In reading a defense of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” statement, I came across an interesting argument. The author, Jonathan Chait (who self-identifies as a “liberal hawk”), noted that:

A plurality of Republicans supported Trump’s claim that a Mexican-American judge was inherently biased and therefore unfit to preside over his fraud trial.

Instead of arguing the assertion, allow me instead to point out the stunning hypocrisy of a liberal denouncing identity politics and the notion of inherent bias.

Modern liberalism (as opposed to the classical liberalism that is the forefather of libertarianism) embraces the idea that our identity informs our opinions and judgment. If you’re not black, you can’t have a legitimate opinion on race issues. If you’re not a woman, you don’t get to have an opinion on birth control or reproductive issues. If you’re a white male, your non-self-flagellating opinion is automatically wrong. If you’re Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, you embrace racist presumptions:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

We are told that we cannot judge people by their skin color, or their ethnicity, or their gender, or their orientation, or their religion, or their appearance, or their attire. Except when we are supposed to. We are supposed to celebrate diversity, we are supposed to notice when people are (outwardly) different. Yes, the argument is that the difference is to be viewed in a positive light, but tell me how that’s supposed to work when the “different” people and their advocates are themselves preaching hate and intolerance? Disagree with that last assertion? Go ahead, voice a nonconforming opinion or act in an not-woke fashion somewhere that social justice types can see it. Then we can have a chat about hate and intolerance.

The demands by identity and advocacy groups aren’t couched in conciliatory or uniting terms. They do not seek to minimize our outward differences. They extol differences, they judge based on differences. They use phrases like “white privilege,” “black lives matter,” “gay pride,” and other race, gender, orientation, ethnic, and religious identifiers. They attack all those who don’t see things exactly as they do, who transgress in even the slightest way, or who might advocate for actual, adjective-blind equality instead of embracing identity politics and the grievance hierarchy.

I’d call the criticism of bigotry from those who celebrate it shockingly hypocritical, but hypocrisy is so common in politics that I’d might as well proclaim water is wet. The Left does love to point out others’ hypocrisy, and I do relish stories about moralizing crusaders being caught (literally) with their pants down, but they really should seek some self-awareness. We are never going to see a society where bigotry has been eradicated when the champions of progressivism and supposed “tolerance” are themselves perpetually judging others by their appearance.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.