Who Is Carlos D’Angelo—and Why His Identity Breaks People’s Brains

When I tell you I met a Black gay conservative veteran in California, I already know what half the internet does next: they start writing the story in their head before the man even opens his mouth.

That’s why I wanted him on record.

Because Carlos D’Angelo doesn’t just “have opinions.” He represents the kind of identity stack that makes people glitch. And I said that out loud to him—some people struggle imagining how all of those identities can coexist.

Carlos didn’t act offended. He didn’t perform for sympathy. He just told me who he is, in the plainest terms possible:

He said he’s an Army veteran, “very Southern,” “very logical,” and politically conservative—but also “liberal” in a very specific way: he believes less government control over people is better for the people.

And then he went even further, because Carlos isn’t the “say the polite version” type.

He told me he doesn’t see “slight anarchy” as a problem. Not chaos for fun—more like a personal justice code. In his view, if someone wrongs you, you should be able to wrong them back, tick for tack, and nobody else should have a lot to say about it.

That right there? That’s the core of Carlos. It’s not just conservative vs. liberal. It’s order vs. intervention. It’s personal consequence vs. government force.

And once he laid that foundation, I understood why his mind goes where it goes next.

Why Carlos distrusts policing (even though he’s not “anti-cop” in the trendy way)

A lot of people assume “conservative” automatically means “back the blue,” no questions asked. Carlos complicated that fast.

He questioned the whole premise of armed enforcement as the default solution—asking why we have such a heavy need to employ people to patrol people with guns, and why those guns are used to strike fear while being painted as protection.

Then, when we got into federal involvement, he said straight up that the federal government imposing itself on communities makes things worse.

So now we’ve got a profile that doesn’t fit the caricature:

• a veteran who talks about civic duty and taxes,

• a conservative who’s skeptical of state force,

• a Black gay man who clearly isn’t here to audition for anybody’s approval.

His patriotism isn’t vibes—it’s “I paid into this, so I’m invested”

Later in the conversation, Carlos connects his worldview to service. He says respect for this country came from serving—in uniform and as a citizen. He even calls himself a “model citizen” (and I immediately clocked it as a little slip, because… sir, relax 😭).

But his point was clear: he sees paying taxes and contributing as part of serving the country—buying into a system you’re protected by.

And it’s that exact logic—investment, contribution, reciprocity—that sets up the moment that made me hit record in the first place.

Because once Carlos finished telling me who he is, he dropped the line that turned this from “interesting identity conversation” into a full-on political argument:

He said nonprofits shouldn’t keep their tax exemptions across the board.

And the way he said it, I knew two things immediately:

1. he wasn’t talking about “a few bad orgs,”

2. and he was about to defend it like he defends everything else—logically, bluntly, and without apologizing.