Republicans pushed back on the Democrats’ long-running identity politics playbook after Virginia’s 2025 gubernatorial contest showed those themes can be shelved when inconvenient, and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron urged a shift toward merit and policy over race. The campaign highlighted contradictions in how Democrats emphasize race, and it exposed raw internal campaign frustrations captured on undercover video that complicated the narrative. This piece looks at the political theater in Virginia, the national figures who weighed in, and the case for a merit-based approach from a Republican perspective.
The Virginia race featured a unique matchup: a Jamaican-born Marine veteran lieutenant governor running against a former Democratic congresswoman, and national Democrats rallied in ways that felt selective. Campaigns are supposed to be about ideas and results, not theater and optics, yet the contrast between past calls for identity-based turnout and this campaign’s messaging was striking. For many Republicans, the takeaway was obvious: prioritize competency and shared values over identity categories.
Daniel Cameron put the point plainly when he criticized selective identity emphasis, saying, “certainly pick and choose when they want to highlight a candidate’s race and use that for political expediency,” and adding, “But the Republican Party has been consistent that we’re a party about merit.” That statement underlines a broader GOP argument that voters respond to competence, leadership and concrete policy positions. Cameron’s message was framed as a corrective to what he sees as Democrats’ inconsistent standards.
Barack Obama’s remarks from past campaigns were brought back into the conversation to show contrast in tactics. Obama once warned that turnout problems were especially pronounced among Black men with, “We have not yet seen the same kinds of energy and turnout in all corners of our neighborhoods and communities as we saw when I was running,” and later pressed, “Now, I also want to say that that seems to be more pronounced with the brothers. So if you don’t mind — just for a second, I’ve got to speak to y’all and say that when you have a choice that is this clean: When on the one hand, you have somebody who grew up like you, went to college with you, understands the struggles (and the) pain and joy that comes from those experiences,” continuing that Trump “has consistently shown disregard, not just for the communities, but for you as a person — and you are thinking about sitting out?” Those lines were contrasted with his later campaigning choices in Virginia.
On the Virginia trail, Obama criticized Republicans with a broad brush, claiming, “There is absolutely no evidence Republican policies have made life better for you, the people of Virginia,” and accusing them of playing to grievances and scapegoating minority issues and DEI. For conservatives, that rhetoric underscored a divide: Democrats often frame policy fights as cultural battles rather than debates over outcomes and governance. That framing makes it easier to change emphasis when it suits political needs.
Democrats’ long habit of foregrounding identity in politics has roots across multiple administrations, and even Joe Biden’s confirmation that he would nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court was wrapped in identity language when he said, “While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decision except one: the person I nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity — and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue, in my view.” Republicans argue the right focus is qualifications and law, not checklist politics.
The Spanberger campaign was rocked by an undercover recording of a staffer expressing contempt for the choice set, saying, “CIA agent, literally, which is crazy, like yeah, vote for the CIA agent, guys, like what the f—,” and adding, “I don’t know what happened. We’re in, like, the darkest timeline,” and “Our only choices are between a Black woman, which ordinarily all for, but this time you think we should bring back slavery, Winsome.… Even with that, it’s like either vote for the Black woman who thinks that slavery should be brought back or vote for the White woman who was in the CIA.” Those raw comments gave ammunition to critics who see identity politics as divisive and performative.
Cameron and other Republicans seized on both the rhetoric and the recording to press a simple claim: voters prefer substance. He argued, “The leadership in the Democratic Party certainly discounts race when it’s not somebody from their campaign or not somebody on their side of the aisle that is in the election. And that is what you saw here, is that they discounted it and they played it down, it didn’t have much significance.” That charge of inconsistency resonated with conservatives who say Democrats pivot based on advantage rather than principle.
For Republicans, the policy platform is central — national security, economic growth, and an America first posture — and Cameron emphasized his record as proof, saying, ” I want folks to focus on my values when I was the attorney general, certainly,” and ” I won, I think, 113 of 120 counties, and people didn’t care what I looked like. They cared about my values. And so I’m optimistic that when it comes to the future of this country, people, here in Kentucky, and I think in Virginia, and a lot of places is: Do you stand with the America first agenda? Are you focused on standing with president Trump? And that’s certainly something that I’m focused on in my race here for the Senate here in Kentucky.” That closing point ties the local race back to national priorities Republicans are pushing.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.