What first caught our eye in this front-page story in the Washington Post, about the primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, was not the headline or the report of her campaign slogan, “It’s time for one of us,” but the next sentence, which began: “That appeal to the tribal identities of class, age, gender and ethnicity turned out to be a good gamble . . .”
Wow. So for the MSM there’s nothing negative about saying that someone is appealing to “tribal identities,” since that is just one campaign tactic among many. Some candidates play the ideological card or the issue card. But far from being condemned, playing the tribal identity card is just matter-of-factly reported as if it is no big deal, and the only thing that matters is whether it works. While this was a news story, we have no doubt that if a conservative candidate used an appeal that the Washington Post thought was wrong, it would say so.
The rest of the article is in line with this callous point of view, reporting the Democratic party’s “growing dependence on female and minority voters,” picking candidates based on their membership in “underrepresented groups” (a PC term first limited to college admission offices), and how “voters want to support people like themselves,” who can represent them “in an authentic way,” and are “most representative of their communities.”
Apparently, “people like themselves” are not fellow Americans — whatever their race or gender — who may share similar opinions. No, only people who are members of the same “tribe” could possibly share their beliefs.
Now, the Left’s response to our objections will be, come on, this is nothing new, and this sort of tribal politics was used for years by white racists. And our reply is . . . exactly.
This piece originally appeared in The National Review