Progressivism's M.O. Applied To CRT: "Fights against critical race theory are about power, and the left should stop engaging"

Progressivism--speaking abstractly, and not necessarily about individuals--has lost its collective mind. (Though, of course, some individual progressives have lost theirs, too...) It has become a tangle of lies and delusions. Here's one Maurice Mitchell (national director of the "Working Families" party) at USAT. There may be something in there that's true, but, if so, it didn't jump out at me. 

   It is true that most people talking about CRT don't know much about it. But that goes for both sides. In fact, the liberal, centrist, and conservative opponents of CRT seem to have a clearer conception of it than its progressive proponents. But there's enough confusion to go around, and I'm hardly neutral about this.

   First, though, note that Mitchell sticks to the progressive M.O.: 

   [A] Don't "engage." The progressive left does not want to debate. They want you to shut up and believe and do as you are told to believe and do. They tend to lose debates because their views tend to be daft. So they just keep long-marching through our institutions, chanting their cadence and proclaiming their virtue. They're winning by lying about what they're up to, and by not debating. They reject ideas like truth, reason, and objectivity on principle--off and on, at least. Of course on the rare occasions when they do seem to have the evidence on their side, they urge dispassionate inquiry. When, as is more often the case, their positions are nuts, they fall back on their array of pseudophilosophical skepticisms.

Oh and: here's perhaps the most hilarious bit of the article:

Critical race theorists and others who value definitions and facts should not engage opponents on the merits of the concept.

One hardly knows where to start with that, but I'll try: if there's any recent, major political faction in the U.S. that cares less about "definitions and facts" than the progressive, politically correct left, I can't name it. But that part of the thing is just rationalization; the real point is: Don't engage!

   [B] When busted for some bit of lunacy about x, proclaim one (or, hell, both) of the following: (i) their critics are wrong about what x is (e.g. about what 'x' means); (ii) x does not exist. Mitchell writes:

Critical race theory isn’t the first term taken out of context by some on the right in order to create a boogeyman that misleads the public. It's just the latest. It joins the intentional misclassification of other terms – woke, cancel culture, defund the police, affirmative action, diversity and inclusion, anti-racism – used to gin up controversy in a country that is becoming more nonwhite by the year. And while not all in opposition are white, this is very much about keeping America tied to white identity and ensuring that the country get as far away from confronting its long history of racism as possible. With very little to fight for, the anti-critical race theory contingent has found something to fight and politically organize against.

None of the things Mitchell lists are what they are--because what they are is daft and dangerous. So progressives simply declare that no criticism of them is ever on the mark. Political correctness and Antifa, as you may recall, don't even exist! Critics, somehow, magically never understand what they are criticizing. Only those with esoteric knowledge of Derrida and postpostpostcolonial mime theory really understand what's going on. Which is weird, because progressives mostly tend to just parrot shallow slogans...their own knowledge of their own positions actually isn't all that deep.

   [C] And, of course: accuse your opponents of racism. No one could possibly reject your crackpot view unless they're racist. Racist, racist, racist, racist. Don't debate; just spew ad hominems. Mainly, of course: racist. Character assassination is one of their favorite tactics. 

   [D] And needless to say: accuse them of naked power politics (see quote again). The progressive left has the same contradictory view we find in Marx and and Foucault and their epigones: there's no such thing as rightness nor justice nor reason: it's all about power. Except for said epigones, of course...they're all about the "social justice"...

   As for the Pringle quote Mitchell uses as evidence that CRT's opponents don't understand what it is:

“it basically teaches that certain children are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin, period.”

Well, actually, Pringle is pretty much right: the tangle of cultish progressive views, of which CRT is the flagship, do teach that. As for whether that should count as an actual component of CRT, it's not clear. It's either a component of CRT, or it's a consequence of it, or it's an adjunct view of some kind. Pringle's claim is close enough for government work. He's right that that's being taught, and right that it needs to stop, and right that it's a known associate of CRT at least. The "period" part isn't right if it means And that's all there is to the view. But that doesn't matter that much. It's right if it means And that, alone, is sufficient to mean that this bullshit should not be taught in K-12. Even more so because it isn't being taught about--it's being taught as if it were knowledge.

   Finally, of course, the only alternative to progressive / CRT indoctrination of schoolchildren is racism and jingoistic national hagiography:

The backlash against critical race theory may not be based on anything real, but its threat to racial progress certainly is real. If bad actors brand racial equity and anti-racism as anti-white and anti-American, the stories we tell ourselves about America become less biography and more hagiography. If we raise a generation to believe all is well, we effectively halt the progress of what we could be.

Because...eh, well, you can see what's going on. I'm tired of even taking this bullshit seriously. 

Which is not to say that I don't think that--speaking for myself--I got a somewhat rosy account of American history in school. Unlike progressives, I believe in objectivity--and I'm not averse to serious arguments for the conclusion that K-12 teaching of American history could stand to be more critical. I'll leave that decision to (serious) historians. But none of that has anything to do with the lunacy that's CRT and associated progressive BS.

   Even ignoring everything else: the progressive left is pushing a tangle of highly abstruse, theoretical, philosophical(-ish), politically non-neutral theories--or, more accurately: unprovable opinions--that they cannot defend nor even explain clearly. The burden of explanation and proof is on them. And, until that burden is carried--until they clearly describe what they want to teach kids, prove that it's among the more reasonable views, and can explain it without falling into denial and incoherence, they can't be allowed to do it.