The point here is not that only minorities or the poor can run organizations that advocate on issues that primarily affect minorities and the poor. That way madness lies. There is nothing inherent in an identity or a circumstance that automatically makes someone a better leader. Michael Manley, John Brown, Joe Slovo—history is not teeming with examples of the wealthy and light providing leadership for the poor and dark, but they do exist. People have to be judged on what they do, not who they are. This is not simply about optics. What an organization looks like is relevant; but what it does is paramount.Why is what an organization looks like relevant at all? If the mission is paramount, if it's the most important thing, why would you care who accomplishes it? Would you rather succeed under someone who doesn't look like you or fail under someone who looks like you? If the mission is paramount, then you want to succeed--and it shouldn't matter who does the leading.
The reason lefties keep spinning and spinning and triangulating and explaining and clarifying is that fundamentally, their core philosophies don't make any sense.