The following article, Democrats: The Party of Coincidences, was first published on The Black Sphere.

We would be naïve, bordering on willfully blind, to pretend the Chinese Communist Party has not spent decades attempting to infiltrate American institutions.

They don’t need tanks when they have tenure. They don’t need missiles when they have money. And if you’re looking for the softest landing strip in American politics, you’d be hard-pressed to find one smoother than the modern Democratic Party.

By 2026, Americans are no longer debating whether identity politics shapes the Democratic Party. The debate has shifted to whether identity politics now defines it.

The latest example emerged from Texas Democratic State Representative Gene Wu. As reported in February 2026 by the Daily Caller, resurfaced comments from a December 31, 2024 episode of “Define American with Jose Antonio Vargas” ignited widespread backlash after receiving more than 12.5 million views on X.

In that interview, Wu stated:

“Our country—and the powers that be—have spent tremendous time, effort, and money to make sure those groups are never united… without ever realizing that they share one thing in common: their oppressors are all the same.”

The language is not subtle. The architecture is familiar.

Minority groups are encouraged to discover shared grievance and, by implication, shared antagonists. In progressive shorthand, the unnamed oppressor class is white America.

Now apply symmetry.

Holy Mother of David Duke, what would happen if a white Republican legislator declared that white Americans must recognize Blacks or Asians as their common oppressor and organize accordingly? The reaction would be immediate and terminal.

Party leadership would demand resignation. Media outlets would convene emergency panels on racial extremism. Editorial pages would thunder about democratic backsliding. There would be no contextual buffering, no sociological nuance, no patient unpacking of intent. The statement would be treated as collective racial incitement, because that is precisely what it would be.

Yet when rhetoric frames white Americans as a consolidated villain class, the national response softens. The hostility is reframed as critique. The collectivization becomes analysis, and the moral standard bends.

That asymmetry is not accidental.

It reflects a broader transformation in which “white” has been rhetorically detached from “American,” while other identities are treated as authentic subdivisions of the national story. In elite discourse, “American culture” is frequently invoked as something in need of deconstruction, its historical core implicitly suspect. Meanwhile, hyphenated identities are encouraged to organize around grievance as a primary political force.

The unasked question lingers: when does citizenship supersede pigmentation? A republic cannot endure indefinitely as a federation of grievances in which one demographic may be openly vilified while others are institutionally shielded. Equality under law requires equality in rhetoric. Once that symmetry collapses, unity dissolves into demographic arithmetic.

Wu’s remarks would be troubling even in isolation. They are more troubling in context.

For years, the Democratic Party has been shadowed by a series of foreign entanglements that would have triggered national alarm had the party labels been reversed. Eric Swalwell maintained a relationship with an individual later identified as having ties to Chinese intelligence. Dianne Feinstein employed a chauffeur for years who was ultimately revealed to have connections to Chinese intelligence services. Ted Lieu has repeatedly faced scrutiny over positions and associations critics argue align uncomfortably with foreign interests.

Each case is presented as an anomaly. A romantic oversight, staffing lapse, or a partisan exaggeration. Standing alone, perhaps each explanation suffices. Taken together, the pattern becomes harder to dismiss as coincidence.

The irony is striking. During the Trump presidency, Democrats treated foreign interference as an existential threat. The specter of Russian influence dominated headlines and congressional hearings. Any whiff of external proximity justified months of investigation and moral condemnation. Foreign compromise was framed as democracy’s mortal enemy.

Yet when questions arise within Democratic ranks, the urgency dissipates. Concern becomes overreaction, scrutiny becomes paranoia, then the standard shifts.

That double standard unfolds alongside a policy agenda that, whether by design or delusion, systematically weakens the structural defenses of national sovereignty.

Universal Basic Income remains a recurring proposal in progressive circles. The idea promises financial security untethered from productivity, a permanent stipend as civic entitlement. The fiscal mathematics, however, strain credibility in a nation already burdened with staggering debt. Redistribution without corresponding growth does not generate stability. It accelerates dependency and inflationary pressure, particularly in an economy competing with disciplined authoritarian rivals.

Border enforcement is portrayed as cruelty rather than necessity. Voter identification laws are cast as suppression rather than safeguards. Prosecutorial restraint is framed as compassion even when it coincides with rising crime in major urban centers. Calls to defund or diminish law enforcement are justified as reform while communities absorb the consequences.

Individually, each policy can be defended as morally aspirational. Collectively, they loosen the bolts of national cohesion. A sovereign state relies on enforceable borders, credible elections, and predictable application of law. Dilute those pillars and permeability increases. Permeability invites exploitation.

The Chinese Communist Party does not require theatrical invasions to advance its interests.

It invests patiently in influence, narrative shaping, and strategic access. A divided America, preoccupied with internal antagonisms and policy incoherence, presents opportunity. When political rhetoric encourages citizens to view one another primarily through racial hierarchies of oppression, national solidarity weakens. When sovereignty is treated as negotiable, leverage erodes.

None of this requires a cinematic conspiracy. It requires only incentives. Foreign adversaries benefit from American fragmentation. Political movements that normalize fragmentation, even under the banner of justice, inadvertently advance those interests.

The Democratic Party insists that its project is one of equity and inclusion. Yet inclusion that excludes one demographic from rhetorical protection is not equality. It is hierarchy inverted and relabeled. When white Americans are cast as a legitimate collective antagonist while other groups are insulated from similar generalization, the principle at work is not justice. It is selective moral permission.

That permission extends beyond rhetoric. When Ted Cruz criticized Wu’s remarks, the response was predictable: partisan grandstanding. When Elon Musk amplified concerns, he was dismissed as erratic. The strategy remains consistent. Discredit the critic. Deflect the substance.

The deeper issue, however, transcends any single legislator.

It concerns the durability of a shared national identity. A country cannot sustain itself if “American” becomes an empty wrapper while ethnic categories serve as the primary units of political organization. The more politics is reduced to coalitions of grievance, the less space remains for common citizenship.

There was a time when the American experiment invited assimilation into a singular civic identity. Differences persisted, but they were subordinated to a larger story. Today, elite rhetoric increasingly treats that larger story as suspect. The cultural center is portrayed not as a unifying inheritance but as a structure to dismantle.

When one party consistently tolerates rhetoric that divides citizens along racial lines, while simultaneously exhibiting a pattern of foreign proximity and advancing policies that dilute sovereignty, voters are entitled to ask whether coincidence sufficiently explains the convergence.

Democracy does not collapse overnight. It erodes through permissions.

Permission to vilify one group in the name of justice. Permission to treat foreign entanglements as trivial. Permission to weaken institutional guardrails for the sake of ideological experimentation.

The American voter in 2026 faces a choice grounded not in partisan loyalty but in structural reality. Will national identity remain anchored in equal citizenship under law, or will it continue to fracture into competing blocs granted unequal rhetorical protections?

A republic cannot endure if its people are taught to see each other first as demographic adversaries and only secondarily, if at all, as fellow Americans. The line between critique and incitement must apply evenly, or it ceases to be principle.

Permission to divide may feel empowering in the short term. In the long term, it is corrosive. And corrosion, left unattended, does not merely stain the surface. It eats through the foundation.

Continue reading Democrats: The Party of Coincidences …