Read this social media comment by the Washington Post’s former race reporter.
Memphis is the second Blackest big city in the country, and it’s about to be gerrymandered within an inch of its life so a white Republican can represent it in Congress. This was exactly the thing Congress was trying to address with the Voting Rights Act. https://t.co/XfNipOsfEX
— Emmanuel Felton (@emmanuelfelton) May 2, 2026 Recommended Stories
He is worried that a very black city will be represented by a white Republican if Republicans redistrict Tennessee. He says that this outcome, a white Republican representing Memphis, is “exactly the thing Congress was trying to address with the Voting Rights Act.”
Felton certainly knows that Memphis is currently represented in Congress by Steve Cohen, a white man. In fact, Cohen has represented Memphis in Congress for almost 20 years.
Of course, that doesn’t bother the reporter. He’s specifically worried about a “white Republican” representing Memphis. (Interestingly, the current Republican candidate there is a black man.)
So if a white Democrat representing Memphis is fine, but a white Republican representing Memphis is not fine, then what’s problematic is a Republican winning a congressional seat.
It turns out that sometimes when liberal reporters and politicians claim to be talking about race, they’re just talking about party. What they call racist is really just anything they disagree with. When they say “diversity” is good, they mean their side winning is good.
Democrats and reporters prove this every day.
When Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) was running for Speaker of the House, you would have expected at least some acknowledgment that he could become the first black Speaker. But Donalds’s Democratic colleague, Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, rejected that idea.
“Byron Donalds is not a historic candidate for Speaker,” Bush wrote. “He is a prop. Despite being Black, he supports a policy agenda intent on upholding and perpetuating white supremacy. His name being in the mix is not progress — it’s pathetic.”
Now, of course, Donalds never expressed support for “upholding and perpetuating white supremacy.” Instead, he just supported Republican and conservative ideas. So Donalds, by Bush’s standards, didn’t count as black because he was a conservative Republican.
When Virginia elected Winsome Earle-Sears, a black woman, as lieutenant governor, liberal journalists said she wasn’t really black because she wasn’t liberal.
Over in the United Kingdom, it’s the same thing. Here’s a liberal reporter saying that an Indian prime minister doesn’t count as diversity, because of “his politics.”
UCLA THREATENS CONSERVATIVE STUDENTS, PROVING ‘WOKE’ IS NOT DEAD
Think through this reasoning. Being “black” or a “minority,” according to the media and Democrat definition, requires being liberal or a Democrat. That means that when they say something is bad for black people, or racist, they are really just saying something is bad for Democrats, which is not a very interesting objection.
It’s too bad. Racism is bad, and it should be denounced. Violating civil rights is bad, and it should be prevented. But the folks calling out supposed racism and civil rights violations are just upset that conservatives and Republicans sometimes win.
