As we begin what looks to be another difficult and unpromising year, it is worth taking a look back at how we got into this situation. The so-called “lessons of history” are always tricky, but here is an attempt to understand one of them. 
In modern history, there have been three waves of social progress. The first was the assertion of the basic “rights of man” – that, as humans, we have certain “inalienable” rights and are all created equal. In the United States, this assertion is contained in our Declaration of Independence as the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – the obvious fly in the ointment being those who were excluded from “all men,” especially slaves and Native Americans.
Wave two was the establishment of basic economic rights. People had a right to not starve to death or die in the street. In our country, these rights were established during the Great Depression by New Deal laws, most notably Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid later expanded them. This body of laws makes up our social “safety net.”
Finally in the third, most recent, wave of social advancement, the first two sets of rights were extended to groups that were previously excluded. These include women, minorities (the most important being the former slaves), handicapped individuals and, most recently, gay and lesbian people.
Each of these advances was achieved only through great struggle, and each has triggered a powerful reaction from forces opposed to them – thus the term “reactionary.”
In our country, it is possible to identify the precise moment at which the current reactionary phase began. It was in November 1966, almost half a century ago, when “conservatives” won overwhelming victories in congressional elections and the once “solid” Democratic – and racist – South began its migration to the Republican Party. Since that time, what started as “white backlash” has morphed into a powerful, well-organized and well-financed reactionary movement.
Its initial purpose, to put black people “back in their place,” grew to incorporate the aims of Christian fundamentalists, anti-immigrant nativists, government haters and, most important, corporations and the wealthiest Americans who have financed it.
No longer satisfied with rolling back black gains, the modern reactionary movement now seeks to eliminate the gains associated with the “second wave” of social progress, those made in the New Deal and Kennedy-Johnson era. All of these gains, taken for granted as recently as 30 years ago, are now on the defensive.
Since the election of President Reagan in 1980, we have lived in an age of reaction. The achievements of reactionaries are very impressive. Americans live in a society that would have been unrecognizable 40 years ago.
A work force solidly anchored in the middle class. Gone. A promise of opportunity in a society defined by equality of opportunity. Gone. The hope for a racially integrated society, with groups working together and living in peace. Gone. The belief that our government is – or can be – a force for good. Gone. Trust in our basic institutions, public and private. Gone. The belief in a better future for a majority of people. Gone. A commitment to improving the physical environment. Undermined.
In assessing the impact of reactionary movements, the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead made the following profound comment: “It is the first step in sociological wisdom to recognize that the major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur.”
We have recently begun to get a sense of the scale of the wreckage. We have witnessed one of the most dispiriting presidential campaigns in memory, bereft of real ideas on either side, displaying a group of Republican candidates seeking to outdo one another in extremism, and an epic mass media failure to accurately portray what was going on.
There was a moment when the depths to which we have sunk became clear. At a Republican debate, the question was asked: Should an uninsured person arriving at an emergency room be denied care and allowed to die? There were shouts of “yes” from the audience and applause. None of the candidates felt an obligation to say, “Hey, wait a minute.” Such a moment would have been unimaginable 30 years ago.
In all of this, the Virgin Islands is what is known as an outlier. The reactionary movement is complex and has diverse goals, but race is at its core.
Had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2008, it is unlikely that we would have gotten the Tea Party, the growth in armed militias and the various far-right groups that have feasted on President Obama.
We should not equate “race” with “racism.” While there is plenty of the latter to go around, the easy use of the term “racism” implies that black people have no responsibility for this situation, and that any discussion has to be about bad white people and what they should do. In the frozen environment in which we now live, many white people are happy to talk about black behavior, especially that which they don’t like, but never about history. And black people often want to talk about history, especially a history of oppression that explains away all of those current behaviors.
The reactionary right has thrived in this environment, focusing on easy-to-find targets and convincing all-to-willing white people that it is they who are the true victims of racism in our country. Fox News and talk radio provide a steady diet of stories of dependency and dysfunction, with the clear impression that the dysfunctional dependents are black. This perspective – mother’s milk to the mainland right – is not going to attract a big following in the Virgin Islands.
Reactionaries never take the time to notice that early in the morning and late at night, anywhere in our country, many of the people that you see on the streets are black or brown. They are on their way to or from work, doing the heavy lifting and dirty work that white people don’t feel up to anymore.
So where does a small, largely black territory fit into this picture? When we look at the so-called “big picture,” it basically doesn’t fit at all. With scarcely 100,000 people, the Virgin Islands is too small, off the radar screen, unless a really juicy horror story pops up. The reactionary-imposed damage the territory will suffer will be “collateral.” And there is no ability to control this destruction locally.
What is more useful is to look at the impact of Virgin Islands reactionaries. Like their mainland counterparts, there are several qualities that are particularly striking. The first is the “otherization” of non-Virgin Islanders, generally defined as anyone not “born here.” Because of the others’ presence, the true Virgin Islanders feel that things are slipping away.
A glaring example of otherization in action was the infamous Spompinato affair of several years ago, when the “outside” Education commissioner was sent packing. Like the nativists on the mainland, these reactionaries long for a day in the past when outsiders didn’t show up. Reactionary views were also on full display in the discussion of the territory’s constitution.
Then there are the arguments made by reactionaries. These are strikingly similar to those on the mainland. First: “We tried that. It didn’t work.” It doesn’t matter what “that” was. Then: “If we change anything, we risk what we already have.” And finally, the most dramatic argument: “Whatever you try, it will just make things worse.” Try to help poor people and they will be even poorer. Try to control gun violence and it will just get worse. The sorry state of the territory’s schools is the best evidence of these arguments in action.
In either instance, whether on the mainland or in the Virgin Islands, reactionaries share the following qualities: they are a minority whose views rarely command even a small majority; they feel victimized and on the defensive; they are destructive; and there is no reasonable discussion with them.
Reactionaries are a powerful and entrenched minority because of the intensity of their views and their willingness to act. That is also why there is no real conversation or compromise with them. They simply need to be defeated, a process that is painful, difficult and, most important, necessary.
