Also, note that all of the negative examples are politics related. If a politician reads the word 'ilk', it is going to be interpreted negatively. It might be the case that ilk does "always mean" a negative connotation in politics.
You could change 'ilk' to 'friends', and keep the same meaning with very little negative connotation. There is still a slight negative connotation here, in the political arena, but it's a very vague shade, and I like it here.
"Altman and his ilk try to claim that..." is a negative phrase because "ilk" is negative, but also because "try to claim" is invalidating and dismissive. So this has elements or notes of an emotional attack, rather than a purely rational argument. If someone is already leaning towards Altman's side, then this will feel like an attack and like you are the enemy.
"Altman claims that..." removes all connotation and sticks to just the facts.
Well even if ilk had a negative connotation for my intended audience (which clearly it does to some people), I am actually trying to invalidate and dismiss Altman's arguments.
When someone is arguing from a position of strength, they don't need to resort to petty jibes.
You are already arguing from a position of strength.
When you add petty jibes, it weakens your perceived position, because it suggests that you think you need them, rather than relying solely on your argument.
(As a corollary, you should never use petty jibes. When you feel like you need to, shore up your argument instead.)
Well I don't think it really matters what most readers think of it because I was writing it hoping that it would be read by congressional staffers, who I think will know what ilk means.
I'd argue that you're right that there's nothing intrinsically disparaging about ilk as a word, but in contemporary usage it does seem to have become quite negative. I know the dictionary doesn't say it, but in my discussions it seems to have shifted towards the negative.
Consider this: "Firefighters and their ilk." It's not a word that nicely described a group, even though that's what it's supposed to do. I think the language has moved to where we just say Firefighters now when it's positive, and ilk or et al when it's a negative connotation.
I'm mean, at this point I'm going to argue that it you believe ilk is only ever used derogatorily, you're only reading and hearing people who have axes to grind.
I probably live quite distally to you and am probably exposed to parts of western culture you probably aren't, and I almost never hear nor read ilk as a derogation or used to associate in a derogatory manner.
