Because they analyze the left’s tribal identity politics in terms of universalist abstractions, mainly because they take the left’s universalist pretenses at face value, and conclude that since the left’s tribal identity based effort du jour does not meet whatever universalist abstraction is supposedly the matter at hand, that just saying that and writing that will carry the day and make the left back down.
Repeating just in case you’ve been in Antarctica for the last few years: AFFH is all about urban white liberals unloading urban ghetto underclass blacks on suburbs, especially peaked or past peak older inner suburbs, so that the cities are safe for urban white liberal gentrification. It’s not about someone pursuing “justice,” or someone falling short of that goal, it’s pure it’s pure identity politics, Who-Whom.
Beating AFFH will happen when its white victims either self-organize or are externally organized around their tribal concerns and their race-based opposition to moving ghetto blacks from the city next door to them. Even if they have to do it on the sly; just as the left is cloaking a tribal agenda under universalist garb in their support of AFFH, if we were on our game, we could easily find a way to do the same in our opposition, to find some sort of universalist excuse to couch what we all know is our race-based agenda.
Just don’t expect abstraction-obsessed lamestream conservatives to do it.
As an aside, this article muddies the issue by bringing up Julian Castro and La Raza Unida. That is definitely worth knowing, but not relevant to the pregnant politics of AFFH. It is only brought up because Castro just so happens to be the HUD Secretary of a White House that would be pursuing AFFH no matter who Obama appointed to lead HUD. If Obama appointed Mickey Mouse to lead HUD, it wouldn’t make much sense to talk about mouse-born rabies in an article about AFFH, but the author of this article would find a way.