Progress entails moving forward on the trajectory of history and struggling for greater liberties and, ultimately, a better quality of life. At the very least, we can imagine with more relevance the notion of greater freedom, what Hegel meant when he wrote, “The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom.”
Hegel thought struggles throughout history ultimately beget progress and freedom, which implies nonetheless that the status quo has deliberately disfavored certain people.
Progress, as I imagine, is not the defense and maintenance of the status quo. As such, in the real world, Hillary Clinton is no progressive — but she loves the label.
Her words, especially when juxtaposed with her actions, provide great fodder for an analysis of the ways in which the powerful twist words, bastardizing their conventional meaning and ultimately turning reality on its head.
Clinton markets herself as a tireless advocate for gay rights. The same Clinton whose husband signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act into law and who herself said in 2004, “I believe that marriage is… a sacred bond between a man and a woman… I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage.”
She’s not an advocate; she’s a politician who adopts “views” that are politically expedient. Defending bigotry when it’s the norm and jumping on the gay-rights bandwagon a few years later isn’t progressive: It’s opportunistic and shrill.
She recently glorified the memory of the Reagans as “low-key advocates” of HIV/AIDS research, when anyone who cared enough to pay attention or who was actually affected by the epidemic when it broke out knew they didn’t give a rat’s proverbial ass about AIDS or even one of its homosexual victims. Falsifying history for the sake of a campaign is not progressive.
Candidly, I don’t think an exponent of progress in society calls black youths “superpredators” and proceeds to say, “we need to bring (them) to heel,” but we can excuse that overt racism because her website states valiantly, “America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”
Clinton tells us she keeps Wall Street honest; all the while they fill her coffers. She is “against” the culture of mass incarceration she and her husband helped usher in, all while private prisons bankroll her. She claims she’ll “hold drug companies accountable” though she takes more from Big Pharma than any other candidate. As Marx wrote so mystifyingly, “all that is solid melts into air.”
Words have meaning and, ultimately, great power. As we know, people, too, can possess great power and have their fair sway over how words are interpreted, ultimately asserting a reality that is usually distinct from the one we actually inhabit.
Hillary Clinton — and any other politician, for that matter — can say whatever she pleases. But they all should remember people don’t take kindly to condescension, manipulation or deception. They should also remember we, too, have words. I am foolish enough to believe certain objective truths do indeed exist. We collectively perceive the irony in the words of despots because we know they represent a falsified version of the truths around us.
We know the word progress means something, and Clinton’s defense of the white heteronormative, neoliberal status quo is something wholly different. Clinton’s record affords new insight into the dastardly ways in which those with power assign new meanings to words, ultimately using them as weapons against us.
As such, I shudder when I imagine what she actually means by “love and kindness.”
Hillary Clinton and all her powerful friends on both sides of the aisle can “misspeak” (read: lie) as they please, for history will not absolve them, and we the people will ultimately have the last word.
Jordan MacKenzie is a second-year UF linguistics master’s student. His column appears on Wednesdays.
