Democrats Return to their Racist Roots

In addition to welcoming anti-Semites into the progressive party base, the Democratic Party’s soft bigotry of low expectations is becoming normalized as mainstream policy. 

It is widely known–or at least, should be, by now–that the party of slavery and discrimination was historically the Democratic Party. This is not to say that there were (and are) no racist Republicans, or that all Democrats are (or were) bigots. Unfortunately, though, these historic roots are often ignored or brushed aside as “something from so long ago”—interestingly enough, given that modern-day Democrats repeatedly harp on the importance of centering “long-standing racial traumas.” But in an odd turn of events, it seems that we are coming full circle. Sadly, rather than both parties shunning bigotry and advancing toward a common brotherhood of man, the Democrats are returning to their racist roots, albeit through more modern means and methods. 

Years ago, before I entered college, I remember having the feeling that both parties would reverse course. The Grand Old Party, which does have a problem with radicalized bigots on its far-right fringe, would soon shun this group of voters and embrace a more diverse electorate. And the Democrats, who at the time were led by America’s first Black president, would cave in to their own discriminatory radical fringe. I can’t recall exactly what gave me this feeling, as it was years ago, but I am sad to say that I feel proven right.

A few years after that initial prediction, and as someone who voted for Hillary Clinton and was deeply concerned about a Trump Presidency, I was working as a cashier at a local grocery co-op. One woman was handing out “resistance cards” in the store to fellow customers, to organize an anti-Trump demonstration in downtown Philadelphia. As I heard her conversation with another shopper, I was stunned to learn of her concern about a potential deportation of illegal immigrants–not out of concern for their welfare, how practical such a policy would be, or out of any potential racial aspects to the policy. Her concern was mired in a potential price hike for avocados and how it would cost more for her to buy them if “illegals” were deported. I remember the constant yard signs of “Hate Has No Home Here” and “No Human is Illegal” being erected in my solid-blue, diverse suburb just outside of Philly. Many of the signs remain to this day, with even more variations of such slogans pertaining to human rights, feminism, Black Lives Matter, and even some decrying the fake “ethnic cleansing and genocide” in Gaza. And it is here where it struck me: much of the supposed concern for the “everyday voter,” and for minorities, women, and the LGBT community, is manufactured among a substantial portion of the Democratic Party. 

Consider how the tainted water supply of Flint, Michigan–a substantially Black town–was a major 2016 electoral issue, covered broadly by the mainstream media. Clinton pledged to fix the situation, and many down-ballot Democrats backed her. Following Clinton’s defeat, the issue was dropped from the news cycle. To this day, despite Democrats having been in power since 2021, Flint’s water remains undrinkable. In fact, it wasn’t even a major issue in the 2020 election cycle and has not even been discussed this time around either. 

The racism of the Democrats today is not the belligerent form embodied by hooded KKK members or marching Neo-Nazis with burning torches. It is a more kind, gentle, and subtle form of discriminatory views–what many have labeled the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Consider the environment following the George Floyd protests and the anti-racism movement. There has been a call to “dismantle the police” and bring an end to “cultural Whiteness,” whatever that means. Yet polling and research shows that “defunding police” is much more popular amongst progressive white voters than the communities the policy is allegedly supposed to help the most–Hispanic and Black voters. And apparently, much to the shock of professionals from a non-white background who take their careers very seriously, being on time is “White Supremacy Culture” and should not be expected of minorities in various professions. This isn’t limited to showing up on time to class, work, or an appointment, however. Having a “perfectionist” attitude, engaging in “the written word,” or even generally being professional, is all deemed to be racist and White Supremacist. Therefore, one should expect and celebrate any minority being late to class or work or speaking improper English. 

This dangerous and insulting belief system also extends to foreign policy. Consider how it is applied to the Middle East. In light of the current Gaza War, the Biden Administration has called for the Palestinian Authority to be “revamped and reformed” with more democratic institutions and less corruption. These are worthy goals, but what is preventing peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel isn’t corruption or lack of elections. After all, Israel has established peace with six Arab countries—none of whom are democracies, and all of whom are rife with corrupt government officials. What is preventing peace between Ramallah and Jerusalem is the incitement to violence stemming from institutionalized anti-Semitism in Palestinian education and religious bodies. Strangely, there is no demand from the White House that these “reforms” should extend to ending support for racist terrorism. And as such, the Jewish state has rightly refused to end its war on Hamas or give the PA more power in the region. Simply put, Washington appears to believe that it is only natural that Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in particular, are racist, anti-Semitic, and violent in nature, and therefore cannot be expected to behave like any other civilized or rational governing body. 

The soft bigotry of low expectations and “defund the police” protests have led to chaos in America’s cities. Crime goes unpunished, or with a light slap on the wrist, which is deeply harmful for business. Just look at San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland. Businesses are shutting down, homelessness and drug use are in plain sight, and people in need of mental health care are left to their own devices, either posing a danger to themselves or the wider public–indeed, often both. People are moving away, but nowadays, even the suburbs fall victim to the aftermath of these cruel policies. Sexual abuse and human trafficking have become far more commonplace as well, with the police either unable or unwilling to make much of a difference, for fear of punishment, lack of funds, or woke policies instituted by progressive local DAs. And much as Islamist terror often impacts the Muslim community more than any other, these crimes and shuttering of local businesses are extremely harmful to the communities of color the “defund the police” movement was most meant to help. Any minority who disagrees with the policy is either ignored or branded an Uncle Tom–itself an act of bigotry. 

Yet there is also what I call the Baskin Robbins racial hierarchy employed by the Democrats: the “flavor of the month” among the oppressed, and who should be prioritized in defending from the “Christian Right-Wing White Nationalist Mob.” A particular minority group, or perhaps a few, will be selected for repeated mention by the Democrats and left-leaning media as in desperate need of protection from conservative policies and, in particular, Donald Trump. Yet after a certain period of time–generally after votes are assured from that community, or a particular issue to said community is addressed–a new “flavor of the month” minority takes its place in the limelight.  In 2016 (and perhaps also now, in light of October 7th), it was Muslims or immigrants (particularly Hispanics). In 2020 and 2021, it was Asians and African-Americans. Now, it is anyone under the “queer” umbrella, though particularly non-binary folks. Yet beyond empty sloganeering, there was hardly anything truly done to protect any of these groups–and such “protections” often came at the expense of other groups desperately in need of advocacy. 

Anti-Semitism, for example, is seemingly at the bottom of the totem pole of concern for protecting minorities–unless it can be conveniently resuscitated in order to attack Neo-Nazis or Donald Trump. The anti-Semitism faced by Jewish college students, for example, by the far-left or Islamist activists is either ignored or excused. Other than the outrage over anti-Asian hate crimes during the coronavirus pandemic, there has been little-to-no attention paid to discrimination faced by Asian-Americans. In fact, whenever the “minority vote” comes up in political discussions on the news, it almost entirely focuses on Black and Hispanic voters (with “the Muslim vote” recently gaining traction), as if Native Americans, Jews, and Asians are nonexistent. Groups perceived as “successful” even if being a minority have been termed “White-Adjacent.” Though “being successful” is a broad overgeneralization and gives no agency to these groups to define themselves–seemingly an important thing to do amongst the anti-racism crowd–it seems that those who have “made it” are to be villainized and punished, treated as though they have never faced hardship. 

This is bad enough, but the other problem with such labels or thinking is that Blacks or Hispanics are to be seen and defined primarily by a supposed victimhood, eternal poverty, and perpetual life of suffering, racism, and crime. This just reinforces stereotypes, while also forgetting that there is a rich history of Black and Latino wealth and success in this country. Even examining issues Democrats deem to be most important for these “votes” (criminal justice reform for Blacks, immigration reform for Latinos), there is an automatic perception that these communities are forever in need of saving, and that the concerns of “ordinary Americans” do not apply for them as well. For a party that claims to be engaged in various forms of non-binarism and “de-labeling” communities or people, it sure does love to put entire communities into broad and overgeneralized boxes. 

As this is all occurring–with segregated “affinity groups” at that!–there is a growing shift of certain minority communities toward the GOP. Democratic operatives have forgotten that for many minority communities, especially amongst immigrants, there is a basic level of conservative and even religious values that remain deeply important. This also holds true for many minorities living in the southern or central regions of the U.S. Sadly, instead of listening to the reasons why or even trying to come to some sort of middle ground, too many Democrats have once again declared such folks as “Uncle Toms” or paternalistically claimed they are “voting against their interests.” The Democrats have largely wedded themselves to a loud yet vocal minority of mostly elite and coastal white, far-left advocates–assisted by acolytes such as Joy Reid or Marc Lamont-Hill–whose values are not shared by a growing swathe of moderate and/or minority voters. And the belittling or shunning approach toward them will only accelerate this drift. It remains true that the GOP has much work to do in terms of isolating its own fringe extremists as well as broadening its appeal to moderate voters and minorities. But ultimately, with the way the Democratic Party is moving, it might not have to work as hard or gradually as it may once have. Most Americans do not want to be governed by a life of chaos that sells a depressing vision of endless racism and victimization. We want to be seen as individuals, listened to and heard (even if not always agreed with), given the opportunity to get the best education and jobs possible for ourselves and our loved ones. This is the American Dream, and it extends beyond racial or regional borders. The Democrats appear to have lost their way and, sadly, insist on doubling down on the woke playbook of four years ago just at the time most Americans have had enough. If they do not want to be seen as the bigoted, ignorant, and chaotic party once more, then they must swiftly change course and abandon the current path of discriminatory radicalism.