Eugene Volokh has a good post about my wife. I'm not sure why he keeps referring to her as "he", though.
I think he's a little too unwilling to focus on how many black conservatives have been convinced by real arguments that liberal policies are worse for black people than conservative policies are. But his point about those not convinced by such arguments that they aren't race traitors still stands. I particularly like his last paragraph. Some people, even if they wrongly think Republicans and conservative policies are anti-black, might still put aside identity politics and concern themselves more with issues that aren't as self-focused.
It hadn't occurred to me until this afternoon that the term 'race traitor' originally arose in the context of white racists calling white liberals race traitors when they sought to promote liberal social policies with the goal of greater equality. Now it's being used to refer to black people who think conservative policies promote greater equality. Some say the charge is appropriate because this time the policies don't promote greater equality. I think that's wrong, because I think conservative policies do have better effects racially speaking (and I think it's demonstrable that liberal policies that were supposed to promote equality had mixed results, e.g. the mass expansion of welfare to include most black urbanites, thus creating generations of dependency). But two things even apart from that strike me as inappropriate about the traitor metaphor.
First, isn't a traitor someone who knowingly and deliberately betrays their people? It doesn't seem right to call me a traitor if I'm bamboozled into doing something that turns out to harm some group I belong to. The Baltar of the original Battlestar Galactica was a traitor. He colluded with the Cylons to betray his people, and he did so knowing what he was doing and accepting it with full consent. The story was entirely implausible, because they gave no sense at all of why a human being would do such a thing, but he was clearly a traitor. The Baltar of the new Battlestar Galactica is entirely different. While he's far from a moral paragon, you can understand how he ends up doing what he does, and he's really anything but a traitor. He was originally manipulated by a Cylon agent who masqueraded as a human woman to get into his life so she could steal the codes for the defense network he'd designed. He's done other things that, from his perspective, have inadvertently helped the Cylons, but he isn't doing it as a traitor. He's not betraying his people. He's doing things he shouldn't do, things with bad consequences for his people, but he's not doing it for the sake of betraying his people, as would be required if he were really a traitor. For the same reasons, I just can't see it apt to call someone a traitor for honestly and unwittingly accepting views that turn out to harm one's own people, views one believes to be best for one's people.
The other thing that bothers me about this is that traitor-language implies a war. It implies an enemy. I can't see how those who want to promote racial reconciliation would want to see those who disagree on the best solutions to racial problems as enemies at war. That makes me think that anyone who talks this way is simply not interested in racial reconciliation at all but in simply in fighting. Those who have other goals than merely fighting for its own sake, in good Hatfield and McCoy fashion, should stop using language that implies a war.