Black Progressive is An Oxymoron

Seems it has become fashionable over the past four years for African Americans to consider themselves to be politically progressives as opposed to liberals. The way I have managed to understand progressivism, in simple terms is that it is a political ideology that states it desires better conditions in society that is rooted in early 20th century liberal philosophy. It is supposed to be a response to the impact of industrialization as well is a political philosophy in between the response taken by traditional conservatives and socialist to deal with social and economic issues. Naturally, it started in urban areas and was first championed by folk advocating egalitarian and liberal methods to reform socioeconomic policy.

Scholars have had a very difficult time defining Progressivism. Some have even grouped both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as Progressives even absent of any common ideological ground between the two. They even add Lyndon Johnson and now, Barack Obama in scope and aim.

For some oddly coherently dissonant reason (historical and philosophical), I find it implausible and oxymoronic for any African American to call themselves progressives.

I would advance that most describe themselves as such either because of the aforementioned adumbrated definition, or because they support President Obama and white democrats call him progressive. In the past I have often had to disabuse politically, what I comprehended about the progressive political orientation. Specifically that it is rooted in the concept of liberal internationalism as implemented first via the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States. Albeit not called such during the time of the imperialistic colonization of Africa, Wilson approach to the world (on behalf of the well-being of America) was immured to practices similar to what led to the enslavement of Africans and the subjugation of other world ethnic nationalities. This is the main reason I find African American progressive as a term, to be dysfunctional and improbable.

It assumes the false and contumelious Kantian Moral Imperative of exceptionalism that resulted in apartheid in South Africa and Nazism as well as the White Man’s Burden in Europe. The Progressive narrative in antithetical to the political philosophies of African Americans from a chronicled perspective and stresses a “muscular nationalism” designed to serve Americas well being only from a plutocrats perspective singularly internationally – meaning foreign policy is for the simple goal of protecting US national security (the wealthy). Ergo, the best national security involves advancing democracy abroad even by military force, regardless if nations desire such or not.

Back home, we have seen the pseud Darwinism of progressive politics from the attributing of race based cultural traits being antecedents for criminal behavior (Cesare Lombroso) and prior to that in the opinion of Chief Justice Roger B. Tanny who wrote in the Dred Scott ruling: that free blacks would always be “identified in the public [white folks] mind with the race which they belonged, and regarded as part of the slave population rather than free.”

True, Progressives began in response to political powers unwilling or unable to address the economic and social changes consequential of the industrial revolution in America; but somewhere it turned into a monster that overlooked liberty, self-determination, sovereignty and individual rights- all in complete contradiction of the struggles of African Americans from slavery to the civil rights movement. And just as then, Progressives today want the same things from safety to making sure that our political system is free from corruption. The problem is that they want all of this implemented by advancing American interests by a Hobbesian (warlordism) the internationalism that at the same time make positive-sum interactions almost impossible.

First progressives place America first and intentionally ignore that we live in a global world and not an isolated one. Thus they miss the bigger picture that most African Americans have traditionally observed, that declining living standards, weapons proliferation, deforestation and social injustice everywhere, especially when perpetrated by America, is a hazard and a danger to us all. This means that progressives applaud approaches put forth by men like Obama, Roosevelt, Truman and Wilson because simply put, their policy advocate that the United States knows what's right and what other should do -- all the US has to do insist that others snap into line. Thus both the left and right looks at other nations as objects of American foreign policy, rather than as being free agents themselves.

Now it seems in the age of Obama, even liberals support war under the cover of other attributes. The war in Libya was the progressive way to protect innocent civilians. President Obama is in many way similar to both Wilson and Roosevelt. This is why I assert that black and Progressive are incompatible just as freedom and ignorance, for progressives thrive and promulgate economic inequality for if it didn’t exist they would not be able to survive. This is the reason why the 99 percent exist, and why we find ourselves in wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and asking for one in Syria. The progressives do not send their kids off to war for a better life or struggle economically, they have it all, unlike most African Americans, even the ones who call themselves progressive.

nullius in verba

From my earliest writings of the past thrity odd years to now, the careful reader would be able to discern my disparagement for politics, politicians and the aggregated affect such nuance has had on the folks not fortunate enough to use conquest to be on top of others. Most likely it is the thinker, the scientist in me that mandates the preference for the belief “nullius in verba” – take no ones word for anything.

The more I read and observe what is happening within the beltway, especially as it pertains to other nations; either the blatant disrespect of sovereignty by war and occupation, or the feculent avoidance of barbarism and human mistreatment by nations our government consider our friends, the more it is obvious that our legacy as a per supposedly western nation is one of shame, deceit and brutality. laws do not change, just their names, for action and inaction alike has the same consequence historically.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this Libya example is almost comical. The reasons proffered for intervention are even more fanatical, when we look at and examine the desire to protect the innocent. Maybe the innocent dwellers of lands endeared with oil reserves, but not solely the innocent. By that logic, worthy locations would have our attention. The Sudan where millions are having been displaced and tens of thousands butchered. The Ivory Coast, where more than 500,000 have been displaced and a civil war looms.

It reminds me of the Monroe Doctrine which in 1823 gave the United States to use military force anywhere in our immediate region if we felt such was necessary. Not for the sake of nobility or civility, but rather, whim and fortune. The same approach we use now, similar to when we sent more than 20,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to keep the murderous and torturous regime of the Trujillo family in power over democratic change in the 60's. Just as we supported the Duvalier’s in Haiti for years and their practice of regular and seeming ritual practice of mass executions.

But what should the astute historian expect form a nation with a similar history? It is as if we get off on supporting the immoral and persecuting the good. President Franklin Pierce, who even with signed and crooked treaties with Indians desired the extermination of the people on the land before them is a reflection this belief orientation. Even thepronounced President Roosvelt was of the same vein, afterall he unfaltering made the choice to drop atomic bombs on Japan when they had already surrendered – an action that was unnessary and only demonstrated the action of a tyrant.

I am only writing this to assert my fear of what we have become as a public. All to quick to settle for convience and to lazy to question what we are confronted with whether or not it comes ffrom our elected figure heads or what is spouted on television. If we do not return to what makes us as individuals both powerful and great – being self informed, well read and unwilling to accept without query – we may as well start digging our own graves.