By William Hallowell | Editor
Credit: Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters
Modern liberal left doctrine has weaponised race for political gain; it is both repressive and regressive.
In modern politics, there is a clear double standard with regards to racial identity and its relationship to political views. Whilst BAME politicians on the left are celebrated for their skin and not their merit, BAME politicians on the right are abused and ostracised for not conforming to the racist instrumentation of identity politics - the belief of how a person should vote, on the basis of skin colour.
The first example: Kamala Harris. When the US election result was declared a Democrat victory, naming Joe Biden the President-elect, lots of praise was given to now Vice President Harris – but not for her party’s victory, or her merit which earned her high office, but her race. Huge celebrations across mainstream and social media were present because she is the first black woman to hold this post, whilst representing a more moderate party. If the first BAME female Vice President was a Republican, public perception would be incredibly different.
In the UK, our Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is another prime example. Awarded this role in the cabinet for her merit, Labour voters tend to downplay her, as they do the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, accusing Boris Johnson of implementing ‘token diversity’. This concept is the workplace equivalent of ‘I’m not racist, I have black friends’ – appointing people for the sake of diversity, not merit. Is it fair therefore, to assume that these left-wing voters are downplaying the merit of these politicians’ hard work, and arguing that their appointment to these high offices of state were not based off excellence, but because they are part of the BAME community? If they are, I’d argue that was racist.
Despite this, Ms Patel has already received blatantly racist abuse from the Labour benches in the Commons itself – she was told by Labour’s Florence Eshalomi that she, a woman of Asian background, could not experience racism, as opposed to a black woman (like Eshalomi) who can. This was undeniably racist. Then, when the Home Secretary stood up this strange gatekeeping of victimhood, she was shot down and accused of ‘gaslighting’ racism for political gain, and undermining black experiences of racism. Why is victimhood a competition?
Let’s be quite honest, if Ms Patel was on the Labour frontbench explaining her experiences of racism, the world would be praising her. However, the Home Secretary is a BAME Conservative woman, who doesn’t fall in line with racist left-wing stereotypes. We on the right, do not praise race in an attempt to virtue signal or pander to these loud ‘liberals’. We praise merit. We praise excellence. The colour of a person’s skin should never determine their fate or politics.
Again, the left attack Ms Patel on her Brexit immigration policy – ‘not even her parents would be able to get into the UK with her points based system’. It’s relevance? There is no relevance. A politician’s policies and beliefs should never be dictated or controlled by the colour of their skin, and it is this toxic, racist, overtly suppressive left-wing narrative that has pushed such unnecessary racial divide in the last year. We saw this with BLM – and the objective of identity politics? To win votes. To manipulate those who are easily led. It’s easy to try and win votes if you falsely lead a group into thinking that they are entirely oppressed, and that the white people are actively oppressing them, infringing on their freedoms.
Simply, it is not the right of anyone, to decide the political views of another – regardless of race, sexuality or gender, let alone being so self-righteous enough to explain to someone why they should be voting a certain way, due to their skin colour. One’s views should not be dictated by attributes that cannot be helped. To do this serves absolutely no progressive purpose for society. Identity politics and 'Critical Race Theory' (a concept which teaches ethnic minorities they are actively oppressed by a white majority state in 2021) are ideas seeking division. What good can genuinely come of teaching any group of people that they are deliberately targeted by the state and its institutions in modern Britain? It breeds a false sense of victimhood, and will inevitably lead to resentment and hate towards the state. This is entirely regressive.
In this political climate, it is the right that is ironically far more liberal than anyone on the left who identifies as such. This thought of right-wing ideology being entirely and unapologetically based upon the oppression of ethnic minorities is a lie. Identity politics instrumented by the left is far more suppressing of thought and speech than anything modern right-wing politics advocates for.