The Washington Post would like you to know that the folks she has no intention of reaching at this stage of her campaign are not at all pleased.
At first glance, it’s reasonable to question the journalistic value of a story about Democrats reacting negatively toward Republican rhetoric — indeed, rhetoric designed to be consumed exclusively by Republican voters. This “dog bites man” element notwithstanding, the Washington Post went ahead and identified the ways in which Nikki Haley has “drawn criticism from those who say she is diminishing the bigotry and other barriers women and minorities — like herself — have experienced,” but only outside “GOP circles.”
Indeed, a fair portion of the piece is devoted to the downright suspect degree to which Republican audiences have responded warmly to Haley’s campaign trail flourishes. Her “predominantly white crowds” embrace Haley’s rejection of progressive orthodoxies on race and gender. Meanwhile, “the small number of people of color in attendance said they interpret her view of race as aspirational, not reality,” the Post observed.
The dispatch continues along these unsubtle lines. Haley plays up her gender but doesn’t dwell on the sexism she faced early in her political career. She endorses colorblindness before the law, which is conspicuous given her failure to discuss the discrimination her turban-wearing Sikh father once experienced at the hands of police. That is, “unless she’s asked about it.” Haley doesn’t talk much about her decision to remove the Confederate battle flag from state property in South Carolina after the 2015 murder of nine African-American churchgoers. “Some see her strategy as reflecting a desire to not alienate Republican primary voters,” the Post adds. Imagine that.
Even if Haley’s intended audience appreciates her message, the Post would like you to know that the folks she has no intention of reaching at this stage of her campaign are not at all pleased.
“She both wants to identify her race and gender as what makes her unique and what qualifies her for leadership, and the same breath, she wants to dismiss identity politics,” said Aimee Allison, founder of the Democrat-aligned advocacy group She the People. Haley, Allison added, wants to “walk through the door, while slamming the door behind her.” Iowa Democrat Scott McNabb is disappointed that Haley does not dwell on the bigotry she faced earlier in life, which strikes him as “playing all sides” of the identity-politics game. “There’s been a painful part of her story,” he noted, “as well as a triumphant part of her story.”
That’s quite right. In Haley’s telling, discrimination is something to overcome. That’s part of America’s story, too, though that is and will likely always be what Haley called “a work in progress.” The former South Carolina governor emphasizes progress over the work toward it, partly because that’s what Republicans appreciate about American history. Democrats believe that emphasis minimizes America’s character defects, but there can be no progress without challenges or struggles. That is implied within the contextual nuances of the word “progress.”
If Haley herself represents an inspiring illustration of the nation’s evolution, it’s progress her Democratic opponents are keen on thwarting. Last month, NPR dispatched reporters to Haley’s hometown — Bamberg, S.C. — where “there are still racial divisions.” MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones cast aspersions on Haley’s mother for teaching her “not to see the differences but the similarities” in people. “So,” in Jones’s interpretation, “racism’s over, I guess?” Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali accused the candidate of “using her brown skin as a weapon against poor black folks and poor brown folks” to “launder white supremacist talking points.” The View host Whoopi Goldberg lambasted Haley for allegedly “just finding out that there are things about our country that are not perfect.”
Democratic objections to the relative emphasis Haley places on America’s struggles with identity-based discrimination inadvertently reveal the Left’s discomfort with her contention that this ugly feature of American life is today a surmountable obstacle. If bigotry is a hurdle that can be overcome without having your hand held by benevolent progressive sherpas, that’s a big problem for the nation’s aspiring sherpas. If I were a progressive, I wouldn’t want that message out there, either.