Andrew Sullivan Explains What has Changed on the Political Left

Andrew Sullivan is perplexed and deeply concerned. I'm talking about same Andrew Sullivan who was far ahead of the curve on gay marriage. He supported Barack Obama. He has leaned left on many issues. To call him a conservative (or a liberal) cannot be done without a huge asterisk. I've followed Sullivan for years and I value his heterodox viewpoints. I share his concern with what is happening to America's political left. Here's an excerpt from his article, "What Happened To You? The radicalization of the American elite against liberalism."

“What happened to you?”

It’s a question I get a lot on Twitter. “When did you become so far right?” “Why have you become a white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic eugenicist?” Or, of course: “See! I told you who he really was! Just take the hood off, Sully!” It’s trolling, mainly. And it’s a weapon for some in the elite to wield against others in the kind of emotional blackmail spiral that was first pioneered on elite college campuses. But it’s worth answering, a year after I was booted from New York Magazine for my unacceptable politics. Because it seems to me that the dynamic should really be the other way round.

The real question is: what happened to you?

. . .

Look how far the left’s war on liberalism has gone.

Due process? If you’re a male on campus, gone. Privacy? Stripped away — by anonymous rape accusations, exposure of private emails, violence against people’s private homes, screaming at folks in restaurants, sordid exposés of sexual encounters, eagerly published by woke mags. Non-violence? Exceptions are available if you want to “punch a fascist.” Free speech? Only if you don’t mind being fired and ostracized as a righteous consequence. Free association? You’ve got to be kidding. Religious freedom? Illegitimate bigotry. Equality? Only group equity counts now, and individuals of the wrong identity can and must be discriminated against. Color-blindness? Another word for racism. Mercy? Not for oppressors. Intent? Irrelevant. Objectivity? A racist lie. Science? A manifestation of white supremacy. Biological sex? Replaced by socially constructed gender so that women have penises and men have periods. The rule of law? Not for migrants or looters. Borders? Racist. Viewpoint diversity? A form of violence against the oppressed.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan Explains What has Changed on the Political Left

Why We Need to Speak Up, Rather than Coddling the Illiberals

There's a big argument raging about what to call this thing. I refer to it as Critical Race Theory because these teachings have their roots in CRT, even  though these teaching have morphed into what we are currently seeing in many classroom.  Whatever you call it, you can find it in all these places. 

Are there other things to be wary of? Absolutely. Climate issues, current and future pandemics, the false narratives of the far right.  Many of these discussions are unproductive for the same reason that we can't discuss CRT: because we can't even agree on the basic facts.  I'm not in the mood for what-about-ism at the moment, because unapologetic woke struggle sessions now inhabit many of our once-schools and universities. Why do I keep "obsessing" about this trend? Because unquestionable facts (e.g., the biological fact that there are two--and only two-sexes) mean nothing to many of those who lead these sessions. They proclaim that striving for excellent and reaping the rewards of hard work is inappropriate.

On racial issues, the leaders of these sessions are smearing the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. When I read their words, I imagine these loud and rude Wokesters throwing rotten fruit or rocks at MLK and jeering him. They claim to be leading a new improved Civil Rights Movement, but they are reversing the gains of the past 60 years. They call it progress when they go into third grade classrooms, dividing the children by color and sow lifetime seeds of suspicion and distrust when they tell the "white" children that they are oppressors of the "black" children. These kids should be freely playing with each other at recess, but now they are being told to fear each other. Further, the "black" children are being fed huge doses of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Yet social media bristles with accusations that to have these concerns makes one a "conservative" or a "Republican" and that people like me are paranoid because the new syllabus merely teaches "racial history," as though previous generations of children have not been taught about racial history.

Hell, yes, I'm concerned. And I will keep speaking out as long as larges swathes of social media are motivated to get the facts wrong. I feel the moral imperative to be, if necessary, the only one in the large room to speak up.

Continue ReadingWhy We Need to Speak Up, Rather than Coddling the Illiberals

Matt Taibbi: Robin DiAngelo Has Published a New (Old) Book

Matt Taibbi somehow convinced himself to read race-grifter Robin DiAngelo's new book, Nice racism. I can't muster the necessary masochism to join him in this effort, especially after I forced myself to trudge through DiAngelo's first book, White Fragility. According to Taibbi, DiAngelo's sequel is a regurgitation of her first book and nothing more. The title of Taibbi's review is "Our Endless Dinner With Robin DiAngelo Suburban America's self-proclaimed racial oracle returns with a monumentally oblivious sequel to "White Fragility." Here's an excerpt of Taibbi's review:

Nice Racism’s central message is that it’s a necessity to stop white people from seeing themselves as distinct people. “Insisting that each white person is different from every other white person,” DiAngelo writes, “enables us to distance ourselves from the actions of other white people.” She doesn’t see, or maybe she does, where this logic leads. If you tell people to abandon their individual identities and think of themselves as a group, they sooner or later will start to behave as a group. Short of something like selling anthrax spores or encouraging people to explore sexual feelings toward nine year-olds, is there a worse idea than suggesting — demanding — that people get in touch with their white identity?

If DiAngelo’s insistence that “I don’t feel guilty about racism,” reveling in scenes of making people experience and re-experience racial discomfort, and weird puffery in introducing herself by saying things like, “I am Robin and I am white” feel familiar, it’s because she’s hitting all the themes favored by Klansmen and identitarian loons of yore. Read a book like David Duke’s My Awakening (if you can stand it, you can find excerpts here) and you’ll encounter the same types of passages present in Nice Racism.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi: Robin DiAngelo Has Published a New (Old) Book

“But Where is Critical Race Theory Actually Being Taught?”

When I deny that the current versions of CRT are related to the Civil Rights Movement, I assert this because:

A) CRT and antiracism are obsessed with dividing people into "colors" and treating them differently on the basis of "color."

B) The Platform of CRT and antiracism have no meaningful mechanism for improving the lives of the poor minority populations they pretend to serve.

C) CRT and antiracism excel at denying data relating to their mission (including police statistics and economic facts, such as the fact that 60% of Americans who identify as "black" are middle class or above).

D) CRT and antiracism advocates do not extol the teachings of Martin Luther King.  In fact, King's teachings are barely mentioned in training materials.

There are other difference too, but this is a sampling based upon some of the articles I've written recently.

Increasing numbers of people are starting to understand that CRT and "antiracism" have no meaning connection to do with the traditional Civil Rights Movement, but now they are increasingly denying that CRT and "antiracism" are being taught in schools. I see this as motivated reasoning based on the fact that most of these people (the ones I know) are only exposed to left-leaning legacy media. These people admit of only a few outliers and deny that CRT or antiracism is a significant problem in the U.S. I disagree, based on these resources:

The recent case of Dana stangel-Plowe, former teacher at a school in Englewood.

The recent case of Paul Rossi.

The observations of Andrew Gutmann, a former parent at Brearly School.

Christopher Rufo's reports based upon leaked training materials at numerous schools.

Chloe Valdary teaches a good-hearted program to diminish bigotry she compares to the CRT programs of which she is knowledgable.

Numerous reports by Parents Defending Education.

Numerous reports of attempted cancellation based on CRT here.

Reports at businesses by Counterweight.

Many more reports here, by Princetonians for Free Speech.

I have also been personally contacted by approximately a dozen people who work in academia who are afraid to speech honestly on issues because CRT permeates the campus

More reports here (Stanford) and here (Rutgers).

John McWhorter's receipt of numerous complaints (see the comments) here.

Another recent resource is Christopher Rufo's "Critical Race Theory Briefing Book." 

There are numerous other reports, more of them surfacing every week. I will try to update this list periodically.

Continue Reading“But Where is Critical Race Theory Actually Being Taught?”