The “white dudes for Harris” phenomenon neatly captures many of the contradictions that define Left-wing politics. The most obvious example is the fact that “white dudes” are being invited to identify themselves as such and in a way that doesn’t demand explicit apologies for their whiteness and maleness.

Identity politics is the central lens through which Leftists look at the world. Democrats consistently encourage blacks to put their African-American identity at the center of their self-image and political activity. Who can forget President Biden, speaking to a black man hosting a podcast, saying that if black men don’t vote for him then they “ain’t black”? Women are also encouraged to put womanhood at the core of their being and their public engagement, with the Left operating on the assumption that women are primarily motivated by abortion regulations (or preferably, lack thereof). Remember the “pussy hats”? It’s the same for every other identity group (LGBT persons, recent legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, Hispanics, the disabled, Muslims, etc.).

Identity politics is the only party in town…but there’s only one group who is never invited to the celebration. White people in general – and white men in particular – are not allowed to view their whiteness as fundamental to who they are (unless it is to express their personal culpability for all the sufferings of history). And unlike every other group (except arguably Christians), there are no circumstances under which white men can make political decisions based on the interests of “people like themselves.”

The reasons for these exceptions to the rules of identity politics are stupid and obvious, but it is the sudden suspension of the exceptions that warrants our attention. Suddenly, white men are not only permitted to recognize themselves as such, but they are apparently allowed to make that identity the basis of their political engagement? What gives?

For starters, it’s important to understand the rhetorical dimensions of the slogan “white dudes for Harris.” Why isn’t it “white men for Harris”? This is the first hint as to why the movement (I use the term loosely) is allowed to exist. From the vantage point of the Left, “white men” have a kind of bloodguilt, and that term is reserved for moments when Americans need to be reminded of the unpayable debt that white men owe to the peoples of the world. “White men” are said to be a clear and present danger to the various “others” with whom they share society, to say nothing of the fate of the nation at large. In contrast, “white dudes” (in the mouth of the Left) is a term of derision. When progressives want to underscore the alleged incompetence, unearned privilege, and lack of self-awareness of white men, then they are referred to as “white dudes.” In essence, “white dudes” is dismissive. The phrase implicitly reminds the audience that white men are simply kind of an unfortunate, but mostly impotent, reality of the United States in the twenty-first century.

In the Jim Crow south, referring to an African-American man as “boy” was a rhetorical strategy that racist whites used to humiliate and infantilize black men – a way to remind them of their inferior social status. On many occasions, President Biden has used the term. Old habits die hard. Of course, it is not uncommon for people to refer to adult white men as “white boys.” Their purpose of calling them such is the same as the segregationists of yesteryear: emasculation. “White dudes” is much more subtle – it is a term that sophisticated Leftists use to thinly conceal their racism, while hinting at the political inconsequence of the group to whom they refer.

“White dudes” are ignorant. Blind to their privilege. In need of instruction and reform. For the Left, there is one way to ethically inhabit white identity: in penitence. They need to accept and acknowledge their guilt – for colonialism, slavery, exclusion, discrimination, and the miserable trajectory of history at large. As I have written elsewhere, the only publicly acceptable way to embody whiteness is to frame it as a source of shame. Admitting this culpability and regret is not an end in itself, though: it should be a motivating pathos, a precursor to the work of reparation, which must always be a symbolic self-denial.

That might sound extreme. But we must ask an illuminating question: if Joe Biden was the nominee, would there be a “white dudes for Biden” movement? Would a “white dudes for Trump” be tolerated by polite society? Would there be a “white dudes” movement for any white candidate from either party? Of course not. And this shows what is really going on with “white dudes for Harris.”

It’s not necessarily the case that a Harris presidency would harm or disadvantage white men, but “white dudes for Harris” seems to imply that many white men may believe that it would. The effort aims to discourage that perspective among white male voters. The doctrine of identity politics holds that self-interest on the basis of identity should be the primary motivation for voters. Every group – blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, etc. – should be pulling the lever for the candidate they believe will most advantage the group to which they belong. In truth, this self-centeredness is anti-political in the sense that it gives no consideration to the interests of the polis at large. But progressives frame electoral self-interest as a purely rational phenomenon. Understood in this way, “white dudes for Harris” tries to create the appearance that many white men have run the math on which candidate will advance their specific interests, and have found that Kamala is the obvious choice. “White dudes for Harris,” then, is an attempt to persuade unconverted white dudes to join up.

“White dudes for Harris” also plays a critical messaging function for people on the Left who are not white dudes. It assures non-white voters that “white dudes” will only play a supporting role in the movement. As noted above, since “white dudes” carries a connotation of dismissiveness and inconsequence, the movement confirms to committed Leftists that the political interests of white men would take a back seat to the interests of other “marginalized” groups under a Harris administration. Allowing “white dudes for Harris” to exist despite the prohibition against race-conscious political action by whites provides reassurance for rank-and-file progressives that Harris is fully committed to the woke identitarianism of the far Left.

Perhaps most importantly, though, “White dudes for Harris” operates at the individual and psychological level. For the white men who sign onto “white dudes for Harris,” the movement plays a role in alleviating their vicarious historical guilt. “My ancestors may have been monsters,” the white dude reasons, “but now I’m doing the right thing by voting for someone with African and Indian heritage – and not only that, but a woman who is anything but a ‘dude.’” By identifying with “white dudes for Harris,” guilt-ridden white men enact a kind of performative penance. Historically, religious penitence is supposed to entail a diminution and rejection of the self, and the “white dudes for Harris” do strike a penitential pose. But their penitence is also a self-aggrandizing gesture. In flogging themselves for the sins of their forebears, the “white dude for Harris” shows that he is one of the good ones. He is aware that his fallenness extends from his whiteness and his dudeness. He is willing to admit that truth, and he is prepared to accept the secondary and supporting role that he will play as a cheerleader for the Harris regime. The spectacle of this atonement creates enthusiasm among his primary audience – Democrats who are not “white dudes.” And finally, through his public confession, the “white dude” believes he earns the absolution that he needs so badly.

In essence, “white dudes for Harris” is an elaborate psychodrama that advances the political aspirations of the Left and satisfies the spiritual longings of a certain kind of “white dude.” Certainly, it’s smart (if cynical) electoral strategy. And a case may even be made that a Harris presidency would serve all citizens equally and represent their interests fully – regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality. But even if that were true, it doesn’t negate the political functions that “white dudes for Harris” is meant to perform. Some “white dudes” will vote for Kamala. Others will vote for Trump. In large part, the thing that separates them is their willingness to identify themselves as such, and their eagerness to play a caricature in service to a political movement that sees them as “problematic” people who constitute a “threat to democracy.” It will be interesting to see how many enlist come November.