E pluribus unum

By Tom Quiner

Who are the protected classes for liberals?

The list is fairly expansive. It includes:

√ Women

√ Minorities (excluding Asians and Jews)

√ Non-heterosexuals

√ Transgendered

√ Muslims (especially after they have killed a bunch of people in the name of Allah)

√ The non-productive.

So, if you are a lesbian black woman, for example, you are gold to any Democratic politician. Take Hillary Clinton. She’d do anything for you regardless of the content of your character.

Your gender, your skin color, and your bedroom habits are what really matter to the modern American liberal.

Today’s liberals pit one group against another, typically the groups listed above against white men.

Identity politics, as practiced by Democrats, is facing new challenges with the news that a leader of the Spokane, WA, branch of the NAACP isn’t African-American as claimed. It turns out Rachel Dolezal made it up.

She’s white.

Evidently, Ms. Dolezal feels black. She identifies as African America even though, according to her parents, she doesn’t have an ounce of black blood in her. Not even a drop.

For conservatives, this is kind of a big deal. Conservatives believe in something called “objective truth.” For liberals, these types of issues hinge on two factors: feelings and political correctness.

So, for example, if a guy really feels more like a girl, he’s a girl.

If a person feels like a Native American, well by golly, she’s Native American in terms hiring and admissions preferences, even if it’s only a drop or two of Indian blood.

Elizabeth Warren knows something about this.

So if Ms. Dolezal identifies as African American, this may fly as long as it doesn’t clash with the PC police. The jury is out so far.

Here’s where things get interesting: liberals have erected a sophisticated network of preferences for these protected classes. About the only unprotected class is white males. Interestingly, since affirmative action was applied to college admissions, we’ve seen male enrollment in colleges plummet from 58% of enrollees in 1970 to 43% today.

To get ahead in this country, character and merit don’t mean much anymore. It is your identity that counts.

What we’re learning with the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal stories is that if you don’t like your actual identity, as determined by those old-fashioned objective measurements conservatives love, you simply let your feelings fashion a brand new one.

If Rachel Dolezal gets the imprimatur of the PC Thought Police, the floodgates may open up a new era of fluid identities.

More boys may want to be girls to take advantage of Title IX programs in colleges and universities.

More white boys may want to take a page from Elizabeth Warren and pour through their family trees for non-white heritage to cash in on lucrative preferences for these protected groups.

Identity has become the foundational principle for the Democratic Party. Of course, it is poison for the United States. This is a nation built on a principal, “e pluribus unum,” that is so important that we print it on our money as a daily reminder.

“Out of many, one.”

Republicans should wave this banner and make it a campaign issue.

The phrase is powerful and uplifting. American exceptionalism was built on it. It still resonates.

Democrat’s identity politics are the enemy to national unity and our culture.

Republicans must go out and make the case for national unity. Remind people to look at the coins in their pockets and reflect on this marvelous phrase.

Remember President Lincoln’s warning when we forget it:

“a house divided against itself cannot stand.”


  1. Doug on June 12, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    Annuit cœptis

  2. Shawn Pavlik on June 14, 2015 at 2:26 am

    Tom, I have decided that since you can be anything you want to be, I am a dinosaur. I think a T-Rex. Rawr!

    • quinersdiner on June 15, 2015 at 10:49 am

      Makes sense to me. And I am Bill Clinton. Hey, that means I’m one of the one percent!

  3. stevegreer1 on June 14, 2015 at 5:33 am

    It seems that liberals are turning their backs even on their own god, science. In this case, that pesky little thing called “genetics.” Liberals can’t be bothered with that. No, it’s just like you said. if they feel more like a woman than a man, then they are a woman. And if they feel more black than white, then they are black. I mean, why let those silly DNA codes get in the way of that, right? Liberal logic 101.
    Every day I thank God that I am a Conservative.

    • quinersdiner on June 15, 2015 at 10:51 am

      I agree with you, Steve. Liberal Logic 101: there is no such thing as logic.

  4. bluebird of bitterness on June 15, 2015 at 10:38 am

    Democrat electoral strategy: Divide and conquer. Too bad it’s so effective. 🙁

    True story: One of my grandcats (of which I have many — all my kids were great at rescuing mangy little strays, but not so good at taking them with them when they grew up and moved out) seems to suffer from species dysphoria — she retrieves small objects like a dog, but she chews her cud like a cow. She also looks like a cow, with her black and white spotted coat (which is why I named her Bessie). My husband jokes that she’s “species-fluid.” 🙂

    • quinersdiner on June 15, 2015 at 10:51 am

      Undoubtedly then, she votes Democrat. 😉

      • bluebird of bitterness on June 15, 2015 at 11:02 am

        She can’t vote; she’s not 18 yet. By the time she is (if that ever happens), I expect the Constitution will have been amended to allow non-human beings to vote, especially if they’re transgender or transspecies.

        • quinersdiner on June 15, 2015 at 11:09 am

          The day is a comin’.

  5. oarubio on February 4, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    And many are championing “rights” for their pets because they consider them to be part of the family…… which is another unintended, but nevertheless, harmful angle in the attempt to redefine the family as aided by the Supreme Court’s unauthorized change to what a marriage is.

    • quinersdiner on February 4, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      I love pets as much as the next guy, Tony, but this is one more step in the wrong direction. Thanks for pointing it out.