“You are a traitor to your race!”
That stung. Honestly, it made me realize I’m not really a moderate; I might lean more conservative than I thought, and maybe it’s time to voice that more clearly.
Back in my first year of constitutional law at Rutgers-Camden, we had some powerful discussions about topics like affirmative action and the theory of disproportionate impact. I held the belief that laws should be color-blind and focus purely on merit, and I mentioned how Asians can often fall victim to these policies.
It’s interesting how the left really only celebrates minority achievements when they align with their progressive views.
We also dove into the topic of Japanese internment camps during WWII. Being part of the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, I pointed out that many Japanese Americans at that time adhered to political leaders almost like a religion. It’s debatable, but one could argue that internment might have seemed necessary back then. I clarified that while those camps were certainly wrong, they were not on the same scale as the atrocities committed in German extermination camps.
Throughout my studies, I had grown accustomed to the disappointment from both students and professors whenever minority students took a conservative stance. However, this was the first time someone challenged my connection to my mother’s heritage solely based on my political opinions.
As far as I remember, this comment came from a white law student who often boasted about his work on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s campaign in Martha’s Vineyard. Meanwhile, I was a mixed-race student juggling bartending at Penn State and roofing jobs during the summers just to make ends meet.
It seems that identity politics has fueled more division than unity. It often becomes discriminatory by imposing ideological tests within racial groups. If you value colorblindness, personal responsibility, and limited government, you can find yourself branded as a traitor or seen as inauthentic.
The liberal media and Democratic rhetoric often attack minority conservatives on a personal level while claiming to champion minority rights, lacking substantial discussions on policy or evidence.
Take Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance. As a black conservative who grew up in poverty in the segregated South, he embodies a rags-to-riches success story that identity politics struggles to confront. Unfortunately, instead of addressing his criticisms of race-based policies, critics often resort to personal slurs. Not long ago, Charlamagne tha God referred to him in derogatory terms on “The Daily Show.”
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and a popular member of the Trump administration, passionately defends the American Dream. He’s always believed in it, yet he’s branded a traitor to his culture, mostly due to his immigration and economic policies.
Then there’s Kash Patel, an Indian-American serving as an FBI director. He’s faced personal attacks and even racist death threats, but few discuss his work on crime and national security. It seems identity politics blocks that kind of conversation.
Even well-known Black figures in sports and entertainment risk backlash if they stray from the narrative. Stephen A. Smith faced significant criticism just for suggesting to Black voters that he might consider voting Republican or for questioning certain Democratic policies.
Economist Thomas Sowell is another example. He’s one of the most influential Black intellectuals today, yet he’s been ruthlessly attacked for presenting arguments that show culture and policy, rather than systemic racism, explain inequality. It’s clear that resisting the dominant narrative comes with a personal cost.
Take note: Democrats seem to champion free speech—until conservatives get a word in edgewise.
Consider the case of high-profile Asian American politicians, such as Sen. Andy Kim from New Jersey. He often highlights his identity as the son of Korean immigrants and advocates for better Asian American representation in politics. Yet when the Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions in the case of Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard University, which showed how such policies hurt Asian applicants, he expressed regret and redirected his focus to traditional admissions instead of addressing anti-Asian discrimination.
In contrast, Hung Cao, a Vietnamese refugee and military veteran recently appointed as acting secretary of the Navy, faced swift ridicule from the Democratic Party’s official X account—one that has since been deleted.
These situations expose the inherent discrimination within identity politics. The left only truly celebrates minority successes when they reflect progressive ideals. But when Asians or other minorities achieve through merit or conservative values, their achievements seem to carry less weight.
Democratic leaders rally around group-based advocacy when it suits their progressive objectives—they promote representation and denounce hate when it’s politically advantageous. Yet when high-achieving Asians struggle under the same racial preferences that identity politics enforces, that enthusiasm seems to wane.
It’s like identity politics demands loyalty to liberal viewpoints over a commitment to consistent principles or the unique needs of a community.
Authentic equality arises from evaluating individuals based on character and merit, rather than forcing racial political categories onto them.
