All political appointees, regardless of race, have to try to put the best spin they can on the decisions of their leadership. If they can't manage to do that, then it is their responsibility to quit (c.f. Bill Barr under Trump). Take, for instance, the current Secretary of State, Antony Blinkin. He's been consistently hawkish and interventionist throughout his career. Now he's making weak excuses for the Biden administration's chaotic departure from Afghanistan, e.g. https://www.state.gov/on-todays-terrorist-attacks-in-kabul/ instead of attacking it as contrary to American values, contrary to American interests, and executed hastily and sloppily. Given his past record, he's almost surely got to be thinking that somewhere, at least subconsciously. But that's not what his job calls for now. He's doing his job.

You might fondly imagine that Kwasi Kwarteng would agree with you save for political ambition, but he has quite a track record as a staunch conservative--small government, high personal responsibility, highly nationalistic. He didn't have to ally himself with the conservatives. He didn't have to co-author a book calling for shrinking the welfare state. And he's stood up to his own party when he felt strongly about something; for instance, he didn't have to break with Cameron, but doing so helped facilitate Brexit.

I don't think I agree with Kwareng on much of anything, not deeply anyway. But it's disturbing that you don't take him seriously as a conservative, and therefore don't take him seriously as a person, and don't recognize when he's doing his job the way it's supposed to be done.

Tim Scott also had a job to do, but why don't you take him at his word that he doesn't classify the U.S. as "systemically racist"? Did you ask him what he meant? Maybe he just has a much higher bar to cross before throwing that word around. How do you know? And did you listen when he said he didn't like using the past to shut down debate on present issues? If not, why not? If yes, why did you do exactly what he said he didn't want done?

Again, I think this is highly disrespectful, even though I don't agree with Tim Scott's positions on much either. If he makes an argument, I think I owe it to him to take him at his word unless his current word is patently inconsistent with his past outlook.

Now, if you were going to write a thoughtful piece on internalization and how it manifests, okay, sure, that might have some merit. But this? No. This is just flat-out disrespect.

I understand your frustration, to some extent. It's disappointing when bright, eloquent people who superficially seem like they ought to be aligned with your views turn out not to be. But this isn't the way to express it. Everyone deserves better than that.