Yet by reducing these lawmakers only to their racial categorizations, the question of whether they are faithfully serving their constituents is answered only in the most superficial way possible. And do progressives really think that the negotiations would’ve gone better for them if say, the relatively liberal Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (a white man) was replaced by conservative South Carolina Republican Tim Scott (a conservative African-American man)?
What if we were to take the logic that suggests that federal lawmakers represent racial groups instead of states or districts and apply it universally? Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar would be in trouble. Her Minnesota district is over 60 percent white; what if the white people of her district came to believe they couldn’t be represented by someone from a minority ethnic and religious group?
Advocates of the new racialist mindset don’t anticipate such outcomes because they always imagine that they’re talking to a progressive audience. Devoted progressives are unlikely to advocate for strong adherence to white identity and engage in white chauvinist politics. But American history shows us that plenty of other people would.