Another day, another ambitious Democrat abasing herself before blacks in a play for power. Sally Boynton Brown, as the nationally unknown forty year-old Democratic Party Chair from Republican Idaho, is a long, long shot candidate for national chair. Her instantly infamous cringe-video below probably isn’t enough to make her a dark horse candidate (so to speak) but has raised her profile without causing her too much trouble within her dysfunctional party.
Either Keith Ellison or Thomas Perez, offering competing hues of anti-white demagogy, seem destined to be the next Democratic National Committee Chair, unless someone can do something about it without running afoul of identity politics piety. Perez has to be the establishment favorite, having more experience and connections than the callow token Ellison, without the 880-pound gorilla of Islam in his baggag. Are Hispanics already yesterday’s primus inter pares minority? They failed to show up and swing the election for Hillary after all, and Muslims, by perverse virtue of the crisis Islam presents to the West and their more exotic image, seem poised to overtake them. Ellison’s biggest problem after his obvious mediocrity is probably that he isn’t a female in a hijab. There seems to be a sort of non-sexual fetish about the hijab, but that’s a whole other subject.
Brown’s comments should be seen for what they are, an attempt by an ambitious newcomer making up for her slim resume with greater ideological zeal This is how that is done now in the Democratic Party. Despite the failure of identity politics to sway the election, it remains the only game in Liberal Town, and the Democrats have good reason to assume it’s ultimate primacy is still inevitable, once demographic change renders the white vote, as such, inconsequential.
So the Democrats are nearly powerless to arrest their spiral down the rabbit hole of identity politics. I have to assume there are adults still in the Democrats’ barracks dismayed to see the direction the party has taken, but they can’t openly address, or even name, the problem. Identity politics have worked very well for the Democratic Party after all, and Hillary Clinton was an uncommonly bad candidate (and very, very white). It’s just there’s not much Hispanic and black political talent. Hispanic America is dominated by one of the least political peoples in the world, mestizos originating in Mexico. This is a virtue as far as I’m concerned, and I suspect as far as the White and Jewish old guard of the Democrats are concerned as well, but it has presented the Democrats with the problem of finding qualified Hispanics to run for office. Muslims appear to be inherently political, as a result of Islam’s intensely political nature and the Middle Eastern ethnic origins of the majority. Ellison of course is an American-born convert, but the act of conversion, especially for a black American, is itself a selection for political ambition.
So it seems the Democrats have painted themselves into an identity politics corner–ironically because us bigots and racists have always had a point: there isn’t a lot of intellectual energy in black and brown America–and, somehow, Asians, despite wealth and achievement (or maybe because of it) remain the miscellaneous category in the rainbow coalition. Multiculturalism ensures a great deal of mediocrity. Perhaps this hasn’t been thought through entirely by the cultural Marxists holding the Democratic Party hostage.
Hillary Clinton doubled down on identity politics, despite her husband’s sound advice to abandon them and campaign on the economy. Her failure is a microcosm of her party’s still unfolding failure: she presented her sex as her strength and it proved her weakness. She failed precisely because she behaved as a woman, thinking the way to victory was to get other women creeped-out about Donald Trump. She was thinking with her pussy, so to speak.
The strength of identity politics has always been its status as That Which Will Not be Challenged. Now it has become its weakness.