The other reason blacks don't buy Pete Buttigieg
It is settled truth of political wisdom that black people don't support Evil Church Lady Buttigieg because this group of Americans are exceptionally unified in their identification as Christians. Furthermore, black people as a group have not repudiated their Christianity as left-wing Catholics, Jews and other Christians have either rejected or dismembered their religious heritage. It is true that Buttigieg has a black Christian problem. In fact, it is inconceivable that any Christian would vote for ECL Buttigieg. He introduced himself on the national stage with a blast of anti-Christian bigotry directed at the Vice-President and others. He went on to endorse perinatal baby-killing, which is an unspeakable crime against humanity, abhorrent not only to Christians but to any minimally decent human being. His widely circulated public displays of same-sex affection illustrate a tenet of LGBT cultural supremacy: standards of public decorum are lower for homosexual office seekers than for heterosexuals.
But there is another, more fundamental reason why black Americans who tend to vote Democrat will not support Buttigieg. Simply put, the LGBT movement, which arose in the 1970s, was and remains mainly an artifact of white, affluent lifestylism. The homo-bi-transsexuality political movements epitomize the end of classical liberalism with its historical focus on the poor, and exemplify the transition to unprecedented focus on lifestyle entitlements and sexual liberation for the affluent.
Without suggesting the absurdity that all white people are affluent and all blacks poor, as quid pro Joe Biden did with "poor kids are as smart as white kids," there remains some degree of wealth gap among the races. The transformation in America away from religiously inspired charity towards the poor, and its replacement by cultural privileging and moral exceptionalism for LGBT people, has hurt and marginalized struggling black people, especially children.
The LGBT movement changes its name every few years because its demands can never be satisfied. When it arose in the 1970s as "gay" sexual liberation it was actually the third anti-morality, sexual liberation movement in as many decades. The first such lifestyle movement was men's sexual liberation of the 1950s led by figures like Hugh Hefner. The second movement comprised women's sexual liberation and abortion rights of the 1960s led by figures like Gloria Steinem. But the LGBT sexual liberation movement was the first such movement which pertained to an actual, numerical minority.
White men's and women's sexual liberation and lifestyling have never been an ideal medium for the joys of virtue-signaling. Virtue-signaling is most gratifying when it is on behalf of "the other." This makes glorification of sexuality minorities and micro-minorities ideal formulae for maintaining a sense of moral superiority through virtue-signaling, without the inconvenience of any actual service or charity.
ECL Buttigieg owes the success of his candidacy to white, affluent virtue-signaling. Without question, he is the least qualified of the Democrat candidates based on experience. He has no record of major achievement in the private sector, and unlike most of the other candidates, has never held federal elective office. In fact, he is generally acknowledged to be an undistinguished mayor of a small, low-income city, who does not seem to care much about the people who live there. No matter, virtue-signaling has nothing to do with qualification. The left-wing press asks not what "Mayor Pete" can do for America, it asks if America is finally good enough for Pete. Post-liberal white Democrats pray, "Please God, may America be worthy of Pete."
Here is the nub of ECL Buttigieg's black problem. Black people generally do not feel the need to virtue-signal. They believe their virtue lies in their unique history of suffering in America. They have been taught by the left-wing educational, media, and political establishments their virtue is a birthright forever. Black Democrats are certainly not going to relinquish that singular place of virtue in American history to LGBTs.
The Judeo-Christian Union of America — a model of creative and legal secession.