultimately uplifting, pointing listeners toward paths for engagement and collective action.

Summary Takeaway

"Zero-Sum Justice" diagnoses how the Supreme Court’s recent output and American public life are gripped by a zero-sum, scarcity-based logic, often racialized, that hurts everyone. Through the lens of Justice Clarence Thomas’s life and judicial philosophy, and Heather McGhee’s research on collective wellbeing, the episode challenges listeners to see the hidden costs of division and the tangible benefits of solidarity. The ultimate exhortation: although zero-sum thinking is powerful and destructive, there is hope and power in joining together to claim shared, just futures for all Americans.