There are many issues with which I still can find no common ground with either party. There are many other issues as well that neither party adequately and responsibly handle, but there is one issue that I simply could not ignore anymore: racism.
Since 1972, I have always voted either for the Democratic candidate or my sister Susan. It didn’t matter what election was on the line, the warmongering, pro-rich, environmentally clueless, elitist Republicans were just too much for me to tolerate. However, by 2016 I had lost faith in the Democrats, but remained unable to vote for the Republicans. I genuinely believed it immoral to for me to do so. If only Susan had won those 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, we would all be so better off! But here it is 2021, and the Virginia governor race compelled me to do what I could never bring myself to do in nearly half a century: Vote Republican.
There are many issues with which I still can find no common ground with either party. On immigration, the Republicans are too cold-hearted and the Democrats too irresponsible. On war-mongering, the Republicans too often want to remake the world in our image while the Democrats (almost as bad) keep wanting to save the world. On fiscal discipline and burgeoning budgets, both parties have shown a shameless hypocrisy that should embarrass us all. I’m still not sure which is worse: the tax-and-spend Democrats or the spend-and-don’t-tax Republicans. There are many other issues as well that neither party adequately and responsibly handle, but there is one issue that I simply could not ignore anymore: racism.
Since my earliest days of political awakening, watching Martin Luther King speak during the great March on Washington in 1963 when I was only 11 years old, I have believed that countering racism is the most crucial, most important issue facing our country. Sitting in front of my grandmother’s black-and-white television in her row house on the westside of New York City that hot, humid August day, I understood that we could only survive as a nation if we could come together as one nation, black and white (and all the other hues) of our unique country, founded on ideals and principles that placed our aspirations, if not yet our reality, way above those of every other country on earth. And it was clear to me at that time that it would be the Democrats who would lead us out of the fear and hatred and elitism of that time and inspire a new generation of Americans who would not judge each “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
For decades, that seemed the truth. But no longer. Now it is the Democrats—far from all of them, but still far too many of them—who are the standard bearers of racism. There remain too great a number of hateful racists on the far Right, but the burgeoning number of clueless racists on the Left has become overwhelming and now pose a greater threat to our nation than those of the extreme Right. The Democrats as a party no longer embrace equality; instead, the party now substitutes the term equity. Equity—once not so long ago a word that conveyed a sense of fairness and compassion—has now been rendered a euphemism for racism, much like the term “states’ rights” was coopted by earlier racists to hide their racist intent. And certainly, equity as a means to level the playing field and ensure that a socially and economically disadvantaged individual is given a better chance is still laudable. But as a party the Democrats no longer believe in the individual, they no longer believe that everyone is equal and should be given an equal chance at success. I suspect that deep down that many of them no longer believe that minorities can really compete equally with whites (and increasingly with Asians). They will offer lots of excuses—broken families, poverty, poor school districts, violence, diversity—to justify their view, but they distressingly sound like the racists of long ago trying to justify segregation and apartheid.
To reiterate, any child who comes from a broken family or a poor neighborhood should be given additional benefits and consideration to level the playing field with the richer children who come from better school systems, but those are socio-economic considerations, not racial ones. Of course, poorer children cannot fairly compete against those who have lived lives of greater privilege. But the Democrats blur the lines and are unable to see the disturbing danger to our society when an upper-middle-class Hispanic or African-American student has an easier time getting into an Ivy League university than a lower-middle-class white or Asian student. Or when a less-qualified job applicant gets a job simply because the mindless mantra of diversity trumps all other considerations. Democrats used to believe fervently that race did not matter and that it was only the individual who mattered: that we were all equal under the law and that any idea or concept that threatened individual merit was anathema to the American way of life. But that sadly no longer is true. Far sadder is the truth that most Democrats who harbor these beliefs—again like old racists of yore—would vehemently deny that they are racists at all.
Decades ago, Ronald Reagan, a then-lifelong Democrat, declared that he never left the Democratic party, but that it had left him. At the time, I shook my head in disgust and concluded that Reagan had sold out to business interests and our increasingly bloated military-industrial complex. In truth, I still believe his departure from the Democrat party was premature. But now, when my political party of the last half-century has clearly thrown in its lot with the forces of racism against the individual, I grudgingly accept his view. Whether the Democrats left me or I left them, it doesn’t much matter. I still miss the old Democrats, like Martin Luther King and millions of others, who believed in the intrinsic and infinite worth of the individual over the group, but they too would be denounced by today’s Democratic Party. I’m a long way from ever embracing the Republicans; they still have too many political warts. True to form for both parties, I suspect that the Republicans will now take another lethal dose of hubris and triumphalism and alienate too many Americans who want something better from both political parties. But I’m not too concerned.
I can always vote again for my sister in 2024.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.

I grudgingly tolerate your presence in the Republican party
Thanks, Doug. This was the best laugh in a very long time. Much appreciated! Best regards, Joe
What is missing from this essay is any mention of specific issues in the Virginia governor’s race; isolated from other information, the essay comes off sounding as though the author voted for a party rather than an individual running for a specific office.
That said, I have often had to resort to voting for friends or relatives in the absence of qualified candidates for political office, so I certainly sympathize with the general sentiment.
Good point, Andrew. There were several specific Virginia policy issues, especially regarding schools and taxes, that could have been mentioned, but I was perhaps too focused on the “national issue” of race and equity. As a person, the Republican candidate came off much better as someone you could trust and rely on. We’ll see if the Republicans learn the right lessons from this race in 2024.
Having been registered “Independent/Unaffiliated” for many years now, I get it. Unfortunately, the “system” is rigged to favor two and only two major political parties.
But maybe if we had a mandatory “NONE OF THE ABOVE” on every ballot for every office, and stuck by it,… ah well, more pipe dreams, one supposes.
What does “disadvantaged” mean and who will appoint those who decide who is or isn’t. Who decides when the field is “leveled”? Platitudes don’t necessarily translate into good government.
Excellent. Critical race theory, growing out of critical theory and the anti-individualist orientation of German philosophers is antithetical to American Liberalism. The Democratic candidates could have simply read this article aloud and won in the recent Gubernatorial races.
Yes! I’ve been dreaming of exactly such a Constitutional Amendment since I was a teenager. It might cause chaos, but a rule that an election would have to be redone with new candidates if NONE OF THE ABOVE got more votes than any candidate on the ballot would cure the nearly universal delusion that our elected officials really have the support of the electorate.
It took you too 2016 to realize the Democrats were toxic? What was it Winston Churchill was famous for saying? “If you 20 and you’re not a Liberal you’ve got no heart. If you’re 40 and not a conservative…” I’ll let you fill in the rest. I guess you turned 40 in 2016. 😉
So many bromides to unpack…so little time. Where are these racists on the right? What of abortion? What republicans are there clamoring for war at this point? Who really tries to force at this point decadent western values on the world?
40??!! Manny, no one who knows me thinks I’m even half that age…
What are your thoughts on abortion?
My thoughts on abortion, which I confess are still unclear, please neither the left nor the right. On the one hand, I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and should be overturned. But I am doubtful that anti-abortion laws can be enforced without appalling intrusions into the private lives of women. My thoughts generally class abortion in the same moral category as suicide. Something that is morally reprehensible, but not usually the government’s business. I oppose state funding of abortions for the same reason I oppose state-assisted suicide. Allowing each state to resolve the legality of abortion seems the more sensible and politically reasonably course of action, although frankly no solution really satisfies my concerns.
I wonder how the author decided in 1972 that Republicans were the war-mongers when it was LBJ who got the U.S. into the Vietnam War, after Truman got us into Korea. More broadly, the author’s views feel rather knee-jerk, less like carefully-developed, empirically-based opinions than like attitudes — perhaps, in part an identity — he picked up without much thought as a youth, and that he just refuses to shake.
True, the neocons were war-mongers (I wouldn’t vote for McCain), but they came and went; Reagan wasn’t a war-monger (despite the author’s belief that he was) but someone who worked to keep the U.S. safe and prevent major conflicts, and Trump was the same (and was likewise successful). I guess Obama’s totally-nonsensical war in Libya doesn’t mean anything? And if the author really believes that Republicans are “pro-rich” (more than the other party) and “elitist” I really have to wonder where he’s been. Is he aware that 100% of wealthy Congressional districts are represented by Democrats, and that they are the party of the tech oligarchs and most billionaires? It’s plain that ordinary working-class Americans (of all races) have figured out something that he is having a tough time with.
And how can it be “cold-hearted” to work (successfully!) for the best for people? Or does the author believe that big-government, vs. a healthy private sector and civil society, are the way to be “warm-hearted?” And I guess the author doesn’t see culture as important, or he agrees with Democrats on it? That is, is he just an old partisan who has found that with race issues the Dems have gone a step too far?
Thanks, Bill. I don’t completely disagree with all you say. I certainly think that the Democrats have started their share of military conflicts, especially Vietnam and Libya. But that doesn’t get Reagan off the hook as a warmonger. He was not as aggressive as Bush Jr., but 241 Marines did not have to lose their lives in Beirut. They died because Reagan arrogantly (and naively) took sides in a civil war that was n one of our business. Siding with the ruthless, morally bankrupt Christian militias against the equally ruthless, morally bankrupt Shi’a militias was simply stupid. And there was also Grenada. It worked out better than Libya did for Obama, but both were inexcusable intrusions into countries where we had no need to intervene. Reagan did not even have the pretense of UN approval, albeit he did have the fig leaf of some regional support for his military action. More worrisome is the intimation that the “neocons” are a small faction with the Republican party. I respectfully disagree. They pretty much control both parties on foreign policy when it comes to certain issues, such as Russia and the Middle East. The neocons provoked the Iraq war and they are doing their best under both trump and Biden to cause conflict in Ukraine and with Iran. Note that while Biden has changed some Trump foreign policies, he has failed on those issues most important to Israel and to the neocons: he has refused to punish seriously the Saudis for the murder of Khashoggi, nor has he re-started negotiations with Iran nor has he ceased supplying military equipment to Ukraine. In 2016, virtually every Republican candidate–other that Rand Paul–were in lockstep with neocon objectives.
On your criticism of me characterizing the Republicans as “pro-rich” and “elitist” you have a valid point. Poorly written. Mea culpa. I meant that in the past, especially as a young man, I always had thought the Republicans the party of the rich and the Democrats the party of the downtrodden; that Republicans were more elitist and the Dems more down-to-earth. I do not think anymore. Nowadays, I don’t think either party very much cares for the working class and both cater to the rich and powerful. As to the importance of culture and the dangers of big-government, I suspect we are in agreement, but it is the Dems blatant racism and uncritical adherence to critical race theory that has finally triggered me to forsake voting for my sister and finally voting for a Republican.
I agree with and appreciate most of the comments that added some nuance to the “anti-Republican” statements in the essay, but I appreciate even more the author’s willingness to respond to comments and to do so in a non-defensive and self-effacing manner, even in the case of reader comments that bordered on being too aggressive for my taste.
Thank you.
Well articulated. I’m black. I grew up suburban and integrated. The Democrats are leaving behind the attempts at race neutrality in favor of a post-modern tribalism which I believe can only divide us further. Only the old-school liberalism, as opposed to the new cultural leftism, will create genuine social justice. Liberalism has been under assault for a while now. It needs to be re-invigorated. It seems as though a sort of racial and cultural pessimism permeates the thoughts of the new progressives (and some on the Right as well). I find that to be a dangerous way of thinking.
As an outsider, I think voting for Republicans at this point is, well, too late. America has a produced generations of young and enraged leftists since the 60s. Only when things have gone too far will the more rational liberal adults turn red, and this is after decades of voting for Democrats.