I hate to bring up a touchy subject when I don’t have time to give it a full treatment, but I guess I’ll be a bit reckless here. With the news that the Connecticut Democratic Party has responded to pressure from the local NAACP and decided to abandon the traditional Jefferson-Jackson name of their annual dinner, I see an opportunity for a learning moment.
Democrats cited Jefferson and Jackson’s ownership of slaves as a key factor in the decision, as well as Jackson’s role in the removal of Native Americans from the southeastern U.S. in what was known as the Trail of Tears.
We’ve all been discussing the fault lines between white progressives and progressives of color recently, especially in the aftermath of the imbroglio at the Netroots Nation conference.
I like to think I do a decent job of keeping one foot in each progressive camp. I’m definitely a white progressive but some of my formative political experience came working as a community organizer for ACORN in the predominantly black North Philadelphia community. In that latter experience, I learned many things that have stuck with me. And in my former experience growing up in an Ivy League town, I came to see a lot of arrogance and myopia and outright paternalism in how white intellectuals think about racial issues, particularly in a political context. I feel like I’m well-situated to see the fault lines clearly and especially to anticipate and recognize how the two camps often fail to communicate effectively with each other.
Now, Andrew Jackson seems like an easy case to me. Both camps have ample reasons to disown him.
But Jefferson is different. Much different.
Particularly for me, as a philosophy major and a secularist (to use Bill O’Reilly’s term), I have something nearing hero-worship for Thomas Jefferson. I don’t focus on his agrarian-centric ideas or his hostility to Wall Street or his ideas on federalism, although those are all important. I revere him for his Notes on Virginia and the Declaration of Independence and his decision to rewrite the New Testament stripped of all miracles. I respect him for translating the ideals of the Enlightenment into a brilliant political vision based on religious freedom and tolerance, and I see him as the forefather of the tremendously successful American scientific community.
I could actually go on all day talking about all the different ways that I admire Jefferson, quoting letters he wrote and decisions he made as president or as our ambassador in France.
What I’m doing here, though, is choosing to focus and emphasize some things and devalue or ignore others. And what I’m valuing are very much the kinds of things that a white progressive intellectual values, and what I’m ignoring are the legacies that concern the NAACP and many people of color.
My point of view is valid, but if that’s my complete picture of Jefferson, then I’m going to have a lot of trouble understanding why his name needs to be disassociated from the Democratic Party. And, to be honest, it feels a lot like my point of view is being completely negated here, as if it has no validity or is of such little consequence as to warrant annihilation in the face of another more morally uncomplicated point of view.
Because I know that Jefferson was a slaveowner and that he fathered children with one of his slaves in what probably amounted to rape considering the disparity of power in his relationship with Sally Hemings. And I know that he was elected in a system where slaves were counted as partial persons. And if what you know about (and particularly if what you most care about) is Jefferson’s record on race and slavery, then he won’t seem like an appropriate patron saint of the Democratic Party. But there’s that other side of the story.
It’s easy to see how there can be a two-way miscommunication here. And it’s easiest to see if either side insists that their partial point of view is the only morally acceptable one to have and insists on winning the battle of ideas outright, with no compromise.
I have argued before that Andrew Jackson deserves no place of honor in the modern Democratic Party, but I’d never agree to say the same about Jefferson, and I think my position is defensible provided that I’m not ignoring, discounting, disparaging or disrespecting those who feel differently. All I’d ask in return is that people be willing to listen to and respect the reasons why I hold Jefferson in such high esteem.
The thing is, I am fully aware of how my upbringing has shaped my thinking about Jefferson and how others’ much different experiences have shaped their thinking about him. Some might argue that it’s only the benefit of my white privilege that gives me the luxury to view Jefferson the way I do, and I understand that argument and see it as more correct than not.
But being free from the sting of racism and having the luxury to think about Jefferson primarily in the realm of abstract ideas and ideals rather than in terms of his day-to-day life on his slave plantation doesn’t mean I’m wrong to see him as one of the greatest, most-influential, and gifted thinkers in American history.
In closing, just consider this:
“Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: – ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Martin Luther King Jr., Speech at Civil Rights March on Washington, August 28, 1963
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
As a party, we can disown Thomas Jefferson, but I will never disown him. I believe he created the creed that we’re all doing our best to live out.
And, again, I call on us all in the progressive movement to listen to each other and act like we love each other and want to work together. We cannot do as well separately as we can do together, and we’ll never get where we want to go together if we treat each other with contempt.
