<!–

–>

June 19, 2023

It was very clear in Sean Hannity’s recent interview with Gavin Newsom that Newsom is much smarter than most of the other prominent Democrats, many of whom need either a walker or wheelchair to get around or to be accompanied by a therapist in order to face the world.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

That does not mean Newsom’s points or arguments are correct. As the Orange County Register put it, “Newsom was prepared.  But … it’s often easier to venture into unfriendly terrain because all you’re looking for are sound bites and conflict. Just argue, dodge and object — Newsom excelled at all three.”  However, my aim here is to reply to one specific remark made by Newsom, a sophistry that is central to the Democrat party strategy to deceive voters (sophistry being the ancient Greek word for the use of fallacious arguments to get their way). 

Hannity asked Newsom about his promise to appoint a black woman to the Senate if Sen. Feinstein is forced to resign (because she is unfit for the job).  Hannity asked if one should not appoint the person most qualified for the job rather than appointing someone, as Biden also did when he appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court because of her race and gender.   It’s called “identity politics”, that is, political decisions based on a person’s superficial characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., instead of merit.  Stating that they had “lost” Kamala (when she was moved from the Senate to the vice presidency), Newsom replied that he made that promise because “I think representation does matter” (see minute 39-40 of this video). 

Thanks for the platitude, Gavin.  Who does not believe in “representation”?  Please name them! 

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Newsom’s ’s statement means nothing unless one specifies what principle of representation one is using.  Hannity actually proposes a principle of representation, namely, the senator should be chosen on the basis of merit, the principle that made the United States into the wealthiest and most powerful nation in human history.  Newsom did not even state an alternative principle.  This is intentional.  If he were to state his principle it would quickly become clear that it is racist and sexist.  Newsom made this clear when he stated that he would appoint a black woman because a black woman, Kamala, had to resign her seat to become vice president.   

Since it is unhelpful to the Left admit their principles are racist, they generally don’t articulate them, relying on bumper stickers instead. “Let’s be inclusive!”  But such slogans means nothing.  Gavin has learned the core strategy in politics (the fine art of emitting a smokescreen of words without saying anything coherent). 

Newsom’s unarticulated principle is based on skin color and gender, the very things the Left preached for decades we must abandon.  Unfortunately, the Left has resurrected racist and sexist principles because it enables them to demagogue almost any issue in order to secure and maintain political power for themselves.  Who cares what damage it does to the country! 

Since Newsom wisely declined to articulate his racist/sexist principle, one needs to ask how his unarticulated principle is supposed to work. 

He promises to appoint a “black” woman to replace Kamala Harris because she is black.  Unfortunately, Kamala is not “black”.  Kamala’s mother is of Tamil Indian descent.  Her mother is also from the Brahmin class, the highest class in the most oppressive class structure in human history.  Some Indians have complained “that Harris has tried to keep her Tamil Brahmin ancestry quiet.”  Perhaps this is because “every honest desi [person of Tamil descent] … [admits] the unreconstructed racism of most middle-class Indians towards people of African origin.”  No wonder Kamala conceals her privileged oppressive ancestry!  Further, her father is of mixed Jamaican African and Irish ancestry.  Since Newsom tied “representation” to race and gender, don’t we need to replace Kamala, not with a black (African) woman but with an Brahmin Tamil mixed with Jamaican African and Irish ancestry?  That’s what we “lost” when we lost Kamala.  Didn’t Newsom say we need to replace what we lost?

But what is Newsom’s general principle of “representation”?  If he holds that only a black person can represent a black person, then he should resign immediately because that means that he cannot represent black people.  Does he think that only a woman can represent a woman (if that is, for the sake of argument, we are still permitted to admit we know what a woman is)?  In that case he should resign immediately because it means that he cannot represent women.  Does he think that only a gay person can represent “gay people?  In that case he should resign immediately because that means that he cannot represent gay people.  Does he think that only a bisexual person can represent bisexuals? In that case he should resign immediately because it means that he cannot represent bisexuals.  Does he think that only a male-to-female transexual can represent male-to-female transexuals?  In that case he should resign immediately because that means that he cannot represent male-to-female transsexuals … and so on ad infinitum.