Progressives have been good at pouncing on Loretta Sanchez, calling her recent comments on Muslims a disgrace, and I suspect that others may also be correct in their assumption that this is all a part of her plan to make the runoff (via the new top two nonpartisan primary) and then be the Republican in the race against Kamala Harris in November. But the larger issue here is that her career has always been the embodiment of a wing of the party that has been a disgrace for a long time now.
I’ll never forget an interview I saw with her years ago where she stated that the injustice that first motivated her to run for Congress was how few Hispanic women in the corporate world rise to become CEOs. Note the discrepancy in the level of concern these limousine liberals show for the glass ceiling vs. the rock bottom: the anger over race-based barriers against rich people getting richer, as opposed to class-based barriers against those who start out with nothing making it onto the very first rung of the economic ladder (which has always been the concern of anyone committed to a truly progressive agenda).
Yes, I’ve been accused of not being a real progressive because of the way I feel about this wing of the party’s obsession with affirmative action quotas. And it’s not just how they were the bane of my political existence until I threw in the towel for reasons that included not being up to another race where it had already been made clear that being a straight white male was going to be used against me. Nor is it the understanding of how many other potentially progressive straight white males there are out there that this wing of the party chooses to pointlessly antagonize and actively drive into the camp of the Trumps of the political world.
But the main reason their agenda is so destructive is the fact that, nine times out of ten, their “liberal” position on racial barriers is one that supplants, rather than supplements, the liberal position on the class barriers that was always the glue that held together FDR’s New Deal Coalition. Like Blue Dog champion Sanchez, these are essentially the folks whose central belief is that the only thing wrong with the plutocrats who crashed the economy, came running to Washington for a bailout, and then blamed the price tag on “Obama’s Socialism” is that not enough of them are women, people of color, or LGBT.
These are the folks who think that the most “progressive” result we can hope for is to take already rich (although not quite top 1% rich) individuals who happen to be a member of a certain minority, and move them up into that 1% where they can imitate all of the most despicable behavior of the straight white males who’ve held those positions in the past.
Furthermore, even for those who share the erroneous opinion that the dividing line in society is race/gender/religion/sexual orientation (whatever, you name it, ANYTHING but class!) they’re going to be let down by these politicians. Sure, they talk a good talk about their commitment to fighting for more “diversity” and upward mobility for underrepresented groups. But, at the end of the day, all too many of them show that what this means to them is simply more representation for the group(s) that they happen to be a member of.
If you doubt that, just take a look at the increasingly bigoted behavior of the quintessential personification of this divisive form of politics, first mocking Native Americans this past summer, and now this blatant attempt to go after Trump voters by hatemongering Muslims. I suppose if you too are concerned only with the advancement of one of the two groups she’s stated her interest in serving, then maybe this bigotry shouldn’t be a concern to you.