成人X站

A Seattle Times columnist who has made a career out of criticizing white men and filtering every issue through the foggy lens of identity politics is upset that some conservatives had the audacity to call Kamala Harris a “DEI” selection. It鈥檚 like watching a pyromaniac complain about a campfire 鈥� the hypocrisy is almost too rich to digest.

Some conservatives argue that Vice President Harris was selected for her role by then-candidate Joe Biden because she is a black female. This is also a major reason why she’s been anointed by Democrats as the presidential nominee, despite never earning a single vote running for president, they say.

Critics of the DEI moniker, like The Seattle Times columnist Naomi Ishisaka, rightly point out that it’s meant as an insult. It suggests someone didn’t earn their position (much like when progressives complain that someone got a job because of their white privilege). Yet, anyone angry at the dismissive nature of Harris’ critics has only themselves to blame.

More from Jason Rantz: Vulnerable Democrat Marie Glusenkamp Perez runs away from embracing Kamala Harris

Are we normalizing sexist and racist criticisms of Kamala Harris with DEI label?

In her latest titled “Kamala Harris, DEI and the white men compelled to denigrate them both,” Ishisaka said the assumption that someone got a job because of their race or gender is a “line of attack” often used against “women of color, people of color and women generally who have the audacity to work in roles that have historically been held by white men.”

“In this worldview, all white men are in their positions purely due to merit. Everyone else has received an unfair advantage to get where they are,” she complained.

She conveniently ignores how the “progressive” worldview claims white people in any position benefit from unseen privileges afforded by their skin color. When you suggest a white person did not earn a position but had an unfair advantage, it’s not supposed to be viewed as insulting but simply stating a fact. It’s supposedly evolved thinking.

“It鈥檚 fair to disagree with Harris鈥� policies or object to her past decisions, but for this election, I hope we can learn from the past and, no matter our political beliefs, speak with one voice to say we will not stand for lazy racist and sexist attacks this time around. We have less than 100 days to do better,” she wrote.

I certainly agree that we shouldn’t normalize racist or sexist criticisms. Mentioning DEI in attacking Harris is a strategic mistake. However, we should also stop normalizing the Left’s obsession with identity politics and Ishisaka’s own lazy racist and sexist columns.

After demanding a black woman become vice president, Democrats are mad when you point it out

Biden and Democrats set the stage for this criticism by making Harris’ race and gender the primary selling points. They can鈥檛 seem to name her accomplishments as vice president. Perhaps it鈥檚 because they thought her role was never about what she has done, but what boxes she ticked on their own DEI checklist.

During a campaign rally in May, Biden suggested he because she fulfilled his desire to use the tenets of DEI to fill roles in his administration (though he misidentified what the “E” stands for in DEI).

“To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally 鈥� and this is not kidding 鈥� the core strengths of America. That鈥檚 why I鈥檓 proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President,” he said, not noting her qualifications or even hinting that she was the best person for the job. He is a white liberal hoping for points for choosing a black woman as his running mate.聽On the campaign trail, Biden said he would “prefer a person of color or a woman as his vice president,” according to . He treated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson the same way when selecting a Supreme Court justice.

Democrats demand that decisions be made based on race or gender and then cry foul when it’s pointed out. We’re supposed to pretend this level of tokenizing isn’t offensive or condescending.

Naomi Ishisaka is obsessed with white men, but Kamala Harris as a DEI choice is offensive

Ishisaka and like-minded progressives argue that white people can’t help but focus on Kamala Harris being a black female, rather than her accomplishments as vice president. Just don’t ask progressives to list her accomplishments; they haven’t yet been able to compile any that can’t easily be disproven or laughed off.

There’s no doubt some people are, in fact, bothered by her race and gender. Racists and sexists exist in both parties. But it shouldn’t be Ishisaka complaining about this. Her body of work fixated on denigrating white men is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black (even the idioms used to criticize Ishisaka are fixated on color!).

Ishisaka has a history of articles targeting white people and men specifically, painting them as the root of all societal ills. Her pieces like “Construction work has been the domain of white men. That could be changing,” “True Detective: Night Country isn鈥檛 about men. Can men handle that?” and “To stop violence, men heal thyselves” are prime examples. She鈥檚 built a career on highlighting the faults of white men, yet balks when the same scrutiny or hyper-focus on identity is applied to Harris. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Ishisaka argued in that it’s safer to be around wild bears in the wilderness than a man walking down the street because, “Most women have never had a bear harass them, catcall them, follow them, throw a bottle at them or otherwise make them feel unsafe.” I’ve never had a bear call me a “k*ke” or “genocide supporter” for being a Jew, but I’d still rather be around a progressive Seattle activist who hates me, rather than a wild bear.

Focus on Harris’ accomplishments, while Democrats focus on the ‘firsts’

Harris’ tenure as Vice President has been marked by gaffes, awkward laughs and a lack of substantive achievements. Her own party members have questioned her competency, with numerous reports of dysfunction within her team. Harris’ most notable role has been as the administration鈥檚 border czar, a crisis that has only worsened under her watch. Yet, pointing out these failures is dismissed as sexist by activists like Ishisaka — an attack on Harris’ identity rather than a legitimate critique of her performance.

Ishisaka鈥檚 fixation on race and gender as primary lenses for critique is why her complaint about the focus on Harris鈥檚 identity rings hollow. When Harris is praised for her identity, it鈥檚 progressive. When she鈥檚 criticized, it鈥檚 racist and sexist. It鈥檚 a convenient shield, but one that鈥檚 wearing thin.

The woke columnist complains in her most recent piece that white men are afforded second chances. Yet it’s left-wing media actively trying to erase any mention of the vice president as border czar.

While warning against any DEI mention, Democrats incessantly remind us of Harris’ historic position. They routinely note Harris as the first female vice president and now the first female candidate for president from a major party. They focus on these “firsts” to deflect from her record, while giving themselves a reason to call you a racist or sexist for criticism.

More from Jason Rantz:听Is Kamala Harris vetting Washington Governor Jay Inslee for vice president?

The Left wants to have its cake and eat it too in Kamala Harris DEI criticism

This is the crux of the hypocrisy: Progressives want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to celebrate Harris for breaking barriers without focusing on any achievements, but don’t you dare take notice of their hyper-focus on race and gender. And, of course, they also insist that any critique of her performance be seen as bigoted. It’s a classic deflection tactic, one that avoids addressing the real issue: Harris鈥� lack of accomplishments.

In the end, Harris鈥� critics are not compelled by an inherent need to denigrate DEI. They are driven by the observable reality that Harris has not lived up to the expectations set for a vice president. The focus on her identity, which I believe is a strategic mistake by conservatives who should focus on her failures as vice president, was a creation of Harris’ own party. If Ishisaka and her ilk want to see fewer critiques based on identity, perhaps they should stop making identity the cornerstone of their political strategy.

The next time Naomi Ishisaka decides to pen an article about the unfair treatment of Kamala Harris, she might want to look in the mirror. Her own writings have set the tone for identity-based critique. It鈥檚 not white men who are compelled to denigrate; it鈥檚 the Left鈥檚 obsession with identity politics that has made it impossible to separate the person from the demographic checkboxes they fill.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the聽podcast here. Follow Jason on聽,听听补苍诲听.