Progressivism and its Critics

Freddie deBoer has another piece eviscerating progressivism for being uniquely comfortable with violent American imperialism:

When confronting establishment progressives with the reality of our conduct and how much it has cost some of the poorest and most defenseless people on earth, the conversation never stays about our victims; it inevitably changes to those attempting to talk about them, a knee-jerk defense that progressives have made an art form.

and later…

The whole argument has revealed American progressives at their absolute worst: incurious about the bad consequences of their positions; totally convinced that righteousness in intent can only lead to righteousness in effect; preemptively contemptuous of criticism from the left; dismissive of arguments that they themselves made under the last administration; and ultimately just as partisan as the conservatives they railed against three short years ago.

The post is a riff on themes from Glenn Greenwald’s piece on the problems that Ron Paul poses for progressives. Both argue that Ron Paul’s isolationism provides a useful mirror to progressives who would like very much to talk about global human dignity and world peace and so on and so forth—all the while blithely backing an administration that has expanded American involvement in extralegal killing overseas.

But see, as I’ve insisted before, the problem isn’t about progressivism. It’s about establishment politics. Whatever you think about the Obama Administration’s approach to foreign policy, it is explicitly not the case that military adventurism or callous disregard for human desperation is a fatal flaw within progressivism—whatever Glenn Beck might tell you. This simply isn’t what progressivism has ever been about.

Freddie goes on to consider whether Liberalism can provide ammunition to counteract progressive Imperialism:

What political philosophy supports this dismissal? Liberalism? Liberalism insists that all people, including poor Muslim people in antagonist nations, have equivalent rights. Egalitarianism? I can’t imagine a greater failure of egalitarianism than the endless attempts to minimize and justify our crimes against those who have the bad fortune of not being American, or white, or affluent, or influential. I’ve seen them dismiss and deflect and deny and ignore conduct against poor children in Yemen they would never countenance in Baltimore. I’ve seen them put “dead Muslim child” in scare quotes, as if we haven’t killed them, as if talk about them is some sort of con or game.

Nonsense. Classical and modern liberals alike have always had universal aspirations. Once liberalism discovered the universal rights common to all men/humans, it became a legitimizing vehicle for wars from Napoleon to Vietnam. Liberal universalism has written the checks for military campaigns for centuries, because the “equivalent rights” that Freddie’s referring to aren’t limited just to “life.” Liberating liberal armies insist that they fight to free the oppressed from regimes that fail to treat them with the dignity they deserve—precisely because they are “poor” or trapped within their parochial religions, etc. This conviction fuels their righteousness if they’re challenged about the pile of bodies in their wake.

Also, lest we would exempt American liberals from their turn at the turrets, here’s 1960s activist Carl Oglesby:

The original commitment in Vietnam was made by President Truman, a mainstream liberal. It was seconded by President Eisenhower, a moderate liberal. It was intensified by the late President Kennedy, a flaming liberal. Think of the men who now engineer that war—those who study the maps, give the commands, push the buttons, and tally the dead: Bundy, McNamara, Rusk, Lodge, Goldberg, the President himself.

They are not moral monsters.

They are all honorable men.

They are all liberals.

Liberalism is just as susceptible to what Weber termed “the ethic of ultimate ends”—sufficiently pure and admirable principles can justify any level of ethical atrocity. Any number of American political ideologies suffer from this affliction.

Again, I don’t mean (for now, at least) to have the broader discussion of American foreign policy. Suffice it to say that I share some of Freddie’s concerns. Instead, I want to suggest that Freddie’s problem is with establishment politics, NOT progressivism-as-such.

This might seem like quibbling. After all, Freddie also calls his target “a new American liberalism.” Still, what makes him a great blogger is his concern with how much “language matters,” and he’s importantly wrong on his characterization of progressivism. Furthermore, as one of the best of the Internet’s left-wing voices (really), his rhetorical and semantic influence is more sizable than he lets on—or even knows.

As for that broader discussion of American foreign policy…here’s a sample of my thoughts. More later, if there’s time.