We have had two high-profile women in the political sphere publicly make racist comments recently. First was New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who bizarrely claimed that Black children in the Bronx don’t know what computers are. Then, there was conservative commentator and author Ann Coulter, who proclaimed that she would never vote for former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy because he is of Indian descent.

The comments from both women ignited a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. But the nature of the two women’s racist commentaries is quite illuminating. Coulter’s racism was open, honest, and raw, while Hochul’s was shrouded behind a thin veil of faux compassion.

As a Black man, I prefer Coulter’s brand of racism.

For those who haven’t yet heard, Coulter made an appearance on Ramaswamy’s podcast. The conversation turned to nationalism and American identity. That’s when the commentator made her remarks. “I agreed with many things you said during – in fact, probably more than most other candidates when you were running for president,” Coulter said. “But I still would not have voted for you, because you’re an Indian.”

She didn’t stop there.

Coulter continued, explaining that she would only support a candidate who is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP), arguing that “there is a core national identity that is the identity of the WASP.” However, she affirmed that “doesn’t mean we can’t take anyone else in, a Sri Lankan, or a Japanese, or an Indian, but the core around which the nation’s values are formed is the WASP.”

However, she indicated that if any of Ramaswamy’s children were to marry a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution, she would “definitely vote for them for president.” So, at least there is some hope that one of the entrepreneur’s children might get Coulter’s support. We must look for those silver linings, right?

Ann Coulter to Vivek: I agreed with you more than any other candidate but I wouldn’t have voted for you because you’re an Indian.

Got to respect racism this pure. pic.twitter.com/pt08HhgT4H

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) May 8, 2024

Days before Coulter’s bigoted remarks, Gov. Kathy Hochul stepped in it while discussing Black children in the Bronx. While giving a speech at a forum in California, she said, “Right now, we have, you know, young Black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word ‘computer’ is” and that “They don’t know these things. And I want the world opened up to all of them.”

OMG HAHAHA Governor Kathy Hochul thinks black people don't know what a computer is. pic.twitter.com/TSjMLmiOAc

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 7, 2024

Hochul later apologized. In a statement, she said: “I misspoke and I regret it.”

“Of course Black children in the Bronx know what computers are — the problem is that they too often lack access to the technology needed to get on track to high-paying jobs in emerging industries like AI,” Hochul said. “That’s why I’ve been focused on increasing economic opportunity since Day One of my Administration, and will continue that fight to ensure every New Yorker has a shot at a good-paying job.”

If I only had one choice between how these two women expressed their racist thoughts, I’d go with Coulter’s in a heartbeat. Of course, if I had it my way, there would be no racism – but we live in the real world, don’t we?

The thing about Ann Coulter is that she has never been bashful about expressing her backward beliefs about nonwhite people. Her racial commentary has been pointed, blunt, and, well, racist as hell. I know precisely where she stands when it comes to folks with a skin tone similar to mine.

This means I know what I’m dealing with when I see someone like her expressing their views. She is not trying to trick minorities into believing she is in their corner. Her brand of racism is much easier to address because it is out in the open, where it can be scrutinized, picked apart, and rejected.

However, Gov. Hochul is a different breed of racist, one that masquerades as an ally while exploiting Black and Brown people to advance their agenda. They use us as vehicles with which to push policies intended to expand the government in a way that gives it more control over the populace.

On Tuesday, I wrote an op-ed about a progressive author who used Black children to argue against a Tennessee law allowing teachers to carry firearms in the classroom. She basically argued that lawmakers should pursue more restrictions on lawful gun owners instead of arming teachers because it will somehow make Black students less safe. Yet, the debate over arming teachers and gun control has nothing to do with race and everything to do with stopping mass shootings.

Nevertheless, she, like many of her contemporaries, sought to use Black folks to manipulate people into supporting the actual progressive agenda, which is aimed at limiting lawful gun ownership and attacking the Second Amendment, not preventing mass shootings.

This is just one example of how progressives exploit Black and Brown Americans to advance a political agenda. Moreover, Hochul’s comments betray her racist views of Black children and the reality that many hard leftists view us as helpless puppies in dire need of their assistance rather than Americans facing government-imposed obstacles. This belief leads to all kinds of dangerous policies related to education, crime, economics, and other issues facing Black Americans. In short, by pretending to be our friends, they are grinning in our faces while pushing the dagger deeper into our backs.

There is a reason why Malcolm X referred to liberals as “foxes” who “show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling.”

I’m not the only one who feels this way. Darvio Morrow, CEO of the FCB Network, agreed:

“I’d rather not deal with either one, but if forced to choose I’d rather see racism coming so I know what I’m dealing with. It’s easier to defend yourself from the enemy shooting at the tent from the outside. The one shooting at you from inside the tent can cause more damage.”

Author and podcaster Adam Coleman concurred, saying of Coulter, “At least she’s honest.” He continued, explaining that he would “much rather someone tell me exactly how they feel versus beat around the bush.”

This is where I stand. If someone is going to be a racist, I’d rather they do so openly rather than disguising themselves as an ally whose attack is cloaked in empathy.