Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.
"Individual rights and small government" appeals in modern politics has mostly just been the advertising copy used to sell the right-wing brand and never really represented the product you were getting writ large. Just a broadly palatable, malleable construct used to slap on top of more central underlying agendas.
Reagan didn't take to Neshoba County to kick off his presidential campaign with appeals to states rights, to a raucous all white crowd, because he was channeling his inner Jefferson. He was channeling his inner Wallace and the crowd was well in tune to the underlying signals and significance of the guy that was vehemently against things like The Rumford Fair Housing Act.
But that is what is great about Southern Strategy style politics. You can have a campaign rally talking about states rights for Mississippi a rocks throw from the Freedom Summer Murders. Evoke a naive or disingenuous op-ed in The National Review written about how it has nothing to do with dog whistle politics, and some overly gullible journalist at the NY Times being responsible and taking the article's premise at face value, which than inadvertently raises the legitimacy and shifts the focus to the cover letter being blanketed over the underlying agenda.
Point being, there isn't a whole lot of mileage to get out of arguing the face value premises of idiots that have tuned to the channel but haven't gotten through the noise(like your hypothetical black person that see's the tribal signals of individual liberty, gun rights, but misses the obvious big elephants in the fucking room), or arguing the face value premises of people that know what the noise is doing but purposefully try to further obfuscate it. If the former, IMO, the conversation should be a dialogue that sets out to establish the missed context. In terms of the latter, they can mostly just be remorselessly fucked with.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
I understand Libertarians fall in somewhere here. But TBH, they can just fuck off to their minarchist island to argue about what constitutes justifiable theft and let the influence of the diminishing marginal utility of money, the tragedy of the commons, incessant greed, and the intense statist paranoia innate to said personality types finish off the job.