{"id":25357,"date":"2020-08-20T09:51:34","date_gmt":"2020-08-20T14:51:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ifamnews.com\/?p=25357"},"modified":"2020-08-20T10:15:20","modified_gmt":"2020-08-20T15:15:20","slug":"a-big-tent-or-merely-a-circus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ifamnews.com\/en\/a-big-tent-or-merely-a-circus","title":{"rendered":"A “Big Tent” \u2014 Or Merely a Circus?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I admit I skipped watching the first night of the Democratic National Convention. I did catch up a bit during the day on Tuesday on some of the speeches, like Michelle Obama’s delivered the previous evening. For some thoughts on that, I recommend our own Doug Clark’s reflection<\/a> here at iFamNews<\/em>. I’d also commend to your reading Frank Schubert’s excellent piece<\/a> on the Democratic Party platform, which steers the Party even further Left and into even more radical territory with regard to abortion and progressive sexual ethics than in 2016: something I would have thought nearly impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I did decide to tune in on Tuesday evening to some of the convention, just so that I’d have some idea of what I might expect the media and Twitter to be buzzing about the next day. It was rough going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One thing jumped out at me from the very beginning of Tuesday night’s proceedings: how thin and odd is the “diversity” of which the American political Left is so proud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An early opening sequence on Tuesday<\/a> featured a crowd of mostly young, fresh faces\u2014I suppose the up-and-coming Bright Young Things of Democratic politics. Interspersed as the montage was with grainy, black and white images of their 78-year-old candidate, the choice seemed a bit odd: it seemed to create more contrast with the candidate than it did relatability. The Washington Post<\/em> called the segment<\/a> “the most realistic convention speech ever.” But to me, as I watched, a sense of unreality settled upon me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was clear to me that despite the ostensible “diversity” of this crowd of young people\u2014varied in race, ethnicity, creed, class, background\u2014they are all united so much in lock-step and committed to a single ideology that it us hard to imagine a less truly <\/em>diverse group. In one “on the nose” moment, Philadelphia Representative Malcolm Kenyatta appeared alongside another man, the only one of the group that wasn’t alone in the frame. Of course, the reason for this became obvious immediately: the man is his “husband,” and of course his status as a gay man needed to be foregrounded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That brought to mind another thing everyone on the screen had in common, in spite of their seeming diversity: all of them trade in identity, status, victimization culture, and “intersectionality,” and all the other buzzwords of progressive politics. They all value diversity in a manner of tokenism merely, not real and authentic diversity, the kind that enriches a close-knit community of faith or a neighborhood of immigrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If this claim seems too harsh, one need only consider: amidst all their diversity, their proclamations of “tolerance” and “openness” and “welcome,” and their stated goal of building a “big tent” for their Party and “uniting” the nation, most decidedly unwelcome<\/strong><\/em> are all of the following, who need not apply for citizenship in these young leaders’ dreamed-of “diverse” Utopia:<\/p>\n\n\n\n