New York Times can't bring itself to admit that African Americans are wary of supporting a homosexual presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg

The New York Times is trying to explain the almost total lack of black support for Peter Buttigieg without a mention of his homosexuality.  The Times beclowns itself today with a long article titled, "Pete Buttigieg Is Struggling with Black Democrats. Here's Why," that doesn't even mention widespread negative attitudes among African-Americans toward homosexual behavior.  The only mention of sexuality at all comes 40 paragraphs into a 41-paragraph story, when the article notes:

And Mark Barbee, the first black mayor of Bridgeport, Pa., is, like Mr. Buttigieg, an openly gay millennial mayor. He endorsed Mr. Buttigieg in September and said the 2020 campaign was too unpredictable to write off Mr. Buttigieg's ability to win over black voters.

That's it — the only reference to Buttigieg's sexuality.

Buttigieg has made no secret at all of his sexual preference, even kissing Chasten, to whom he is legally married, at campaign events:


YouTube screen grab.

The rest of the article principally discusses Buttigieg's record as mayor of South Bend and the problems with police relations with the black community, and other aspects of Buttigieg's record on race, including his recent "Douglass Plan."

This is willful blindness, based on an aversion to facing a fundamental fissure among the various identity groups to whom the Democrats pander.  The concept of "intersectionality" was invented to paper over the very real conflicts among factions basing their claims  on victimhood, attempting to unite them against their "oppressors."

African-Americans occupy a unique status as victims owing to the history of slavery and its aftermath.  For sanctimonious outlets like the Times, criticizing blacks as a group for negative characteristics that are more predominant than among other groups is unthinkable.  Thus, labeling African-Americans, including the clergy who play a prominent role in shaping politics and thinking, as "homophobic" is out of the question — at least for now.

This is not the only taboo around discussing the political impact of Buttigieg's sexuality on his candidacy.  The article notes:

The South Bend, Ind., mayor has surged to first place in some Iowa polls and has built a big-money fund-raising operation that is the strongest in the Democratic presidential field.

But nowhere is any discussion of the role of his homosexual identity in generating generous support from homosexuals and others who anxiously desire an openly homosexual president with a "first partner" of the same sex.  It was obvious to me from the outset that Buttigieg would be able to raise endless donations from people who see this as a crowning achievement of the movement to normalize homosexuality.  And that expectation has been met, though very few people are willing to openly state that this would be the case.

The New York Times is trying to explain the almost total lack of black support for Peter Buttigieg without a mention of his homosexuality.  The Times beclowns itself today with a long article titled, "Pete Buttigieg Is Struggling with Black Democrats. Here's Why," that doesn't even mention widespread negative attitudes among African-Americans toward homosexual behavior.  The only mention of sexuality at all comes 40 paragraphs into a 41-paragraph story, when the article notes:

And Mark Barbee, the first black mayor of Bridgeport, Pa., is, like Mr. Buttigieg, an openly gay millennial mayor. He endorsed Mr. Buttigieg in September and said the 2020 campaign was too unpredictable to write off Mr. Buttigieg's ability to win over black voters.

That's it — the only reference to Buttigieg's sexuality.

Buttigieg has made no secret at all of his sexual preference, even kissing Chasten, to whom he is legally married, at campaign events:


YouTube screen grab.

The rest of the article principally discusses Buttigieg's record as mayor of South Bend and the problems with police relations with the black community, and other aspects of Buttigieg's record on race, including his recent "Douglass Plan."

This is willful blindness, based on an aversion to facing a fundamental fissure among the various identity groups to whom the Democrats pander.  The concept of "intersectionality" was invented to paper over the very real conflicts among factions basing their claims  on victimhood, attempting to unite them against their "oppressors."

African-Americans occupy a unique status as victims owing to the history of slavery and its aftermath.  For sanctimonious outlets like the Times, criticizing blacks as a group for negative characteristics that are more predominant than among other groups is unthinkable.  Thus, labeling African-Americans, including the clergy who play a prominent role in shaping politics and thinking, as "homophobic" is out of the question — at least for now.

This is not the only taboo around discussing the political impact of Buttigieg's sexuality on his candidacy.  The article notes:

The South Bend, Ind., mayor has surged to first place in some Iowa polls and has built a big-money fund-raising operation that is the strongest in the Democratic presidential field.

But nowhere is any discussion of the role of his homosexual identity in generating generous support from homosexuals and others who anxiously desire an openly homosexual president with a "first partner" of the same sex.  It was obvious to me from the outset that Buttigieg would be able to raise endless donations from people who see this as a crowning achievement of the movement to normalize homosexuality.  And that expectation has been met, though very few people are willing to openly state that this would be the case.