Ethnic cleansing: a progressive tradition?

In an article for Salon.com, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal applauds John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate. "Following the progressive tradition of Andrew Jackson, the North Carolina senator will challenge the GOP's divisive appeal," Blumenthal gushes.

I certainly did a doubletake when I read the words, 'the progressive tradition of Andrew Jackson.'

Probably Jackson's most famous comments was in response to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision. "[Chief Justice] John Marshall made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Rule of law anyone?

One of Jackson's most notable poilicies was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. All eastern Indian tribes were forcibly relocated west of the Mississippi River. Much like the apartheid South African government's creation of black "homelands," the Indian resettlement policy was based on condescending, dressed up with patronizing rationalizations. It was, of course, all for their own good.

Take these two messages from Jackson to Congress.

First the patronizing: "It is pleasing to reflect that results so beneficial, not only to the States immediately concerned, but to the harmony of the Union, will have been accomplished by measures equally advantageous to the Indians. What the native savages become when surrounded by a dense population and by mixing with the whites may be seen in the miserable remnants of a few Eastern tribes, deprived of political and civil rights, forbidden to make contracts, and subjected to guardians, dragging out a wretched existence, without excitement, without hope, and almost without thought."

Then the condescension: "They [Indians] have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear."

Resistance to the violent imposition of "Manifest Destiny" was justified in terms that might sound familiar in today's "War on Terror" world. In another message to Congress, Jackson wrote, "After a harassing warfare, prolonged by the nature of the country and by the difficulty of procuring subsistence, the Indians were entirely defeated, and the disaffected band dispersed or destroyed. The result has been creditable to the troops engaged in the service. Severe as is the lesson to the Indians, it was rendered necessary by their unprovoked aggressions, and it is to be hoped that its impression will be permanent and salutary."

If this sort of thing is origin of the "progressive tradition" Edwards purports to uphold, then I'll pass thank you very much. Of course, the real answer is that Kerry and Edwards have nothing to do with progressivism.