The Atlantic: You Can’t Win Elections by Telling Voters Their Concerns Are Imaginary

[z_ape]

You Can’t Win Elections by Telling Voters Their Concerns Are Imaginary

Virginia is sending Democrats a warning: They’ve lost control of the narrative about education.

www.theatlantic.com

Glenn Youngkin’s victory over Terry McAuliffe for the governorship of Virginia should make Democrats—and anyone else who fears that a Republican Party still beholden to Donald Trump poses a serious threat to American democracy—very worried about what is to come.

Republicans are now favored to recapture Congress in 2022. Betting markets indicate that Trump is the most likely victor of the 2024 presidential election. Difficult though it is to draw lessons from any one election, the task is crucial if Democrats are to change the political trajectory on which the country finds itself.

That makes it all the more worrying that one line of interpretation seems to dominate the Democratic ecosystem. If cable-news analysts and newspaper columnists are to be believed, Youngkin, an extremist posing in the garb of a suburban dad, was able to incite “white backlash” by exploiting “fake” and “imaginary” fears about the teaching of “critical race theory” in public schools.

But this account does not help explain the inroads Youngkin seems to have made in blue suburbs, among political independents, and even among Black voters. Nor does it help Democrats develop a plan for how they can avoid further political losses when Republicans across the country emulate Youngkin’s strategy next year.

The truth, I fear, is rather different. Youngkin capitalized on a widespread public perception that Democrats are out of tune with the country on cultural issues. In doing so, he demonstrated that Republicans who attack identity politics without embracing Trump’s extremist rhetoric can be highly competitive in purple and even solidly blue states (such as New Jersey, where another gubernatorial election that was meant to be an easy win for Democrats has turned out to be unexpectedly close).

Read: If Democrats can lose in Virginia, they can lose almost anywhere

If Democrats want to avoid losing control of Congress next year and the White House in 2024, they need to take an unflinching look at what just happened.

For most of 2021, Youngkin struggled to generate any enthusiasm for his campaign. His strategy of keeping Trump at arm’s length without explicitly criticizing him seemed to have succeeded in holding the Republican coalition together, but not in appealing to the swing voters he would need to come within striking distance of the governor’s mansion. The race looked predictable, and McAuliffe was likely to win by a safe margin.

Then Youngkin started to home in on a new theme: education. Responding to widespread anger among parents across the commonwealth, he lambasted public schools for failing to reopen for in-person classes for most of the pandemic. Then, capitalizing on growing unease about curricular content—which parents who were home with their kids could eavesdrop on via Zoom—he warned that teachers were trying to indoctrinate students with radical political ideas, collectively referring to them as “critical race theory.”

The pivot worked. Voters usually consider education to be one of many important issues and tend to trust Democrats to handle it better than Republicans. This was the case in Virginia as late as September, when voters who prioritized education favored McAuliffe by 33 points. But, especially after McAuliffe said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” the wind turned. A week before the election, a Washington Post poll found that a plurality of voters in Virginia ranked education as the election’s most important topic. Among those who did, Youngkin was now up by nine points.

Other polls taken in the run-up to the election provide further evidence that Youngkin owes his victory to his focus on education. According to one poll taken in the week before the election, for example, Youngkin led McAuliffe by three percentage points among all likely voters. But among K–12 parents, the Republican led the Democrat by 15 points.

Why was Youngkin so successful in turning education into the signature issue of his campaign and winning plenty of swing voters over to his side?

If you listen to Democratic politicians or read the mainstream news, the answer to that question seems to be that most voters were duped. The New York Times, for example, largely missed the degree to which the debate over education was fueling Youngkin’s rise. And when the newspaper of record did finally send a reporter to write an extended piece about how Youngkin had become a “culture warrior,” it implied—as a matter of fact, not opinion—that parental concerns over curricular content were based in confusion.

Zachary D. Carter: The Democratic unraveling began with schools

Critical race theory, the article stated, is “an academic body of thought about the effects of systemic racism that has galvanized conservatives around the country. It is generally not introduced until college and is not part of classroom teaching in Virginia.” In other words, the main topic around which Youngkin built his campaign does not exist.

That has also been a widely held view within the Democratic echo chamber over the past 24 hours. According to one viral tweet, “It is incredible the GOP successfully made Virginia governor’s race about teaching critical race theory in public schools, something that is not taught in any public school anywhere in America.” Or as another quipped, “White and suburban kids in Virginia are now saved from CRT and Sharia and Bigfoot and Unicorns.”

In this analysis, the opposition to critical race theory is nothing more than a racist dog whistle. Supposed concerns about it aren’t just lies; they are an exercise in “race-baiting.” The real goal of Republicans like Youngkin is, simply, to prevent any discussion of the history of slavery or even to perpetuate “white supremacy.”

The idea that critical race theory is an academic concept that is taught only at colleges or law schools might be technically accurate, but the reality on the ground is a good deal more complicated. Few middle or high schoolers are poring over academic articles written by Richard Delgado or Kimberlé Crenshaw. But across the nation, many teachers have, over the past years, begun to adopt a pedagogical program that owes its inspiration to ideas that are very fashionable on the academic left, and that go well beyond telling students about America’s copious historical sins.

[continued below]

 

[z_ape]

In some elementary and middle schools, students are now being asked to place themselves on a scale of privilege based on such attributes as their skin color. History lessons in some high schools teach that racism is not just a persistent reality but the defining feature of America. And some school systems have even embraced ideas that spread pernicious prejudices about nonwhite people, as when a presentation to principals of New York City public schools denounced virtues such as “perfectionism” or the “worship of the written word” as elements of “white-supremacy culture.”

Effective opponents of these developments, such as Youngkin, explicitly acknowledge the importance of teaching students about the history of slavery and even the injustices that many minority groups continue to face today. They do not pretend that grade schoolers are reading academic articles. Instead, they focus the ire of many parents on curricular content that can fairly be described as popularized, less sophisticated cousins of critical race theory.

Youngkin’s victory is a kind of road map that other Republicans can use to run successful campaigns over the coming years. To respond effectively, Democrats will have to stop dismissing concerns over curricular content as “fake outrage.”

Read: The GOP’s ‘critical race theory’ obsession

That leaves Democrats with two principal options. They could defend the need to teach students ideas that are rooted in critical race theory, arguing that an unrelentingly bleak view of American history or a depiction of contemporary America as still defined by omnipresent forms of structural racism are accurate reflections of reality. Personally, I have substantive disagreements with this view as well as deep concerns about how popular such a message is likely to prove. But an open defense of the need to make radical changes to the way students are taught about the history and the nature of their country would at least stand a chance of persuading some voters and have the virtue of treating them like adults.

Alternatively, Democrats could become more willing to disavow curricular content that is incendiary or misguided. Exercises that ask elementary-school students to rate themselves on a scale of privilege or presentations that imply that Black people are somehow less interested in the written word may be relatively rare. But voters who worry about them are much more likely to be reassured by politicians who are willing to condemn them than by those who pretend they don’t exist. Doing so is both right and expedient.

Regardless of the choice Democrats make, they should, at the same time, denounce Republican plans to prohibit teachers from discussing ideas that might make their students uncomfortable as illiberal assaults on free speech that will lead to unacceptable forms of overreach. In the coming years, the introduction of such laws—which Youngkin favors—is likely to lead to a significant number of teachers who are unfairly punished for doing their job. If Democrats manage to decry such injustices while simultaneously distancing themselves from the most unpopular content now being taught at schools, public opinion will probably be on their side.

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

For anybody who cares about making sure that Donald Trump does not become the 47th president of the United States, it is crucial that Democrats avoid repeating the mistakes that just put a Republican in Virginia’s governor’s mansion. It is impossible to win elections by telling voters that their concerns are imaginary. If Democrats keep doing so, they will keep losing.

 

[z_ape]

Bingo.

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

 

[Tfxchawk]

The 1619 project is in schools.....

 

[Joes Place]

You Can’t Win Elections by Telling Voters Their Concerns Are Imaginary

Virginia is sending Democrats a warning: They’ve lost control of the narrative about education.

www.theatlantic.com

Glenn Youngkin’s victory over Terry McAuliffe for the governorship of Virginia should make Democrats—and anyone else who fears that a Republican Party still beholden to Donald Trump poses a serious threat to American democracy—very worried about what is to come.

Republicans are now favored to recapture Congress in 2022. Betting markets indicate that Trump is the most likely victor of the 2024 presidential election. Difficult though it is to draw lessons from any one election, the task is crucial if Democrats are to change the political trajectory on which the country finds itself.

That makes it all the more worrying that one line of interpretation seems to dominate the Democratic ecosystem. If cable-news analysts and newspaper columnists are to be believed, Youngkin, an extremist posing in the garb of a suburban dad, was able to incite “white backlash” by exploiting “fake” and “imaginary” fears about the teaching of “critical race theory” in public schools.

But this account does not help explain the inroads Youngkin seems to have made in blue suburbs, among political independents, and even among Black voters. Nor does it help Democrats develop a plan for how they can avoid further political losses when Republicans across the country emulate Youngkin’s strategy next year.

The truth, I fear, is rather different. Youngkin capitalized on a widespread public perception that Democrats are out of tune with the country on cultural issues. In doing so, he demonstrated that Republicans who attack identity politics without embracing Trump’s extremist rhetoric can be highly competitive in purple and even solidly blue states (such as New Jersey, where another gubernatorial election that was meant to be an easy win for Democrats has turned out to be unexpectedly close).

Read: If Democrats can lose in Virginia, they can lose almost anywhere

If Democrats want to avoid losing control of Congress next year and the White House in 2024, they need to take an unflinching look at what just happened.

For most of 2021, Youngkin struggled to generate any enthusiasm for his campaign. His strategy of keeping Trump at arm’s length without explicitly criticizing him seemed to have succeeded in holding the Republican coalition together, but not in appealing to the swing voters he would need to come within striking distance of the governor’s mansion. The race looked predictable, and McAuliffe was likely to win by a safe margin.

Then Youngkin started to home in on a new theme: education. Responding to widespread anger among parents across the commonwealth, he lambasted public schools for failing to reopen for in-person classes for most of the pandemic. Then, capitalizing on growing unease about curricular content—which parents who were home with their kids could eavesdrop on via Zoom—he warned that teachers were trying to indoctrinate students with radical political ideas, collectively referring to them as “critical race theory.”

The pivot worked. Voters usually consider education to be one of many important issues and tend to trust Democrats to handle it better than Republicans. This was the case in Virginia as late as September, when voters who prioritized education favored McAuliffe by 33 points. But, especially after McAuliffe said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,” the wind turned. A week before the election, a Washington Post poll found that a plurality of voters in Virginia ranked education as the election’s most important topic. Among those who did, Youngkin was now up by nine points.

Other polls taken in the run-up to the election provide further evidence that Youngkin owes his victory to his focus on education. According to one poll taken in the week before the election, for example, Youngkin led McAuliffe by three percentage points among all likely voters. But among K–12 parents, the Republican led the Democrat by 15 points.

Why was Youngkin so successful in turning education into the signature issue of his campaign and winning plenty of swing voters over to his side?

If you listen to Democratic politicians or read the mainstream news, the answer to that question seems to be that most voters were duped. The New York Times, for example, largely missed the degree to which the debate over education was fueling Youngkin’s rise. And when the newspaper of record did finally send a reporter to write an extended piece about how Youngkin had become a “culture warrior,” it implied—as a matter of fact, not opinion—that parental concerns over curricular content were based in confusion.

Zachary D. Carter: The Democratic unraveling began with schools

Critical race theory, the article stated, is “an academic body of thought about the effects of systemic racism that has galvanized conservatives around the country. It is generally not introduced until college and is not part of classroom teaching in Virginia.” In other words, the main topic around which Youngkin built his campaign does not exist.

That has also been a widely held view within the Democratic echo chamber over the past 24 hours. According to one viral tweet, “It is incredible the GOP successfully made Virginia governor’s race about teaching critical race theory in public schools, something that is not taught in any public school anywhere in America.” Or as another quipped, “White and suburban kids in Virginia are now saved from CRT and Sharia and Bigfoot and Unicorns.”

In this analysis, the opposition to critical race theory is nothing more than a racist dog whistle. Supposed concerns about it aren’t just lies; they are an exercise in “race-baiting.” The real goal of Republicans like Youngkin is, simply, to prevent any discussion of the history of slavery or even to perpetuate “white supremacy.”

The idea that critical race theory is an academic concept that is taught only at colleges or law schools might be technically accurate, but the reality on the ground is a good deal more complicated. Few middle or high schoolers are poring over academic articles written by Richard Delgado or Kimberlé Crenshaw. But across the nation, many teachers have, over the past years, begun to adopt a pedagogical program that owes its inspiration to ideas that are very fashionable on the academic left, and that go well beyond telling students about America’s copious historical sins.

[continued below]

Except that - per ALL of the "Election Fraud" claims - THEIR CONCERNS ACTUALLY ARE IMAGINARY!!!!

 

[z_ape]

Except that - per ALL of the "Election Fraud" claims - THEIR CONCERNS ACTUALLY ARE IMAGINARY!!!!

Point was to engage them on their concerns. Which means asking them what they are and trying to understand them. Rather than saying it's not a problem because choice of language to describe the problem is inaccurate. That was a bad tactic.

 

[BelemNole]

Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses. Or republicans.

 

[Joes Place]

Point was to engage them on their concerns. Which means asking them what they are and trying to understand them.

AGAIN - MANY of the "concerns" are made up propaganda shit they watch on Fox.

 

[Jim Grizzly]

It's too late. The right has already reframed CRT into something is isn't and never was. Now trying to explain its origin and actual academic purpose will simply result in THEM saying the left is reframing what CRT actually is. CRT has value in institutions of higher learning and has never and will never be taught in K-12 schools because students are equipped academically with the necessary tools to apply it properly. Similarly, Trumpers aren't equipped to even understand the concept of CRT and WHY it will never be part of public school curriculum.

 

[Joes Place]

It's too late. The right has already reframed CRT into something is isn't and never was. Now trying to explain its origin and actual academic purpose will simply result in THEM saying the left is reframing what CRT actually is. CRT has value in institutions of higher learning and has never and will never be taught in K-12 schools because students are equipped academically with the necessary tools to apply it properly. Similarly, Trumpers aren't equipped to even understand the concept of CRT and WHY it will never be part of public school curriculum.

Anything and everything they disagree with is "CRT".

That's how propaganda works.

 

[z_ape]

AGAIN - MANY of the "concerns" are made up propaganda shit they watch on Fox.

Of course Fox & similar outlets oversell problems and can create hysteria where it needn't be. I'm sure they oversold the woke schooling problem too.

Now there are problems, right? The article links some of them. They exist. But yes, you can oversell them and create hysteria anyway.

The particulars would involve drilling down into exactly what parents in Virginia think is happening. You know, you could ask them. Or try to dig into their arguments. I haven't paid attention to any of that, really, since the summer.

And of course we saw that with black lives matter and the corona virus on grand scale within liberal media, too. (polling shows lots of liberals were out of touch with reality on these issues)

That's media in general, right now.

 

[Nole Lou]

This is 100% right on, and I agree with every word, and that includes this:

Regardless of the choice Democrats make, they should, at the same time, denounce Republican plans to prohibit teachers from discussing ideas that might make their students uncomfortable as illiberal assaults on free speech that will lead to unacceptable forms of overreach.

But the semantic game of "CRT isn't even in schools but also CRT is good" is ludicrous. The academic writings on CRT aren't being taught in schools, but the tenets of CRT are being instituted in schools. And if the worst applications of CRT and "anti-racist" philosophy are actually rare, then all the more reason it should be EASY for Democrats to walk away, but they refuse.

The most egregious applications of CRT in education aren't even popular with African American parents. There's literally no constituency for it outside the Twitterverse, the post-grad intelligencia, and the "Diversity Training" grift.

And their approach is literally "You're delusional for thinking it exists, and also racist for not wanting it." It's politically insane.

That said...I think there is some chance to overstate how effective this will be for Republicans, so they need to be smart about it, and they're already going way overboard in some cases.

In Virginia, 90% of the hostility toward Democrats and education was generated by the 18 months schools were closed for COVID, and the way officials treated parents that questioned that while schools across the country opened. A not insignificant factor was a particularly local case where a man whose daughter was literally raped in school was lied to and branded a terrorist for pressing for answers (and the boy was quietly transferred to another school where he raped another girl). The CRT (and McAulliff's response to it) was merely the cherry on top of a groundswell of dissatisfaction with school officials in Virginia.

The treatment of parents by Democratic officials and school boards and teachers' unions over a variety of issues is absolutely fertile ground all over the country, but it would be a mistake (which I already see Rs itching to make) to make it solely a CRT issue, and focus on things like getting individual books out of libraries or whatever. They would be wise to make it a more holistic issue I think.

 

[z_ape]

It's too late. The right has already reframed CRT into something is isn't and never was. Now trying to explain its origin and actual academic purpose will simply result in THEM saying the left is reframing what CRT actually is. CRT has value in institutions of higher learning and has never and will never be taught in K-12 schools because students are equipped academically with the necessary tools to apply it properly. Similarly, Trumpers aren't equipped to even understand the concept of CRT and WHY it will never be part of public school curriculum.

Why do ostensibly smart people screw this issue up so badly.

They're using a word in a different way than it was originally used. This happens quite a bit in language. Right?

You could ding them over that, but you can't use that to ignore their argument. The actual content.

That's the "debate team trick" that lets your side off the hook. It was dumb game to play for democrats, as our author points out.

The correct action here is to actually engage them in their concerns even if it isn't the correct language. That's the main point of the article, and one I agree with.

 

[Huey Grey]

The problem is that the identity politics Rs use against the Dems aren't actual Dem platforms. They are conspiracy theories invented by the right that the Dems actually have nothing to do with. So how do you counter that? If one side is willing to wrap entire elections around one big lie and spend major money pounding that lie over and over again, how does the other party counter that without going down a similar conspiracy route?

 

[C/Seahawk]

Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses. Or republicans.

You know who doesn't underestimate the ignorance and stupidity of the masses? The GOP. They exploit it. The platform was racist fear mongering and messaging which was amplified by Fox, etc. They spew lies all day long stoking fear and anger in their viewers. Those viewers by and large are brainless imbeciles that mow down the buffet of bullshit and ask for a 2nd serving. Enough uneducated white people heard the dog whistle of CTR and turned out. The party that tried to overthrow democracy is winning elections, that should frighten people, but the ones that need to understand it the most can't, they are too stupid.

 

[Nole Lou]

Why do ostensibly smart people screw this issue up so badly.

They're using a word in a different way than it was originally used. This happens quite a bit in language. Right?

You could ding them over that, but you can't use that to ignore their argument. The actual content.

That's the "debate team trick" that lets your side off the hook. It was dumb game to play for democrats, as our author points out.

The correct action here is to actually engage them in their concerns even if it isn't the correct language. That's the main point of the article, and one I agree with.

They won't listen. They've got the talking point, and it doesn't matter if it doesn't match the reality on the ground or ignores the political reality. They happily ignore people trying to explain it to them.

Nope, the state that voted for Biden (and the first female African American vice president) by 10 points just a year ago got magically racist and stupid overnight. That's the story that helps them sleep at night.

 

[HotelAlphaWilcoKilo]

Meanwhile, DEI trainings and initiatives arose in a vacuum and their effectiveness in, well, doing who-knows-what exactly can be demonstrated and replicated. We just need collective buy-in!

You need these trainings precisely because you reject them! And it has nothing to do with looking at everything through a "race lens!" Now, let's all break up into affinity groups ...

 

[Jim Grizzly]

Why do ostensibly smart people screw this issue up so badly.

They're using a word in a different way than it was originally used. This happens quite a bit in language. Right?

You could ding them over that, but you can't use that to ignore their argument. The actual content.

That's the "debate team trick" that lets your side off the hook. It was dumb game to play for democrats, as our author points out.

The correct action here is to actually engage them in their concerns even if it isn't the correct language. That's the main point of the article, and one I agree with.

Because that lets them off the hook for changing the core argument and shifting focus to a theory that doesn't apply. If they want to come out and say they don't want to teach history that points out the flaws and failings of the white ruling class, I would happily have that conversation. That isn't what CRT is and by accepting the mischaracterization of it you've already lost.

 

[Nole Lou]

Because that lets them off the hook for changing the core argument and shifting focus to a theory that doesn't apply. If they want to come out and say they don't want to teach history that points out the flaws and failings of the white ruling class, I would happily have that conversation. That isn't what CRT is and by accepting the mischaracterization of it you've already lost.

If CRT isn't the right term, I'm totally open to a new name for what IS in schools, that's comprised of:

1) reframing all of American history as a single exercise in white supremacy
2) having students break up into affinity groups and resegregating classrooms and student orgs
3) forcing elementary students to confront their toxic whiteness, and their complicity in white supremacy
4) telling minority students that merit and meritocracy is a lie and that they are structurally inhibited from acheivement
5) teaching students that concepts like the written word, objectively correct answers, punctuality, completing assignments, etc are tools of white supremacy, and instituting school policy to reflect such
6) eliminating honors tracks, gifted programs and AP courses in the name of equity

That's the kind of thing opponents have chosen to label CRT. So if that's not "CRT", what shall we call the things in that bucket? Somehow, I don't see any liberals jumping in to name it, because then they wouldn't be able to insist it's imaginary.

It works great for liberals, because they don't have to actually defend any of it, they can just say "You're technically using the definition of CRT wrong, so it doesn't exist."

 

[Greenway4Prez]

If CRT isn't the right term, I'm totally open to a new name for what IS in schools, that's comprised of:

1) reframing all of American history as a single exercise in white supremacy
2) having students break up into affinity groups and resegregating classrooms and student orgs
3) forcing elementary students to confront their toxic whiteness, and their complicity in white supremacy
4) telling minority students that merit and meritocracy is a lie and that they are structurally inhibited from acheivement
5) teaching students that concepts like the written word, objectively correct answers, punctuality, completing assignments, etc are tools of white supremacy, and instituting school policy to reflect such
6) eliminating honors tracks, gifted programs and AP courses in the name of equity

That's the kind of thing opponents have chosen to label CRT. So if that's not "CRT", what shall we call the things in that bucket? Somehow, I don't see any liberals jumping in to name it, because then they wouldn't be able to insist it's imaginary.

It works great for liberals, because they don't have to actually defend any of it, they can just say "You're technically using the definition of CRT wrong, so it doesn't exist."

You’re wasting your time.

 

[Jim Grizzly]

If CRT isn't the right term, I'm totally open to a new name for what IS in schools, that's comprised of:

1) reframing all of American history as a single exercise in white supremacy
2) having students break up into affinity groups and resegregating classrooms and student orgs
3) forcing elementary students to confront their toxic whiteness, and their complicity in white supremacy
4) telling minority students that merit and meritocracy is a lie and that they are structurally inhibited from acheivement
5) teaching students that concepts like the written word, objectively correct answers, punctuality, completing assignments, etc are tools of white supremacy, and instituting school policy to reflect such
6) eliminating honors tracks, gifted programs and AP courses in the name of equity

That's the kind of thing opponents have chosen to label CRT. So if that's not "CRT", what shall we call the things in that bucket? Somehow, I don't see any liberals jumping in to name it, because then they wouldn't be able to insist it's imaginary.

It works great for liberals, because they don't have to actually defend any of it, they can just say "You're technically using the definition of CRT wrong, so it doesn't exist."

The problem with this list, besides the actual frequency of any of it actually happening, is that it conflates numerous issues in education. Some of them would fall under the content of what is taught, which is where CRT falls. Many of the others fall under school policy, which is typically decided by non-educators and lawmakers. Grad rate requirements, attendance policy, classes offered, grading practices all fall well outside what CRT is or has ever been purported to be.

So by lumping them all into "CRT" the right is able to avoid any nuanced conversation about specific issues and simply attack institutions it disagrees with (fake new, liberal indoctrination, scientific consensus etc).

 

[Huey Grey]

If CRT isn't the right term, I'm totally open to a new name for what IS in schools, that's comprised of:

1) reframing all of American history as a single exercise in white supremacy
2) having students break up into affinity groups and resegregating classrooms and student orgs
3) forcing elementary students to confront their toxic whiteness, and their complicity in white supremacy
4) telling minority students that merit and meritocracy is a lie and that they are structurally inhibited from acheivement
5) teaching students that concepts like the written word, objectively correct answers, punctuality, completing assignments, etc are tools of white supremacy, and instituting school policy to reflect such
6) eliminating honors tracks, gifted programs and AP courses in the name of equity

That's the kind of thing opponents have chosen to label CRT. So if that's not "CRT", what shall we call the things in that bucket? Somehow, I don't see any liberals jumping in to name it, because then they wouldn't be able to insist it's imaginary.

It works great for liberals, because they don't have to actually defend any of it, they can just say "You're technically using the definition of CRT wrong, so it doesn't exist."

You realize none of this is being taught in elementary schools, right? College level courses barely touch this. It's master class level theoretical stuff. Please stop spreading these conspiracy theories.

 

[Huey Grey]

You’re wasting your time.

We're all wasting our time with conspiracy theories. That's the real point. We have actual problems to deal with. We need to stop wasting our time on politically invented problems.

 

[C/Seahawk]

The problem is that the identity politics Rs use against the Dems aren't actual Dem platforms. They are conspiracy theories invented by the right that the Dems actually have nothing to do with. So how do you counter that? If one side is willing to wrap entire elections around one big lie and spend major money pounding that lie over and over again, how does the other party counter that without going down a similar conspiracy route?

they should be messaging with the following: they attempted to overthrow democracy and they are continuing with those efforts. That is the primary messaging point. Beyond that they are against a women's right to choose. They are against leveling the playing field for all Americans regardless of color. They are against teaching the truth because it might be uncomfortable. They are anti-immigration. They are anti-people of color. They are against acknowledging climate change let alone combating it. They are a party that embraced and became the face of a top to bottom fraud and grifter. That is your GOP and that is the messaging that needs to be broadcast loud and clear. The only problem is, the left doesn't have a major media giant like Fox in their back pocket. The other major networks at least attempt to be impartial while Fox is the GOP's propaganda machine and political arm.

 

[BelemNole]

If CRT isn't the right term, I'm totally open to a new name for what IS in schools, that's comprised of:

1) reframing all of American history as a single exercise in white supremacy
2) having students break up into affinity groups and resegregating classrooms and student orgs
3) forcing elementary students to confront their toxic whiteness, and their complicity in white supremacy
4) telling minority students that merit and meritocracy is a lie and that they are structurally inhibited from acheivement
5) teaching students that concepts like the written word, objectively correct answers, punctuality, completing assignments, etc are tools of white supremacy, and instituting school policy to reflect such
6) eliminating honors tracks, gifted programs and AP courses in the name of equity

That's the kind of thing opponents have chosen to label CRT. So if that's not "CRT", what shall we call the things in that bucket? Somehow, I don't see any liberals jumping in to name it, because then they wouldn't be able to insist it's imaginary.

It works great for liberals, because they don't have to actually defend any of it, they can just say "You're technically using the definition of CRT wrong, so it doesn't exist."

Again, when did you go from a rational poster to someone drinking the Fox News koolaide?
You actually believe this shit? JFC.

 

[JRHawk2003]

If America were to elect Trump again...would it be worth saving?

 

[Nole Lou]

The problem with this list, besides the actual frequency of any of it actually happening, is that it conflates numerous issues in education. Some of them would fall under the content of what is taught, which is where CRT falls. Many of the others fall under school policy, which is typically decided by non-educators and lawmakers. Grad rate requirements, attendance policy, classes offered, grading practices all fall well outside what CRT is or has ever been purported to be.

So by lumping them all into "CRT" the right is able to avoid any nuanced conversation about specific issues and simply attack institutions it disagrees with (fake new, liberal indoctrination, scientific consensus etc).

Those are all results of CRT and "Anti-racist" philosophy being executed in schools. They're all fruits of the same tree. It's not like I'm talking about opposing the amount of cheese on the pizza on Wednesdays and the color of the floor in the girls locker room.

They're all part of the CRT/Anti-Racist/Equity movement. Opponents have taken to calling those changes and policies "CRT". Whether instituted by school boards, principles or individual teachers, they're opposed.

Playing the semantic game of "you're calling it the wrong thing" doesn't address it. If its proponents won't name it, then its opponents will.

Back when I was a kid, white supremacy were Nazis and Klansmen and people who actually, like, ascribed to the superiority of whites. Now white supremacy is everything from gifted and talented programs to punctuality to the Constitution to free speech to tax cuts. Let's not clutch our pearls at the idea of opponents choosing to name their target all of a sudden.

 

[Nole Lou]

Again, when did you go from a rational poster to someone drinking the Fox News koolaide?
You actually believe this shit? JFC.

LOL...are none of those things happening? Is nobody advocating for those things?

And if those things are not happening, then why can't Democrats say "Of course I'd be opposed to those things if they were happening?"

 

[JRHawk2003]

LOL...are none of those things happening? Is nobody advocating for those things?

And if those things are not happening, then why can't Democrats say "Of course I'd be opposed to those things if they were happening?"

They are not happening really. Its a made up boogeyman. America is stupid.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

LOL...are none of those things happening? Is nobody advocating for those things?

And if those things are not happening, then why can't Democrats say "Of course I'd be opposed to those things if they were happening?"

No. And you should stop spreading your abject stupidity on the topic.

 

[Jim Grizzly]

Those are all results of CRT and "Anti-racist" philosophy being executed in schools. They're all fruits of the same tree. It's not like I'm talking about opposing the amount of cheese on the pizza on Wednesdays and the color of the floor in the girls locker room.

They're all part of the CRT/Anti-Racist/Equity movement. Opponents have taken to calling those changes and policies "CRT". Whether instituted by school boards, principles or individual teachers, they're opposed.

Playing the semantic game of "you're calling it the wrong thing" doesn't address it. If its proponents won't name it, then its opponents will.

Back when I was a kid, white supremacy were Nazis and Klansmen and people who actually, like, ascribed to the superiority of whites. Now white supremacy is everything from gifted and talented programs to punctuality to the Constitution to free speech to tax cuts. Let's not clutch our pearls at the idea of opponents choosing to name their target all of a sudden.

Except that, by lumping everything together it's now impossible at address any of the issues specifically, even if a productive conversation could be had. Is equity a bad thing inherently? Is acknowledging generational poverty inherently a bad thing? Is emphasizing learning over deadlines necessarily bad? So yes, it does matter if it is being called the wrong thing. Saying "I don't want CRT in schools ' is a very different point (which I agree with for different reasons) than saying "addressing inequity issues is CRT".

 

[Tom Paris]

The 1619 project is in schools.....

No and certainly not like you think it is.

 

[z_ape]

Again, when did you go from a rational poster to someone drinking the Fox News koolaide?
You actually believe this shit? JFC.

All of those things have happened, more less. Whether or not they're happening in Virginia k-12 currently is a different question. Yes, they're due to the bizarre new religion on the left around race and identity. Yes, they think they're doing good. No, some of it is not good.

 

[Tom Paris]

Why do ostensibly smart people screw this issue up so badly.

They're using a word in a different way than it was originally used. This happens quite a bit in language. Right?

You could ding them over that, but you can't use that to ignore their argument. The actual content.

That's the "debate team trick" that lets your side off the hook. It was dumb game to play for democrats, as our author points out.

The correct action here is to actually engage them in their concerns even if it isn't the correct language. That's the main point of the article, and one I agree with.

So Democrats need to engage Republicans in non-reality?

 

[Huey Grey]

they should be messaging with the following: they attempted to overthrow democracy and they are continuing with those efforts. That is the primary messaging point. Beyond that they are against a women's right to choose. They are against leveling the playing field for all Americans regardless of color. They are against teaching the truth because it might be uncomfortable. They are anti-immigration. They are anti-people of color. They are against acknowledging climate change let alone combating it. They are a party that embraced and became the face of a top to bottom fraud and grifter. That is your GOP and that is the messaging that needs to be broadcast loud and clear. The only problem is, the left doesn't have a major media giant like Fox in their back pocket. The other major networks at least attempt to be impartial while Fox is the GOP's propaganda machine and political arm.

Really, the Dems need to reframe the terms they use for this stuff. Abortion, for example, should be reframed as the government forcing women to have babies. That has a far more emotional impact than women's choice.

 

[Tom Paris]

You know who doesn't underestimate the ignorance and stupidity of the masses? The GOP. They exploit it. The platform was racist fear mongering and messaging which was amplified by Fox, etc. They spew lies all day long stoking fear and anger in their viewers. Those viewers by and large are brainless imbeciles that mow down the buffet of bullshit and ask for a 2nd serving. Enough uneducated white people heard the dog whistle of CTR and turned out. The party that tried to overthrow democracy is winning elections, that should frighten people, but the ones that need to understand it the most can't, they are too stupid.

 

[z_ape]

So Democrats need to engage Republicans in non-reality?

You guys are really bad at this.

If they're bitching about CRT, you ask them what exactly they're upset about. You ask for what is objectionable to them. Now it's up to them to give you something. And away you go.

That's all.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

So Democrats need to engage Republicans in non-reality?

Duh. It's always up to Democrats to be the bigger party. It's also always the Democrats fault. Republicans can't possibly be held to a higher standard or be expected to assume any level of responsibility for anything.

 

[Tom Paris]

Those are all results of CRT and "Anti-racist" philosophy being executed in schools. They're all fruits of the same tree. It's not like I'm talking about opposing the amount of cheese on the pizza on Wednesdays and the color of the floor in the girls locker room.

They're all part of the CRT/Anti-Racist/Equity movement. Opponents have taken to calling those changes and policies "CRT". Whether instituted by school boards, principles or individual teachers, they're opposed.

Playing the semantic game of "you're calling it the wrong thing" doesn't address it. If its proponents won't name it, then its opponents will.

Back when I was a kid, white supremacy were Nazis and Klansmen and people who actually, like, ascribed to the superiority of whites. Now white supremacy is everything from gifted and talented programs to punctuality to the Constitution to free speech to tax cuts. Let's not clutch our pearls at the idea of opponents choosing to name their target all of a sudden.

 

[EasyHawk]

It is a lot of things. Jemele doesn't help any.