Is the Democratic Party Giving Up on Latino Voters?

In my last post, I talked briefly about the left’s replacement of the word “equality” with the word “equity.” There’s nothing accidental about the switch. Equality means everyone is treated the same, equity means people the left deems as “disadvantaged” or “victims” are given preferential treatment.

Pay close attention to the language and terminology they use. While it’s often easy to brush it all off as Woke buzzword nonsense, it would be a mistake to do so. Democrats choose their words carefully, and they all get their marching orders from the same place. Whenever they update their terminology, it’s usually for a reason.

The same applies to the left’s embrace of the term “Latinix” in place of Latinos/Hispanics, and the capitalization of the “B” in black, as in “black people” are now “Black people.”

Steve Sailer on Twitter speculated that this change in terminology is tantamount to the Democrats “promoting” and “demoting” the various racial groups of this country in terms of their importance to the Democratic Party:

Again, while this all my seem silly, names are incredibly important. What if someone stopped capitalizing the first letter of your name? Or what if they started calling you by a different name altogether? You’d take that as a personal insult.

If they started capitalizing the first letter of your name after previously leaving it lowercase, you’d probably take that as a sign of respect.

What I want to talk about here is the Democrats’ increasing use of the term “Latinx.” I confess that I’ve never actually heard the word used in real life, so I don’t actually know how it’s pronounced.

Is it “Latin-ix” or is it “La-TEEN-ix”? I don’t know.

It’s a stupid looking word to me, and it strikes me as one of those “gender neutral”-type words because, I guess, the word “Latino” is masculine (as opposed to Latina, which is feminine).

Think about it from the perspective of the Democratic Party: they are committed to “trans people” and “queer people” and “nonbinary people” and “gender fluid people” and–you get the point. But they’re also committed to “people of color,” so they have to find a way to square that circle. If gender doesn’t exist, then how can they use a term like “Latino”?

That’s where “Latinx” comes from.

The problem is that Latinos don’t actually like being called “Latinx.”

Only 2% of Latinos in this country actually refer to themselves as “Latinx,” and a further 40% are offended by the term, which, again, is exclusively used by Democrats:

Politico even wrote a concerned article about it, entitled “Democrats fall flat with ‘Latinx’ language:

As Democrats seek to reach out to Latino voters in a more gender-neutral way, they’ve increasingly begun using the word Latinx, a term that first began to get traction among academics and activists on the left.

But that very effort could be counterproductive in courting those of Latin American descent, according to a new nationwide poll of Hispanic voters.

Only 2 percent of those polled refer to themselves as Latinx, while 68 percent call themselves “Hispanic” and 21 percent favored “Latino” or “Latina” to describe their ethnic background, according to the survey from Bendixen & Amandi International, a top Democratic firm specializing in Latino outreach.

More problematic for Democrats: 40 percent said Latinx bothers or offends them to some degree and 30 percent said they would be less likely to support a politician or organization that uses the term.

At a time when Republicans appear to be making inroads among Latino voters, the survey results raise questions about how effectively the party is communicating with them, according to pollster Fernand Amandi and other Democrats and Latino vote experts.

Seems to me that the smart thing to do would be to simply call them by the name they prefer for themselves, which is Hispanic. I always thought it was “Latino” but I guess not. So I’ll start using Hispanic from now on.

Because, you know, that’s what they call themselves. It’s a matter of basic human respect and dignity, all that jazz.

If someone says, “Hello, my name is Antonio,” it’s pretty disrespectful for you to say, “Actually, I’m going to call you Antonix, because your name ends in a masculine vowel, and as we know, there is no such thing as gender. Pleased to meet you, Antonix.”

It might seem like a ridiculous example, but that’s basically what the Democrats are doing with the term “Latinx.” They’re saying, “No, I’m not going to call you by the name you want others to call you, because your entire language is offensive to gender non-binary people.”

No wonder 40% of Hispanics are offended by the term “Latinx”!

But the Democrats have to use the term “Latinx.” They can’t use “Latino” because it indicates that gender does, in fact, exist, and every good lib knows that of course there’s no such thing as gender.

So why don’t they just use “Hispanic” then?

Well, that word is also problematic, because “Hispanic” refers to Spain, an evil, white European COLONIZING country. So “Hispanic” won’t do.

It has to be “Latinx.” Nothing else works.

Unless the Democrats simply want to alienate the LGBT wing of the party, that is. Then they could start using “Latino” again.

But it would piss off the blue-hairs and the “gender-nonconforming.”

So it appears, then, that the Democrats have prioritized them over Hispanics. That’s really what it boils down to, right?

This is somewhat surprising, though. Democrats for years have talked about building this “coalition of the future” based on an America where white people are no longer the dominant majority.

Hispanics are the fastest growing racial group in America right now, and you’d think the Democrats would be chiefly concerned with keeping them in the fold, right?

Well, it’s possible they simply can’t.

Let’s take a look at Vox’s data on the 2020 election. There is one racial voter group that sticks out:

I’ll preface this with the obvious disclaimer that the 2020 election result was… disputed, to say the least, so who knows how accurate this stuff is. But humor me here.

Democrats made decent gains with white voters from 2016-2020, increasing their percentage from 41% to 44%, which is a net gain of 6% when you consider that it had to also come off of Trump’s total.

They had slight losses among black voters, down to 90% from 93%.

But they suffered massive losses among Hispanic voters, losing 8% from 2016 to 2020, which is a net swing of 16 points.

If that happens again, the Democrats have officially lost Hispanic voters for all intents and purposes. Another net-swing of 16 percentage points puts the Dems around 55% and Republicans around 45%. Given that the Republicans do way better with white voters than Democrats do, all the Republicans really have to do is somewhat cut into the Democrats’ sky-high victory margins with non-white voters and it’s over.

Democrats rely on winning 65-70% of Hispanic and Asian voters, and 90%+ of black voters. Black voters are especially important to Democrats because they’re located in the major cities. Black voters are how Democrats are competitive in places like Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Most of those states are rural and conservative, but they do have some bigger cities with lots of black voters, so Democrats run the margins up with them and try to offset lopsided Republican margins in the rural and suburban counties.

Democrats need to win 90%+ of black voters in every election. And you can see that they’ve dropped from winning 97% when Obama was around to 90% on the dot in 2020. That scares them. If they drop into even the mid-high 80s range, Democrats are in serious danger.

So this is why you’re seeing “black” become “Black,” and all the race war/ White Devil propaganda being cranked up to 11. It’s panic.

Democrats need black voters to never stop believing the Republicans are racist, pure and simple.

Hispanic voters, however, are more expendable to the Democrats. They are not pivotal in the upper midwest, where the past few elections have been decided.

Sure, they’re important in Florida, but I think Democrats might be at the point where they’re already just writing off Florida altogether. This chart shows how much support Democrats lost among Hispanic voters broken down by state:

A whopping -14% in Florida. This is because Florida has a lot of Cubans, and Cubans hate Democrats.

Okay then, you might ask about Texas. The Democrats are still trying to “turn Texas blue,” right?

Well, sure, but Hispanics in Texas are pretty damn conservative. Texas is already like half-Hispanic anyway in terms of demographics. Hispanics in Texas just don’t like Democrats all that much. That’s the Dems’ problem in Texas. It’s not that there aren’t yet enough Hispanics in Texas for Dems to flip the state; it’s that the Hispanics down there don’t vote the way Democrats need them to.

In 2020, Trump won 41% of the Hispanic vote in Texas, which is way higher than his 32% mark nationally. He did really well (for a Republican) in the Rio Grande Valley along the US-Mexico border, which is 90% Hispanic, taking 41% of the vote in Hidalgo county, and 43% in Cameron county, which are directly on the border. In 2016, he only got 28% and 32% in those counties respectively.

Many Hispanics in Texas are in favor of border security. And the Democrats are the party of open borders.

In 2018, Texas Governor Greg Abbott won reelection and got 41% of the Hispanic vote to his opponent’s 53%, which is pretty remarkable when you consider that his Democratic opponent was a Hispanic woman named Lupe Valdez.

So the conclusion we can draw here is that if Dems are going to ever “turn Texas blue,” it’s not going to be through Hispanic voters.

What is the Dems’ electoral strategy, then?

Well, that’s why I brought up the language and terminology thing.

I think it’s possible that Democrats are in the early stages of, if not fully giving up on, then at least somewhat distancing themselves from Hispanic voters as Hispanics slowly drift to the right.

I think the Democrats’ plan is to re-solidify their lock on black voters and make even more in-roads with college educated white voters. This second part is the key.

Because while people always want to talk about the Hispanic vote in elections and the “coalition of the future” and all that, white voters are still the single biggest group in the country by far. Improving by even a couple of percentage points among white voters can swing an election.

White voters, however, are increasingly divided. The white working class loves Trump and voted for him in staggering numbers, but the college-educated white class has become more Democratic since Trump came around. They think he’s icky and “racist” and he offends their delicate, white collar sensibilities.

College-educated white people are “woke.” They watch the News™. They read NY Times Best-Selling Books™. They watch Academy Award-winning Films™ about how America is Racist. They watch Netflix documentaries and therefore they know everything. They travel the world. They’re Cultured™. They’re “foodies” who love exotic foreign cuisine, and thus they love Immigration™. They’re vaxxed-up and double-masked because they Believe in Science™ and Trust the Experts™ like Anthony Fauci. College educated white people are the ones who pay $20,000 an hour for black race-baiter Ibram X. Kendi to lecture them on “How to Be An Anti-Racist.”

In other words, they’re brainwashed. Not all of them, but a lot of them–and an increasing number.

For them, opposition to Trump was more a cultural badge of honor. It was a way for them to say, “I’m not like those dirty rednecks who support Trump. I’m not racist. I’m tolerant and inclusive and enlightened. I’m part of the good white people group. I feel ashamed for my White Privilege™.”

This is the opposite side of the same propaganda coin the Democrats and the media use to scare black people into voting Democrat.

The point of all the race war propaganda isn’t just to keep black voters in the Democratic tent, it’s also meant for the Woke white people who “stand in solidarity” with those black voters.

How did Biden “win” in 2020? By improving with white voters, namely the college-educated ones, and limiting the damage with black voters.

He lost support among Hispanic voters from Hillary’s 2016 numbers. But gains among college-educated white voters more than offset those losses.

I think the Democrats’ new strategy increasingly no longer includes Hispanic voters. I think the Democrats now believe that the days of them consistently winning 65-70% of Hispanic voters are officially over. It’s not like they’re going to start losing Hispanic voters to Republicans by massive margins anytime soon, but the closer the Hispanic vote gets to 50-50, the less important it becomes to the Democrats. I think they’re already focused on locking down Woke Whites and black voters.

And it is a matter of choosing one over the other, no matter what the Democrats will try to say. Policies and rhetoric that appeal to blacks and Woke Whites will alienate lots of Hispanics.

There was basically a race war in Chicago last year during all the George Floyd stuff. This dude lays it out pretty clearly in a warning to black people to avoid Hispanic neighborhoods:

It even made it to the Chicago Tribune, but national media largely ignored the story:

The organizing efforts of some Latino groups to peacefully protest and help protect their communities from unrest were quickly overshadowed by racial tensions after reports that alleged Latino gang members were profiling and targeting black people in Little Village earlier this week.

“The system is corrupt and they want to see minorities fight against one another to weaken us,” said community activist Montserrat Ayala, who helped organize a peaceful protest in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement over the weekend. “We need to work together to dismantle racism.”

When widespread protests broke out across Chicago and the suburbs to demand justice for George Floyd and other black victims of police brutality, Ayala quickly helped to coordinate a caravan of Latinos to condemn racism and spread messages of black and brown unity. Dozens of Chicago residents showed up in Little Village to support the effort.

But Sunday things changed. Looting began to spread to Chicago neighborhoods and Little Village residents rallied together to stand guard in front of neighborhood businesses and on street corners.

A crowd on 26th Street grew throughout the day after looters attempted to hit some businesses in the heart of the Mexican-American neighborhood. Residents and police intervened and halted the chaos.

“Residents and police.”

Alleged gang members joined in the effort to stand guard.

After several social media posts were widely shared showing alleged gang members in Little Village and Cicero attacking black people in those neighborhoods, people began labeling the situation a race war. More posts advised black Chicagoans to avoid “Mexican neighborhoods” because Latinos were profiling and targeting them as looters.

“This is a step back,” said Berto Aguayo, director and co-founder of Increase the Peace, a grassroots organization. Aguayo encouraged his community to remain focused and “remind our black brothers and sisters that we stand with them.”

Anti-blackness is deeply rooted and internalized in the Latino community, said Aguayo, who says he has been working with at-risk youth to create coalitions to tackle racial violence.

Of course you have the paid “community activists” preaching “black-brown solidarity,” but that’s not the way the ordinary people in Chicago’s Hispanic neighborhoods saw the George Floyd riots.

They’d rather their neighborhoods not partake in any of the “peaceful protesting” that inevitably devolves into arson, looting and violence.

The point of all this is that when the Democrats make overt appeals to one racial group, they inevitably alienate another. So the Democrats are rapidly approaching a point where they must essentially choose one over the other. Their strategy now is to rally both black and college-educated white voters while more or less giving up on Hispanic voters.

What about Asian voters? How do they factor into all this?

Democrats are, as the earlier charts showed, doing quite well with Asian voters. They got 67% of their votes in 2020, down just 1% from 2016.

But Asian voters, while a fast-growing group, are not yet anywhere near as big a portion of the overall US population as are blacks (12%) and Hispanics (~19%). Asians are only about 6% of the US population.

Asian voters are not yet a critical voting bloc in national elections. But they are a priority for Democrats. That’s why we saw the “Stop Asian Hate” rallies earlier this year, an attempt to portray Asians as victims of violent white supremacism and Coronavirus backlash, even though blacks commit the most anti-Asian hate crimes, the most recent of which saw 4 teenage black girls attack and harass a group of Asian students riding the subway in Philadelphia.

Democrats are trying to cool tensions down between blacks and Asians because Democrats know if they can’t keep Hispanics in the fold, they at least have to try to salvage their relationship with Asian voters. Asians are a fast-growing group, and the Democrats know they cannot allow Asians to start voting Republican.

But in the long run, this isn’t going to work, either. Many Asians are extremely racist against black people, and they’re not going to like the Democrats’ black voter-centric strategy. While Asians in many ways are similar to college-educated white people in terms of income levels and education levels, they are not nearly as “woke” as college-educated white people are.

Some Asians literally have code-words they use to be racist without getting caught, like “bn” which stands for “black negro.”

And even in real life, although this was in China:

But still, if the Asian population in American is increasing largely due to immigration from China, it does matter quite a bit what people in China think of black people and about race relations in general.

The Chinese are way more racist against black people than Americans are:

Last April, authorities in the southern city of Guangzhou, which has China’s largest African community, launched a campaign to forcibly test Africans in the city for the coronavirus, and ordered them to self-isolate or quarantine in designated hotels. Landlords evicted African residents, forcing many to sleep on the street, in hotels or in shops. Some restaurants refused to serve Black customers.

Scenes of Africans sleeping on the street with their belongings were shared widely on social media, which sparked outrage among African communities around the world and prompted rare public rebuke from some African governments.

But the Chinese government denied that the authorities’ conduct was discriminatory, and blamed “Western media” for provoking “the problems between China and African countries.”

For those who think the official line from Beijing is bad, check out the Chinese internet, where the rampant racism against Black people is often too appalling to repeat. The use of racial slurs is ubiquitous on social media discussions about Black people. People of African descent living in China are often depicted as overstaying visas, not paying taxes and encroaching on Chinese culture.

African migrants as well as African Chinese intermarriages are commonly described as spelling doom for the Chinese race. “In a China, where the birth rate is gradually decreasing due to family planning policies,” meaning the one-child policy in the past and the two-child policy of the present, “not too many years later, China will become a country with a Black and foreign Muslim majority,” lamented one person on the Chinese social media platform Weibo. In other instances, some Chinese women in relationships with Black men were doxxed and vilified.

Perhaps this is why black people aren’t the biggest fans of Asian people. Black people know full well how Asians feel about them. But then this gets us into a “chicken or the egg?” situation where we can never truly determine which side actually “started it.” That gets us nowhere, really.

Anyway, Chinese people and many Asian Americans are not hampered by political correctness and “woke” politics, either.

They don’t have the same hesitation white Americans do to mention the “unmentionable” things. They will not hesitate to tell their kids to avoid public transit–or even pull their kids out of school–if they feel their kids are under threat from racist black classmates attacking them. Asians don’t feel white guilt.

Need I remind you of the Rooftop Koreans in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King Riots?

Asian Americans haven’t forgotten.

And this is why I think the Democrats’ prioritization of blacks and woke whites will eventually probably alienate Asians as well.

The Chinese actually have a derogatory word for woke white liberals, “Baizuo”:

While Asians may vote about 2/3rds Democrat, this does not mean by any stretch that Asians are on-board with all the “Wokeness.”

Now, of course, none of this means Asians are “natural fits” for the Republican Party.

But it does mean Asians are also not “natural fits” for the Democratic Party, either, especially a Democratic Party that is increasingly going out of its way to cater to black voters.

As I said earlier, the more overtly the Democrats appeal to one racial group, the more they risk alienating the others. It is incredibly difficult to maintain a party that is a coalition of different racial groups that, at the end of the day, really don’t like each other all that much.

You can already see the cracks beginning to show in the Democratic coalition. In 2018, the New York Times wrote an article about how Asians in New York City were outraged over a plan to “change the way students are admitted to New York’s elite public high schools.”

Asian Groups See Bias in Plan to Diversify New York’s Elite Schools

A new plan to change the way students are admitted to New York’s elite public high schools is infuriating members of some Asian communities who feel they will be pushed aside in the drive to admit more than a handful of black and Latino students.

But in a series of forceful statements on Tuesday, Richard A. Carranza, the schools chancellor, offered a blunt rebuttal to their claims. “I just don’t buy into the narrative that any one ethnic group owns admission to these schools,” he said on Fox 5 New York.

“The test is the most unbiased way to get into a school,” said Peter Koo, a city councilman whose district includes Flushing, Queens, on Tuesday. “It doesn’t require an interview. It doesn’t require a résumé. It doesn’t even require connections. The mayor’s son just graduated from Brooklyn Tech and got into Yale. Now he wants to stop this and build a barrier to Asian-Americans — especially our children.”

The schools, which admit students based on a single test, look starkly different from the school system overall. While black and Hispanic students represent nearly 70 percent of public school students, they make up just 10 percent of students at the specialized high schools, a vast underrepresentation that has long been considered an injustice and a symbol of the city’s extreme school segregation.

Asian students, on the other hand, are overrepresented at the schools. While just 16 percent of public school students are Asian, they make up 62 percent of students at the specialized schools. White students also make up a disproportionate share of the students, though by a much smaller margin. They are 15 percent of the system overall and 24 percent of students at specialized schools.

When Democrats start talking about how Asian students are “over-represented” at NYC’s best high schools, that is not going to go over well with Asian New Yorkers. Democrats have already hit the point where they’re forced to “choose a side.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio offered a two-pronged plan on Saturday to address this, first by setting aside 20 percent of the seats at each of the specialized schools for students from high-poverty schools — which tend to have a high share of black and Hispanic students — who score just below the cutoff score.

But his administration’s ultimate goal, he said, is to eliminate the test entirely. In its place, top students would be chosen from every middle school in the city, a determination that would take into account their class rank and scores on statewide standardized tests.

The reason De Blasio wants to get rid of the test entirely is because whites and Asians score higher on it on average than do blacks and Hispanics.

“I’m not sure if the mayor is racist, but this policy is certainly discriminatory,” said Kenneth Chiu, chairman of the New York City Asian-American Democratic Club. “Our mayor is pitting minority against minority, which is really, really messed up, to put it nicely.”

That’s exactly what it is: minority pitted against minority.

But this is the inevitable problem the Democrats were always going to run into by positioning themselves as the “party of minorities.”

In theory, it sounds great, but in reality, those minority groups often have competing interests. What’s good for Asians is not always good for black people, and what’s good for black people is not always good for Asians. What’s good for Hispanics is not always good for Asians, and vice-versa. You get the picture.

It was always going to come to a point where the Democrats were forced to basically pick favorites among the diverse racial groups that make up the party’s voter coalition.

Now, whether the Republicans actually have the ability (or the willingness) to exploit these divisions emerging within the Democratic Party is an open question. The Republicans are generally incompetent, and the only reason a winning Republican (Trump) was ever even able to gain the party’s nomination and run for President is because he basically launched a hostile takeover of the party, which heading into the 2016 election cycle seemed perfectly content to send Jeb Bush out as its nominee so he could get his clock cleaned by Hillary Clinton in the general election.

There’s still a lot of doubt about whether the Republican establishment actually wants to win elections, or whether their job is secretly to throw elections and maintain the illusion that the American people actually have a choice in who leads their country.

But it also may not even matter in the long run. At some point in the future, both Hispanic voters and Asian voters will probably be forced to choose between a Democratic Party that only cares about black people and Woke white people, and a Republican Party they see as too white, too rural and full of Southern evangelical Christians.

The only thing really keeping Hispanics and Asians in the Democratic fold is the fact that Hispanics and Asians are mostly clustered in and around urban areas, which are heavily-Democratic, and thus voting Democrat has basically become a way of life for Hispanics and Asians. Voting Democrat is simply a part of urban culture in America, and it rubs off on anyone who lives in an urban area, just as voting Republican is embedded in the culture of rural America. (I’m sure there are some Hispanics and Asians out in rural America who own guns, drive trucks, wear cowboy hats and vote Republican. In fact, according to 2020 exit polls, Biden only won Hispanics in the South by a margin of 55-43 over Trump. In the East, Midwest and West, he won at least 67% of their vote. He also did far worse with rural Hispanics than he did with urban and suburban Hispanics.)

But just because this is the way things currently work and have worked for many years does not mean it’s the way things will always work. If they’re pushed enough, Hispanics and Asians will abandon the Democratic Party. They’re not idiots. They won’t keep voting Democrat if it’s no longer in their best interests to do so.

The way the American political system is set up means it basically can only have two political parties. We don’t have a parliamentary system where many different parties can compete in elections and win seats in the legislature based on the percentage of votes they win nationally, and then upon winning their seats, go about the process of building a majority coalition comprised of several different parties.

It would not be possible for, say, Asians to break off from the Democratic Party and create their own Asian American Political Party to compete on a national level. They just wouldn’t have anywhere near enough seats to compete for and win legitimate political influence in this country.

As of 2019, there were a total of 50 Congressional districts with majority-minority population demographics. Of those 50 districts, 22 are majority-black, 26 are majority Hispanic, and only 2 are majority Asian: CA-17 (52.7% Asian) and HI-01 (50.2% Asian).

Even if Hispanics and blacks wanted to break off and form their own political parties, neither would have any shot of coming anywhere close to a majority in Congress.

Let’s imagine a scenario where the American political parties are broken down by race, and we have a Woke white party, a non-Woke white party, a black party, a Hispanic party, and an Asian/Pacific Islander party, the immediate problem would be, well, what about people who don’t fit into those groups, like Native Americans, Muslims, people of mixed race, etc? They’d either have to create their own tiny parties or throw their support behind the other parties. But let’s just assume for simplicity’s sake that we have the two white parties, a black party, a Hispanic party and an Asian party.

In that case, the non-woke white party would win in a landslide every year. The Democrats get around 40-44% of the white vote in every election, while the Republicans get between 56-60% of the white vote in every election. All the minority parties would be way behind, simply because there are way more white people than non-white people in America.

There is no incentive to splinter the parties in America. The only party really capable of splintering along racial lines is the Democratic Party, and doing so would simply hand every election to the Republicans.

There has to be two parties in this country at all times. Anytime a third party is formed, it pulls voters from one of the two parties and by default hands the election to the party that didn’t splinter. The 1912 election is probably the best example of this.

So if we can’t escape the two party system, then it remains unavoidable that at some point in the future (if it hasn’t already happened), both Hispanics and Asians will have to choose between a Democratic Party that prioritizes black people over them, and a Republican Party they may or may not see as overtly racist, but at the very least a party they don’t have a lot in common with culturally.

But even if they do see the Republicans as racist, it’s now becoming increasingly clear to them that the Democratic Party is, for all practical purposes, racist against them as well.

What else can you call policies that prioritize one race over another if not racist?

Please tell me a more accurate word than “racist” to describe the Democratic Mayor of New York City basically saying to Asians, “There’s too many of You People in our city’s best schools. We need less of You People and more blacks and Hispanics in these schools.”

I’m all ears, here.

But from the perspective of New York City’s Asians, the policy is racism in disguise as “fairness, equity and inclusion.”

The Democrats have already moved away from “equality,” which was understood to mean the equality of all races, and are now firmly behind “equity,” which we can infer to mean the prioritization of black people and the LGBT community.

The switch from “equality” to “equity” was a message to Hispanics and Asians that, basically, you’re on your own now.

Further, the Democratic Party is now clearly communicating that it will not hesitate to pursue policies that harm Hispanic and Asian communities if that’s what it takes to provide equitable treatment for black people and LGBT people.

That’s what equity means. It’s very different from equality.

In fact, equity and equality are mutually exclusive terms, by definition. You cannot be equal if certain groups are given preferential treatment over others.

Now, I get that there’s a difference between the Democrats’ backdoor racism and the perceived White Supremacy of the Republican Party.

But if the so-called “White Supremacists” are the ones talking about tax cuts, school choice, anti-affirmative action, and law and order on the streets, I think you might see an awful lot of Hispanics and Asians take their chances with the “White Supremacists.”

At the very least, the “White Supremacists” won’t refer to Hispanics as “Latinx.”

Leave a Reply