Yesterday I watched the Facebook comment feed of a North Carolina station’s live stream of the GOP/Trump tax reform news conference. Comments were coming in fast and furious, with people expressing their support or frustration over the tax reform plan.
When the camera panned to Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), an articulate conservative figure, his skin color became a priority topic. Several commenters decided to focus on his race, rather than expressing any relevant grievances to the tax reform bill itself. The comments ranged from, “Go fetch, Sambo” to “Yessir boss him is great” to “Hey a whole black guy.”
Senator Scott has been a solid conservative voice in Washington for nearly eight years. Upon his arrival to Washington he was invited to join the Congressional Black Caucus, which he politely declined, stating, “My campaign was never about race.” Scott has refused to make his racial identity—which is something to be celebrated—a point of division.
As one might expect, that sort of comment does not sit well with those that claim to have a monopoly on all things pertaining to race, gender, and sexual orientation.
When the god of identity politics is blasphemed the pharisaical priests come out in full force.
Did they insult Senator Scott based on his specific contributions to the tax plan? No. That wasn’t a factor of their disdain at all. It was because he was a black conservative, which has numerous negative connotations in the progressive echo chamber.
Andy Ostroy, a Huffington Post writer, wanted in on the shade brigade’s outrage and tweeted out:
“What a shocker…there’s ONE black person there and sure enough they have him standing right next to the mic like a manipulated prop.” (For the record, Ostroy later apologized, saying he could have done a better job at making his point. My question is, “What was his point in the first place?”).
Why do so many on the left get bent out of shape when a person of color doesn’t bow at their altar of identity politics?
I’d posit it’s due, in part, to the fact that each time a person from a historically oppressed group takes a stand on the principles of individualism and self-determination, rather than assuaging white guilt, they see a chip of their social justice facade crumble, leaving them scrambling to find others to affirm their beneficence and non-complicity in America’s past sins.
But, just as simply saying the words “I’m sorry” or expressing excessive amounts of pity on the marginalized doesn’t actually make their lives better, so America cannot properly reckon with her past sins by pouring money into welfare programs that do nothing to address the dignity deficit plaguing the very groups she wants to help.
This leftist disdain for minority and female conservatives is a symptom of a much more serious problem and it stems from the 1960s belief that government redistribution can actually secure equity and dispense cosmic justice in reparation for our nation’s failure to live up to the belief in liberty and justice for all. If that were actually the case, then I’d say, “Sign me up!”
But that’s not the case, and that’s why we need people like Tim Scott to continue to stand up for the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and magnanimity in a culture that is oftentimes more willing to mock dissenting perspectives than it is to listen to an opposing viewpoint.