Beto O'Rourke's Humble-Brag for the Intersectional Age
He's deeply sorry for having an ancestor who owned slaves 170 years ago. Even though he's not sure that his ancestor actually owned slaves.
Beto OāRourke has personally benefited from slaveryāor at least thatās what he wanted voters in the Democratic primary to believe when he announced in the middle of July that certain ancestors of his were slave-owners. In a short, unsolicited post on Medium, OāRourke wrote, āI was recently given documents showing that both [my wife] Amy and I are descended from people who owned slaves. Along with other possessions listed in their property log were two human beings, Rose and Eliza.ā
OāRourke seemed almostāhow to put this delicatelyāproud? Not because he supports slavery, of course. But in the new world of progressive identity politics, having something terrible to apologize for is better than not having it. Especially if youāre a good-looking, well-to-do, straight white guy.
A guy like that is alwaysāalwaysāgoing to get tagged for being āprivilegedā by the new progressivism. It actually helps to have something concrete to apologize for. Especially if itās something from the 1850s which no rational person would ever really blame you for.
Apologizing for ancestors who owned slaves 170 years ago is more or less a humble-brag for the intersectional age.
Intersectionality, for the blessedly uninitiated, is the dogmatic theory of modern progressivism that holds that the more āmarginalizedā identities held by a person, the greater her victimhood status. Thus a white woman is better off (only being the victim of sexism) than a black woman (who gets racism and sexism), both of whom fare better than a transgendered, black, disabled, Muslim homosexual.
Except that ābetter offā in the intersectional game is actually incorrect. Because explicit in these categorizations is a hierarchy that elevates the victimāflipping the supposed traditional hierarchy on its head while un-ironically remaining discriminatory. Intersectionality simply doles out the perks and penalties of an unfair world in a mirror-image to the traditional system that it purportedly disdains.
Accordingly, victimhood has become a status symbol of the left. For those, like OāRourke, who are unable to convincingly claim such status, the only path to status is, thus, to become a sycophant to those at the apex of the intersectional hierarchyāthe marginalized elite. Backing policy agendas, such as Black Lives Matter or reparations, is a start for such obsequious support, but has become increasingly insufficient or is sometimes (correctly) dismissed as nothing but cynical political posturing.
Say what you want about the intersectional elite: But at least theyāre not suckers.
The means to prove oneās bona fides have thus intensified, requiring true supporters of the marginalized to bear a tangible cost. To give up a benefit or a privilegeāor to suffer as a result of an action or policy that goes against oneās own interestsāmay successfully demonstrate oneās appreciation of the plight of the intersectional elite. This form of penance, which is essentially religious in nature, permits acceptance within the progressive hierarchy by absolving, or at least addressing, oneās transgressions.
And so, in order to be more credible in this system, OāRourke had to dig through his ancestorsā histories looking for sins he could apologize for.
OāRourkeās connection to slavery is merely a prop that allows him to successfully make penance, thereby raising his stature and potentially providing the progressive base with latitude to support his campaign. Consequently, OāRourke has no difficulty in claiming that āI benefit from a system that my ancestors built to favor themselves at the expense of others,ā even while acknowledging that heās not sure if the slave-owner in question was his distant relative. (No, really. Hereās OāRourke: ā[W]e are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but thereās enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that itās likely.ā)
This is not the first instance in which OāRourke has taken such a stance, nor is he the only Democratic candidate to try such a tactic. In March, he highlighted that his wife raises their kids, āsometimes with my help.ā When apologizing for this misogyny and āham-handednessā he emphasized, āI hope as I have been in some instances part of the problem . . . I can also be part of the solution.ā Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson, who was raised Jewish, has apologized for and asked white attendees of her campaign rallies to apologize for the history of slavery, among other crimes committed against blacks. And, Cory Booker publicly highlighted his attempt to grope a high school classmate as a profound step toward his now enlightened views on sexism and sexual assault.
A cynic may argue that all of this prostrating before the gods of intersectionality is simply the state of affairs in progressive politicsāa necessity given those who control the reins of power on the left. The power of the progressive ideology has yielded apologies from a number of candidates for positions or gaffes that have proven to reflect poorly with that base. Most of these instances, however, reflect the age-old phenomenon of a politician attempting to put distance between his campaign and something that has become a political liability.
The OāRourke example, however, seems different. It shows that social stratification defined by intersectionality and victimhood is gaining roots in the culture. OāRourke is not merely apologizing for Biden-esque associations with segregationists, but rather has wholeheartedly imbibed intersectionality. Indeed, it is his very identity for which he is apologizingāthe identity that makes him anathema to the goals of the modern progressive movement.
And which, unfortunately for him, has become a political liability.
This notion of self-hatredāwhether cynically for political purposes or out of genuine convictionāis grotesque. But more worrisome is that it is lending credence to a discriminatory and intolerant ideology. The elevation of victimhood to a position of prestige is creating perverse incentives, ones that are likely to have profound implications for American culture and politics. It absolves people of the responsibility to attempt to shape their own future and it creates a zero-sum game, pitting Americans against each other in a contest to inflate their suffering.
This is a shame for many reasons, not least of all because people should not be judged by superficial characteristics such as race or gender, but by their actions and the substance of their arguments.
