Some of this sounds like recycled countercultural anti-establishment notions about work and conformity etc. along with a dose of anti-intellectualism. That any of it is being put forth as a serious path forward for the already undereducated, both Black and White, tells me that our society is in deep trouble.
I know I'm late to your essay. I so appreciate your intensity and commitment around this maddening issue.
Part of me thinks this is the result of education schools full of self-justifying, mediocre careerists getting ahold of theoretical perspectives to which the rest of us were introduced 40 years ago and, as usual, simplifying and executing it at a powerpoint and handout level.
John, I haven't read your first books, but I'm assuming you've grappled with situating post-MLK racial politics within Havelock, Ong, and the whole "psychology of orality vs literacy" framework. Much of what these bozos are delineating seems like a retread celebration of "secondary orality," a concept that has a lot more implications with the onset of mainstream digital literacy and social media (see MIT's Media Lab work on the "Gutenberg parenthesis". Interestingly, rap and sampling are central examples of this departure from the fetish of authorship that's emerged in the West in the early 17th century.) Like, have any of these people read Ong, FFS?
Then you have the weird centering of critiques of positivism and the Enlightenment into something called "whiteness," when if objectivist epistemology resides in any "class" of humans and inherently depends upon the invisible labor of a devalued Other, it's men (this was a big discussion in the emerging field of feminist philosophy in the 1980s, before they caved to the genderists). Whiteness as a construct is barely 300 years old, and yet Kendi Rogers et al are ascribing all of Western thought to some white/black binary that wasn't really psychologically plausible to its literate Westerners until 1700.
And then, they really don't grasp the central issue of post-modernism, which is that if all of human thought is conditioned, and thus power dynamics are a social construction, there is no way for humans NOT to engage in conditioned symbolic thought, and reproduce some form of power within it. We cannot escape it, though there are some strategies for coping with this that are more reliable than others.
I'm beginning to understand why monks and priests in the past hoarded knowledge and made novitiates jump through a lot of hoops to access it, given the way grifters and mediocre do-gooders are dangerously oversimplifying Critical Theory. I had a difficult time explaining these basic concepts to education faculty twenty years ago. Now, they spout it on my Facebook page as if St. Michael the Archangel has just come down from heaven--e.g., these are people who specifically denied the existence of the real racism I called out in a deans' meeting literally 20 years ago, who are now preaching to me about the very thing they couldn't comprehend.
Most educated people alive today have had that "ah-ha" moment as undergrads when we understood the limits of "objectivist epistemology" and the "social construction of knowledge" and the nature of power dynamics reproducing themselves through language. For some of us that's part of a larger non-dualist understanding--we can tolerate the "samsara" of the messy imperfect ego-driven nature of symbolic reality because we have faith in an unconditioned nirvana, however unattainable it is to the symbolic mind. This latter part is the humility that the Elect are missing.
I wonder if the cult-ish, zealous nature of the Elect is in part due to grafting of the "a-ha" grasping of the social construction of knowledge onto the preexisting phenom of victim mentalities, their cynical exploitation by whites, the deliberate obfuscation of class issues, etc. These folks are CERTAIN that EVERYthing in Western culture for the past 500 years at least is all "white." What they mean, were they not so emotionally exercised, is that yes, the "knowledge"--the literate world-- that has commanded their respect and even intimidation their entire lives turns out to be imbricated with various power dynamics that definitely have had racial dynamics to it, given the forced illteracy of Blacks in America for a few hundred years. This understanding is a powerful methodological tool. What they don't grasp is that knowledge, including rigor and debate and precision, ALWAYS WILL BE infused with power dynamics, just in different form. And that profound intellectual and spiritual humility (whether through faith in God, awe in nature, whatever) is the critical first step after this recognition. Instead, for the Elect this "a ha" moment, that resonates at some level because they're grasping that yes, there is a psychological shift from a highly literate culture to subcultures that celebrate secondary orality, and yes, what one believes is true is never utterly "objective"--this emotional eureka moment is proof in their heads that their cause of critical race theory is beyond question.
Sadly, folks at this level of conversion aren't really open, as you've so vividly described, to further reading and discussion on these topics, mostly and paradoxically because they're consumed by power dynamics that they're incapable of realizing. That'd include the fear of banishment, joblessness, homelessness, ostracism, ridicule, self-loathing, embarassment...and the desire to enjoy their newfound power over others. I don't know how you keep up the discipline of calling this out, but thanks again for your hard work.
This article appeared in NRO today. Since National Review and The American Enterprise Institute (the authors organization) are known as conservative and the piece says something positive about Trump some may dismiss it as irrelevant. However it's worth reading for a clear explanation of the phenomenon called CRT.
A serious problem in trying to get to a useful "middle-of-the-road" stance is that CRT is quickly associated with Marxism, and that immediately taints the way conservative thinkers look at it. So far I've found two sources that provide good non-academic explanations. The longer one is, strangely enough, from the standpoint of an Evangelical Christian theologian who concludes that CRT is not incompatible with Christianity (so he's not condemning it, just objectively explaining it, with some references to academic writers.) You have to scroll to the bottom of each post to get to the next one.
(Why do I want a "middle-of-the-road" perspective? Because I think that there are some useful ideas in CRT. I'm ready for the "reformation" - the sensible Presbyterian version as it were.)
"Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay (neither of whom consider themselves to be conservative or right wing) is worth reading. It doesn't leave me with much hope about a middle ground with any of the critical theories including CRT.
How does one define a rational middle ground with a cult that aims to destroy current society without a cogent program (or even a vision) of something better to replace it with?
I guess I am not surprised that an Evangelical Christian theologian is willing to accommodate CRT in the never ending battle to control people.
We have too many stereotypes. Dr. Mullins is much more thoughtful than might be assumed by those with secondary impressions of Evangelical Christianity. His ideas could open doors within that community that will break the ice of our nation's polarization.
Pluckrose & Lindsay sound like more heavy lifting than I'm wiling to do! 😰(But others here will undoubtedly be game, so thanks.)
Ah...all of those great African kingdoms. Ah...those Kings and Queens! The cities they built! The civilizations they gave birth to! Was that not the great retort by so-called black intellectuals to racist America just a half a minute ago? But wait. How exactly were the great pyramids built? Those great cities that adorned Northern Africa? Those powerful Nubian armies? All of that was done without precision, planning, scheduling, mathematical reasoning, hard work, etc.?
The stupidity is astounding. But what's more astounding is how the thinking John refers to could last a second in the light of day. As Malcolm Muggeridge once said...."we (the West) have educated ourselves into imbecility". This ideology is making a strong foothold in our culture and society. We either cut it from the vine now or watch the vine burn to the ground later. There is little time to waste.
Those near my age may recognize this as a repackaging of the "self esteem" movement which became prominent in education in the 1990s. I was fortunate to have this occur mostly after my time in school, but I watched it play a role in the unraveling of my younger brother's grade school education. The entire ideology revolved around discrediting achievement in favor of effort, or some similarly abstract and unempirical attribute which alleviates the requirement to actually learn something.
The impetus behind these ideas is as transparent now as it was then. Schools which don't issue grades (where people "just learn") have an obvious appeal to those who struggle to maintain good grades - i.e. to demonstrate what they have "just learned". But this mollycoddling of students was much easier to push back against when it wasn't being fueled by white guilt (and ultimately, elitist black guilt).
Nonetheless, ideas about education that is "holistic, organic, authentic, ..." or otherwise discribed by some litany of new-age, hipster buzzwords should be seen for what they really are, because they have been around forever. They are the province of those with an abundance of empathy but a dearth of good sense. The well-meaning who take for granted a world which doesn't actually run on good intentions. The people who always hate subjects like math and science, because there are right and wrong answers. The kind of people who equate rationality with close-mindedness, or who value charisma over competence and inspiration over education, or who think real learning requires Dead Poet Society theatrics. The kind of people who will declare an "autonomous zone" in a major city where nobody will need cops or public services because they have a bunch of college-age, utopian tag-artists ordering pizza and singing songs.
No, these ideas aren't "black" and they certainly aren't "anti-racist". They are anti-modernity, anti-society, anti-structure, anti-responsibility, and all too often, anti-reality. They are nothing more than simple Bohemianism: otherwise known as hippie bullsh*t. Which can be fun for a spell, even interesting for a long visit - but you wouldn't want to construct a society out of it.
There are so many disturbing implications in this blogpost I don’t know where to start.
One, the revolutionary Left, having given up on the working class as a revolutionary vanguard, has reframed the language of revolution in terms of race. Replace “white’ with bourgeois and you’d think you were listening to an old-style leftist.
Two, they have been able to reel in many gullible White middle-class liberals revealing a disturbing form of racism among them. You have the white supremacists who angrily declare that Blacks can’t achieve because they are black, and you now see the White liberal who sadly declares Blacks can’t achieve because they are black. Racism is much more widespread in America than anyone wants to admit. African Americans must realize they can only lift themselves up. They need to give up on White help not “white” values.
Third and most disturbing of all, too many African Americans are willing to see themselves the way Whites see them. We may lose another generation thanks to the bad policies that arise from the ridiculous ideas of critical race theory and that will be tragedy.
We have not transcended race in America, and it may be a bigger and longer lasting problem than anyone can imagine.
You, sir, have sold out your mind, your, people, and your culture to assimilate to the thought patterns of a cancerous, diseased strain of humanity that should have never existed to begin with.
IF a horrible, stupid, racist person insults me, I can only take as a compliment, with pride. I can only hope you live somewhere that will depend on street-smarts to keep the electricity flowing.
"The idea seems to be that mathematical reasoning is not 'how we black people think'...” For professional reasons, I know a fair amount about the brain and cognition. I've always wanted to ask someone who holds such a belief what the underlying physiological mechanism is between skin color, brain, and cognition. And, someone tell me again what the difference is between a racist and the Woke? Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference. Don't hate me for being confused.
I don't think the Woke (CRT'ers) are making a biological / physiological argument. In fact, some familiarity with their underlying ideology and with their talking points indicates that "science" (quotation marks) should not hold a "privileged" position w.r.t. truth claims. Look at the frontal assault on the realness of biological sex (sex, not gender).
If the underlying goal is dismantling normative structures and liberalism / liberal democracy, then claiming that Black people should not be expected to conform to "white" ways of knowing and doing makes sense. It's less about Black people per se, than undermining common sources of truth and dialogue.
Trust NO ONE. Remain skeptical. Verify all that you're told. Trusting science is not the same thing as trusting scientists and scientific establishments. All forms ofknowledge have been hijacked in the name of wokeness. Science is no less prone to distortion that other ways of knowing. If the laws of logic can be brought into question, all forms of truth are imperiled.
The best I can do is roll my eyes at the "science is real" thing. It's on the same sign full of unfalsifiable slogans and support for a movement that most certainly does not think "science is real" in the sense of universal methods of discovering truths. I can't bring myself to ask any of them what the fuck "science is real" even means.
The science is real thing is a rejoinder to irrational climate skepticism. The no human is illegal thing is a rejoinder to the right's jingoistic crusade against undocumented immigrants- despite the net good that undocumented immigrants are to the country. Love is love is a rejoinder to the right's bizarre war against same sex marriage- bizarre because marriage affirms the family values the right champions while also enshrining the sort of individual rights the right believes in.
The sign itself is cheesy and inane- a kind of all in one Hallmark card of front yard political allegiance declaration. Given the context of the current moment, it seems to be meant as a provocative culture war volley. Personally, I find that annoying, in much the same way I find all dumb slogans annoying- and thus worthy of satire. I came up with nonsensical alternatives for each phrase- Jack Knives Clatter, No Ramen is Medieval, gloves are gloves. I find it amusing.
But I digress.... Annoying as the slogans are, the ethical impulse behind them is not illiberal and reason supports the positions they stake out. These should not be controversial positions- and in reality, they are not. Climate change is real, and harmful. We should mitigate it. We have to find a humane way to deal with the 10.5 million undocumented immigrants here. That LGBTQ rights and acceptance are enshrined and normative is a good thing. It leads to greater flourishing and less suffering.
Public support for the supposedly "progressive" or "woke" view on each of these issues is overwhelming, ranging from from 60 some %, to over 75%. In other words, most Americans see the sign and just shrug. I think that's part of why I find the sign annoying. What's the point of declaring what most people already agree with?
The deeper point of this particular thread is that pushback against the excesses of "third wave antiracism" as McWhorter has dubbed the current antiracist movement, is not tantamount to the sentiment or political commitments that animate a Judge Jeanine or Tucker Carlson rant.
WHAT "war against same-sex marriage"?? You sound like an idiot, projecting beloved fantasies of how evil your "opponents" are. Which evil, of course, elevates your self-regarding virtue.
You're just a tribalist, hoping they'll come for you last. Good luck.
Twenty nine states banned same sex marriage before the Supreme Court legalized it federally by a narrow 5-4 margin. Many of those states amended their constitutions to enact the ban. It was major political wedge issue throughout the aughts, and into the 2010s.
Even now, when nearly 70% of all Americans support marriage equality, only 49% of Republicans do.
The war was lost, but it was waged fiercely.
I read McWhorter because I am not a tribalist. I'm curious to know why you think otherwise.
Scientists are people. The scientific establishment is as susceptable to lies and deception as any other humanly constructed entity. Proceed with caution anytime science and politics and/or science and culture interstect. Remain skeptical, especially when you hear folks using terms like "settled science" and "X percent of scientists" agree.
Every advance of science was made AGAINST a consensus regarding established science. But now we're going to ban people for questioning orthodoxy? How very, very enlightened.
I was aware that the "Science is Real" thing is simply saying that "We are not climate science denying Fox News watching deplorables." It's still lame, IMO.
Similarly with the "Love is Love" thing, but not as lame, IMO.
A key way you and I may differ is in how such empty sloganeering relates to liberalism - true liberalism as a set of practices with open, honest discourse, science, reason, debate, and very broad speech freedoms. On the surface, it's "harmless", "good" even. I guess we shouldn't get too down the rabbit hole on these signs. They're just bumper stickers in the yard.
Grain of salt regarding many of the surveys regarding public support. Tell me what you want and I'll design the survey to get you as close to it as possible. I'm not saying that I disagree that a majority of people agree with many of these perspectives in the general sense or vaguely, but when the details come into focus, we often find people's views are more nuanced and also less fixed and firm.
I have no idea who Judge Jeanine is and I'm OK with that. But I agree with your concluding statement, knowing who Tucker Carlson is. (Aside: I've tuned into Fox News infrequently over the years and come across him and for a few minutes been like "not unreasonable, fine, yes I agree, so what..." and then five minutes later "what the fuck are you going on about man?")
Don't overlook the humor in the "rejoinders." The left embraces climate change, so they boast they believe science. Then they pronounce that biological sex is a social construct. That humans are blank slates, with no genetic predispositions whatsoever. That nuclear energy, the only real option to address climate change, must be opposed.
Illegal humans? Bank robbers are not "illegal humans," but their actions are clearly problematic.
Obviously everyone knows why the left pushes the slogans. Their motives are not deep. The funny part is their audacity in ignoring their own daily condemnations of Galileo.
The whole trans rights thing is not about making a scientific claim about sex and gender. It’s an ethical impulse that allows the cultural space for people be who they are/want to be.
Who
Is harmed by calling somebody by they/them pronouns, or being cool with a biological
man wearing a skirt and fake tits in public? Sure, at the margins this can get out if hand, but in real life I’ve observed lots of people’s lives being better because of the recent cultural shift that affords people the freedom to be who they feel like without the harm that comes from suppression and/or oppression.
What always strikes me odd about the Kendi/DiAngelo position is that their funding comes from the system of whiteness they decry. They assume we can make these changes to our society without it impacting productivity. The way to win this argument is to focus on the way their proposals will impact productivity, and to point out that their theories would have a negative impact on the way of life we currently enjoy.
I'm a bit puzzled at why you think either of them care about productivity. And, um, they both very much want to "disrupt" "the way of life we currently enjoy". (I'd add that if either of them were to ask what you mean be "we", I'd grudgingly accept the point they'd make in asking it.)
Not at all. You can personally enrich yourself while attacking the system that delivers it. If you have enough accumulated wealth and power you'll weather the storm.
Think about the Iron Law of Institutions. Corporate America - lots of middle and upper management people making decisions that are sub-optimal for the company (upon which they rely for their paycheck) in order to create circumstances more favorable for them personally in the near term.
There is a vast difference between making self serving decisions at the margins and trying to dismantle an entire system which funds your research and livelihood. People who work in corporate America are not trying to dismantle it. They understand that if that happened they wouldn’t have jobs. But Kendi is blind to the fact that his job depends on capitalism.
I'd think they envision themselves as the overlords in the post-revolution society. People who participate in these kinds of movements don't picture themselves as the victims of internecine subterfuge when victory is won. They see themselves as Lenin, not Trotsky, they see themselves and their families as the anointed, the Castros in Cuba. Because one system sustains you currently does not mean that you can't believe that you would thrive in a different system, particularly if you're seen as a prophet and revolutionary hero.
I understand people who see themselves as revolutionaries, and who actually foment revolution, believing that. But I have a hard time seeing academics that way. Although maybe there is something to that. A revolution of the non revenue producing educational elite.
You can make the same comment about the elite private schools that have gone woke and who have done everything possible to promote equity except distribute part of their endowment to the kids who need it the most.
Black or white, one can appreciate both graffiti on a 1972 NYC subway car and calculus, Biggie and Dostoyevsky, quantum mechanics, and a ridiculous ankle breaking crossover with some shit talking thrown in.
I can agree with that. That enlightened view isn't what I'm hearing though. There's a real nasty, knee-jerk, hateful dismissal of anything ever accomplished by, well, Europeans, let's say. VERY equivalent to the uglier manifestations of white racism. Does that make it a good thing?
What makes graffiti, rap music, jazz etc., interesting, is that they are variations on Western art forms, and they include the aspect of a secondary intellectual narrative that is unique to Western culture. Even the really good films made by the new generation of black filmmakers like Get Out, are commentaries on white culture. I understand the perspective of trying to change the culture so that your identity group becomes less of an outsider (Jews did this through humor, literature & music & becoming part of the professional class), but the goal of dismantling whiteness, when it serves as the foundation of all modern culture and knowledge, seems self-defeating and makes the people promoting it appear as if they lack self-awareness. Cornell West did a good job of articulating this point in his opinion piece in WaPo about Howard University eliminating its classics department. If Homer & Shakespeare can't be the foundation of our culture because they are too white, then who do they propose the future Phillip Roths & Coltranes of the world incorporate their identity into so as to expand our culture? Was there another culture as profound as Western culture that we don't know about which will generate the next Jay Z?
I get what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment- especially the part about the pointlessness of the dismantling project. I'm also intrigued by what you say about a secondary intellectual narrative. Tell me more.
On the other hand, you make a lot of claims that I don't think you have evidence for. How is whiteness the basis for all modern culture and knowledge? I'm not sure what you mean by "whiteness" and "all modern culture and knowledge, or even "western culture." Is the Hindu/Arabic number system a product of whiteness? What about the foundations of the modern administrative state laid out by the first ancient Persian empire? Or the sophisticated psychology sketched out by Siddhartha Gotama 2500 years ago in northern India and expounded upon by countless contemplatives throughout Asia since?
As for jazz or hip-hop, a case can be made that they are a kind of cultural creoles- the product of the alchemy of the merging of many cultural streams- some of which are distinctively west African in origin and nature. I'm not getting why these forms should be properly viewed as variations on foundational "western" art forms. And again, what do you mean by "western?" Where does western culture begin and eastern, or southern culture take over? Does it mean western European post enlightenment? What is the term meant to encapsulate and convey and why?
You err in positing "cultures" as discrete and competitive. They're not. They're amorphous and interactive and ever changing.
There is no single word that defines the culture of the United States. It would involve British, German, Spanish, French, African, Roman, Greek, Semitic and Asian influences, and the reprocessing of those influenced aspects. Your dumb point about "Arabic" numbers, as if ideas are owned by the descendants of their originators, is completely invalid. I reply to that point with a dismissive: "So. What?" What possible 21st century meaning is there to the place of origin of that system? I imagine we said "Thanks" somewhere along the line. Are you advocating payment of ROYALTIES or something?
Music played on Western instruments clearly has its form influenced thereby. You're gonna say the blues had no influence from Western music? Are you kidding? Blues is now part of the Western, or should I say WORLD culture. There are Japanese people playing great rock-and-roll, and great Korean acoustic guitarists, and wonderful Chinese classical violinists. But you never see any small-minded Westerners going "Yeah, that's ours. You took that from us." Which seems to be what you're trying to do.
Note that I just refer to the cultures-of-origin of these things, I don't really think there's a "whiteness" aspect to any of it, not being a racist and all. Your mileage may vary.
Warhol's Cambell's soup can is an example of a secondary intellectual narrative. It is an exact copy of the can, but he has added the element of intent that tells a story about our greater culture and society. Another example would be Roman Polanski films which typically have a secondary narrative about being alone in the world and trying to make your way through it. And when Robert Johnson is standing at the Crossroads, he is at a location, but the location is also a metaphor for an existential crisis of being stuck in a bad place and not being able to leave.
My comment about western culture and knowledge wasn't intended other contributions. I was simply framing the issue in the way they frame it. They aren't running around complaining about Siddartha but they are complaining about Homer and white Christian men. The music discussion is a bit more complicated so I am just going to leave it as it will get too wonky. But let's just say that the basic changes in jazz come from Gershwin's I got Rhythm.
Well stated. I have one important quibble: You didn't question or qualify "dismantling whiteness".
The architects of this program have taken the various attributes of capitalism and liberal democracy and tolerance that had been lamented and attacked in earlier critical theory and post-modern work and re-package them as "whiteness". CRT uses race as a leading edge for the much broader, deeper program. "Whiteness" is the term they have chosen to carry the pre-existing objections to capitalism and liberalism.
Well, well, well, John McWhorter on Fox News tonight with Ben Dominich. Glad to see it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBC etc. don't want to hear what he has to say so a guys gotta do what a guys gotta do.
Ideally, McWhorter appearing on Fox will challenge the Fox's carefully contrived straw man of "the Left." I hope he mentions all of us Democratic/Progressive/Liberal commenters who agree with his ideas about CRT in education.
Seriously? This is not good. John has been explicit in declaring his audience for these ideas - the NPR listening, NYT reading left-leaning crowd. He claimed that he would not go on Fox News to promote his book. The Fox News audience is largely composed of people who think Joe Biden stole the election. Ben Domenech has become a propagandist hack. At best he is preaching to the choir. At worst he is going to de-legitimize his message in the minds of the people who need to hear it most.
You are projecting a straw man of your own. Is it good when you do it, and bad when your imagined "Fox viewer" does it? Sounds appropriately hypocritical.
You obviously don't know the Fox News audience and what those of us who do not identify with the ultra woke progressive democrat liturgy think and feel. The NYT and NPR have lost relevancy and any moral force long ago.
Firstly, DO NOT EVER call me a troll. 😡 I have nothing but the utmost contempt for trolls, and don't think much better of those who use the accusation to discredit people with whom they disagree. I am always serious about what I say, and do so in honesty and good faith (even when I'm being a bit mean, which is admittedly not my usual style). If I want to waste time I will waste my own, not others'.
Secondly, since I am also someone who does not "identify with the ultra woke progressive democrat liturgy" (as are most people who regularly read this column), I have some idea how you feel. In fact, part of my comment was an acknowledgement that most Fox News viewers would feel the same, so that there would be little benefit in "preaching to the choir". Furthermore, I have no problem with the conservative authors you mentioned (those which I recognize), and even read some of them (conversely, I despise Glen Greenwald).
However, as Tom alluded to, there is a wide gulf between simply being woke-resistant and being a loyal Fox News viewer. Maybe some of them largely confine themselves to the actual journalists on the network, like Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Neil Cavuto, etc. That's fine.
But FN's real moneymakers are their opinion hosts, who are some of the most consistent sources of irresponsible misinformation and right-wing political hackery in all of media. Like Tucker Carlson, who has been busy lately pushing COVID vaccine denialism, White Replacement Theory, and anti-anti-QAnon gaslighting. Or Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and the dearly departed Lou Dobbs, who each spent months validating Trump's attempt to defraud the American public and overturn our democracy. Or Sean Hannity, a conspiracy-theorizing simpleton and one of Trump's personal buddies, who makes a mockery of responsible journalism by attending Trump rallies, and spent a good chunk of Trump's presidency pushing the bogus story claiming that Hillary, Obama, and the DNC conspired to steal the 2106 election. I could go on.
The point is, Fox News spent four years acting more like a propaganda arm of the Trump administration than an actual news organization. And now they regularly trot out guests like Domenech to make the same tired, baseless claims about Biden supposedly being senile and not in control of his administration. This after four years of running PR for Trump's master class in comic incompetence and jaw-dropping ignorance - to say nothing of his remorseless mendacity, malicious misgovernance, and criminal abuse of power.
So I may not know everything about Fox News viewers, but I know plenty about Fox News. Enough to worry that their viewers will largely already agree with John's thoughts on the matter, and what little constructive nuance he may be able to impart will pale in comparison to how much of a turn-off it will be to his intended audience to have his ideas associated with Fox's justifiably toxic brand.
You have demonstrated that you aren't a troll. My original comment was "maybe" you're being a troll, so question answered.
You clearly know a lot about Fox News, more than I do, and you seem to watch it more than I do.
I really don't want to get into a pissing contest about Fox vs CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, etc. Alternative povs and excesses on both sides, if you have one side you need the other.
My main objection to your original comment was that you are offering advice to John on how to best communicate/promote his Elect/antiracist/racist message. Your concern is that he will scare off exactly those that he needs to convince because he appeared on Fox News. IMHO John is a big boy and he is more than up to the task of developing and implimenting his own strategy. I'm glad he went on Fox and would like to see him go on CNN or MSNBC as well (not going to happen).
I don't know if you watch John on Glenn Loury's "Glenn Show". If you don't, it's very worthwhile.
Actually I listen to Glenn Loury's podcast, which John appears on about half the time. I only recently learned he had a show, so I haven't seen it.
I do appreciate your measured response. I was a bit irritated in mine, which I try to avoid. Thank you.
I am probably undervaluing John's judgement on this. I hope he's doing the right thing. His speaking out on these matters will be a failure if he can't get it on CNN or other mainstream networks, so I sincerely hope you are wrong about that, but fear you may be right. It nonetheless dismays me, which was the impetus for my original post.
Why the GG hate? He is a bit too much, I'll say, but I don't think he's some turncoat double double agent. I think his personality probably leads him to extreme contrarianism and an attacking, unrelenting style. I see him as going too far on most things, but being correct and driven by a sense of justice and truth. But good people can disagree and I can be swayed - I don't think I've paid nearly as close attention to him over the years as many who dislike him. Maybe I've missed something.
I supported Biden, quite vocally, but had a real fear that the combination of his advanced age and likely at least modest cognitive decline combined with his vanity, his goal to make himself a Consequential President, putting behind his decades of bad decisions not to mention cringe-worthy gaffes, would make him a woke vehicle. So far he is trending at the worst end of my expectations. Fox News may play it up, but I don't think you need to be a right wing loon to suspect he can be played.
I've watched in horror as standards and pretense of objectivity have collapsed during the Trump years. TDS combined with C(R)T infiltration have had an alarming impact at places like the NYT. I'm a former subscriber. So, sure, Fox News might be the reference point for slanted and distorting news-ish coverage, but that's less depressing to me.
I'm surprised you feel that way about Biden. I couldn't disagree more. I don't agree with everything he's decided (particularly and especially on Afghanistan), but I think he's doing a fantastic job of just putting his nose to the grindstone and staying out of the culture wars. He's definitely prioritizing traditional progressive goals, but his statements on politically sensitive, divisive issues have, I think, displayed a fairly light touch (especially given the passions on the left which he has to manage) and a reasonableness I find hard to criticize.
And I think this idea of him being a senile figurehead with no idea what's going on is a kneejerk talking point with no basis in reality that Biden repeatedly and easily disproves. Maybe we're focusing on different things?
My dislike of Greenwald is primarily rooted in my very unorthodox (on the left at least) opinion regarding his work with Edward Snowden. You may not be terribly receptive to what I have to say on this, and I get that. This is one of the issues where (much like woke/CRT ideology) the accepted wisdom among many on the left (that he exposed a massive illegal government surveillance operation) is just plain wrong, and while I think straight-up mainstream reporting has been OK with it, the punditry-world spin has been horrible, and from what I've seen there hasn't been much hard-hitting pushback from more independent sources (like there is on the issue of race).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exposing legitimate government malfeasance. You won't find a bigger critic of the Bush administration's malpractice on Iraq and the damage it did to the reputation of our intelligence community. And what Trump wrought on Alexander Vindman our IGs ... don't even get me started. Furthermore, the lack of transparency necessitated by government IC work makes accurate reporting difficult. But that just places more responsibility on investigative reporters, and requires more astute judgement from them. The judgement needed to resist a temptingly salacious, potentially career-defining narrative if it might not be all it appears.
Greenwald wanted to be the next Woodward/Bernstein, and if he'd actually had himself a Deep Throat (i.e. a high level somebody that actually knew what they were talking about and revealed legitimately criminal activity for which people were subsequently held accountable) that would have been one thing. But instead his lone source was an arrogant, low-level nobody willing to sell out his own country to both China and Russia, along with a bogus narrative about a public spying campaign concocted from the existence of legitimate programs used lawfully by our IC, authorized by the Patriot Act, approved by Congress and the FISA courts, and which at worst involved a disagreement with statutory interpretation and a second-guessing of the Supreme Court.
Again, I fault nobody for disagreeing with the existence of these programs - that's democracy. But Greenwald painted a flagrantly false picture of the American government as an authoritarian surveillance state, needlessly contributing to the undermining of faith in our public institutions. Yes, the federal government could have handled the aftermath better (much better), but that doesn't absolve Greenwald. In the end, he got his Pulitzer, and an Oliver Stone film made about the whole affair (a huge red flag for skeptics if there ever was one) and now he is lionized for his shoddy hit piece by people I've long respected. It frankly hurts to see.
I suppose if it weren't for that, I might find his otherwise completely obnoxious personality tolerable, or at least somewhat defensible. But now those things just compound, and after his obviously politically motivated push of a questionable Hunter Biden story of even more dubious relevance (knowing that there would be little time to properly assess the veracity of the story before the election and that it would almost certainly aid Trump in getting elected), I can barely stand to look at him.
Finally, as to the NYT, I haven't completely given up on them. Their actual reporting is still first rate. The 1619 Project would have been (and still could be) a work of remarkable scholarship if only the editorial board and Nicole Hannah-Jones had resisted the temptation to spin the main premise the way they did. And they still employ conservative opinion writers like Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat, which is more than many right-leaning publications can say. But yes, I am very worried.
I grew out of my left wing immigrant persona many many years ago, but I have become somewhat intrigued by Greenwald. His Substack is the best so far and he's got balls to spare. I disagree with him on some key things, but I also learn shit from him.
Biden has turned out infinitely worse than I expected. I just hope the damage is limited until 2022 when the reckoning comes in the House. On CRT and The Elect, the subject of John's Substack, I can't imagine it being any worse.
One has to work hard these days to find real news. Trivial coverage on all the MSM including Fox frankly.
It is possible to have lost trust in the NYT and NPR without ever tuning into Fox News.
I would agree with Eric73 that going on Fox News is counter-productive. It won't change the minds of anyone watching Fox News - they already agree and many of them couldn't tell (and couldn't care less about) the difference between critical theories and liberal attitudes. (Hint: They're very different.) All it will do is make it much more difficult for John to be heard by non-Fox types, in particular "liberals" who are being pulled into the Woke ideology.
Your comments are pretty smug. I guess you and Eric73 live in some kind of bubble.
FYI, Tom Sowell, Shelby Steele, Eli Steele, Bob Woodson, Jason Riley and Larry Elder are all people that John has acknowledged as people he respects, are all regulars on Fox News. I don't recall seeing much of these folks on the mainstream left wing media.
Glenn Greenwald, Abigail Shrier and Bari Weiss also appear on Fox News.
If the liberals being pulled into super woke ideology and Electism would read or listen to the folks I mention above that appear on Fox News, rather than listen to the uttering of our semi senile President and his scold of a press secretary they might learn something.
Not smug, not at all. Concerned and thinking full frontal assault isn't always the best approach. All of the people you mention above have very little ability to influence moderate liberals in part due to their association with Fox News. It's not fair. Life isn't.
This reminds me very much of what in some circles is called an example of "the pre/trans fallacy": that pre-rational stages of development are the same as trans-rational stages--because they are both NON-rational. But, this is a fallacy. Three-year-old inhabits a "spunky, funky, holistic, intuitive world" simply because they have not yet progressed through the rational stages of human development. Whereas an adult who has become capable of rational thought, self-reflection, critical judgment, etc., (apparently to some now a racist "white" concept) can also experience and appreciate "a holistic, intuitive" mode of existence, but it is a state dependent on, informed by, and shaped through rational processes. (As everyone knows, the concept of a more enlightened, more authentic, and more intuitive self is sometimes described as one's "inner Child" precisely because it's meant to imply a way of being that is free of reasonable, rational, critical thought and processes.) In reality, of course, a psychologically sound adult cannot remain a child in his or her way of successfully navigating life. But since these same non-rational modes (spontaneous, organic, intuitive, "keeping-it-real" ways of interacting) are also available to healthy adults and judged to be positive, pleasant, and even therapeutic, you get adults who elevate the PRE-rational childlike way of life as if it were the same thing as a TRANS-rational. They conflate the two because they are both NON-rational. So, no, it is not actually true that one can just jettison a whole stage of personal development (rational) and arrive at adulthood as an authentic, true, healthy, and fulfilled person in the world.
I mean only the prefix "trans" that indicates "beyond." The transrational does not engage with the question of how something sensibly fits into a rational framework, instead, it is about allowing the experience to be felt and witnessed, uninterpretable by sense making or meaning-making. But one has to be capable of reasoning to truly transcend it--in a way we might think of as "awakening" in a "spiritual" sense. Prerational does not engage with a rational framework because it simply can't; the brain has not yet developed to that stage. Thank you, Tom.
I know, it became quickly apparent to me as I read it. Others may be confused due to the salience of "the trans issue". I think your further explanation is excellent.
I must admit John, I use my iPhone’s “Look Up” feature for word definitions quite often when I read your posts. Learning lots! Thanks.
Some of this sounds like recycled countercultural anti-establishment notions about work and conformity etc. along with a dose of anti-intellectualism. That any of it is being put forth as a serious path forward for the already undereducated, both Black and White, tells me that our society is in deep trouble.
Are these columns archived on a website somewhere?
I know I'm late to your essay. I so appreciate your intensity and commitment around this maddening issue.
Part of me thinks this is the result of education schools full of self-justifying, mediocre careerists getting ahold of theoretical perspectives to which the rest of us were introduced 40 years ago and, as usual, simplifying and executing it at a powerpoint and handout level.
John, I haven't read your first books, but I'm assuming you've grappled with situating post-MLK racial politics within Havelock, Ong, and the whole "psychology of orality vs literacy" framework. Much of what these bozos are delineating seems like a retread celebration of "secondary orality," a concept that has a lot more implications with the onset of mainstream digital literacy and social media (see MIT's Media Lab work on the "Gutenberg parenthesis". Interestingly, rap and sampling are central examples of this departure from the fetish of authorship that's emerged in the West in the early 17th century.) Like, have any of these people read Ong, FFS?
Then you have the weird centering of critiques of positivism and the Enlightenment into something called "whiteness," when if objectivist epistemology resides in any "class" of humans and inherently depends upon the invisible labor of a devalued Other, it's men (this was a big discussion in the emerging field of feminist philosophy in the 1980s, before they caved to the genderists). Whiteness as a construct is barely 300 years old, and yet Kendi Rogers et al are ascribing all of Western thought to some white/black binary that wasn't really psychologically plausible to its literate Westerners until 1700.
And then, they really don't grasp the central issue of post-modernism, which is that if all of human thought is conditioned, and thus power dynamics are a social construction, there is no way for humans NOT to engage in conditioned symbolic thought, and reproduce some form of power within it. We cannot escape it, though there are some strategies for coping with this that are more reliable than others.
I'm beginning to understand why monks and priests in the past hoarded knowledge and made novitiates jump through a lot of hoops to access it, given the way grifters and mediocre do-gooders are dangerously oversimplifying Critical Theory. I had a difficult time explaining these basic concepts to education faculty twenty years ago. Now, they spout it on my Facebook page as if St. Michael the Archangel has just come down from heaven--e.g., these are people who specifically denied the existence of the real racism I called out in a deans' meeting literally 20 years ago, who are now preaching to me about the very thing they couldn't comprehend.
Most educated people alive today have had that "ah-ha" moment as undergrads when we understood the limits of "objectivist epistemology" and the "social construction of knowledge" and the nature of power dynamics reproducing themselves through language. For some of us that's part of a larger non-dualist understanding--we can tolerate the "samsara" of the messy imperfect ego-driven nature of symbolic reality because we have faith in an unconditioned nirvana, however unattainable it is to the symbolic mind. This latter part is the humility that the Elect are missing.
I wonder if the cult-ish, zealous nature of the Elect is in part due to grafting of the "a-ha" grasping of the social construction of knowledge onto the preexisting phenom of victim mentalities, their cynical exploitation by whites, the deliberate obfuscation of class issues, etc. These folks are CERTAIN that EVERYthing in Western culture for the past 500 years at least is all "white." What they mean, were they not so emotionally exercised, is that yes, the "knowledge"--the literate world-- that has commanded their respect and even intimidation their entire lives turns out to be imbricated with various power dynamics that definitely have had racial dynamics to it, given the forced illteracy of Blacks in America for a few hundred years. This understanding is a powerful methodological tool. What they don't grasp is that knowledge, including rigor and debate and precision, ALWAYS WILL BE infused with power dynamics, just in different form. And that profound intellectual and spiritual humility (whether through faith in God, awe in nature, whatever) is the critical first step after this recognition. Instead, for the Elect this "a ha" moment, that resonates at some level because they're grasping that yes, there is a psychological shift from a highly literate culture to subcultures that celebrate secondary orality, and yes, what one believes is true is never utterly "objective"--this emotional eureka moment is proof in their heads that their cause of critical race theory is beyond question.
Sadly, folks at this level of conversion aren't really open, as you've so vividly described, to further reading and discussion on these topics, mostly and paradoxically because they're consumed by power dynamics that they're incapable of realizing. That'd include the fear of banishment, joblessness, homelessness, ostracism, ridicule, self-loathing, embarassment...and the desire to enjoy their newfound power over others. I don't know how you keep up the discipline of calling this out, but thanks again for your hard work.
I'm so relieved that this Substack exists. Thanks, John.
This article appeared in NRO today. Since National Review and The American Enterprise Institute (the authors organization) are known as conservative and the piece says something positive about Trump some may dismiss it as irrelevant. However it's worth reading for a clear explanation of the phenomenon called CRT.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/critical-race-theory-the-enemy-of-reason-evidence-and-open-debate/
A serious problem in trying to get to a useful "middle-of-the-road" stance is that CRT is quickly associated with Marxism, and that immediately taints the way conservative thinkers look at it. So far I've found two sources that provide good non-academic explanations. The longer one is, strangely enough, from the standpoint of an Evangelical Christian theologian who concludes that CRT is not incompatible with Christianity (so he's not condemning it, just objectively explaining it, with some references to academic writers.) You have to scroll to the bottom of each post to get to the next one.
https://www.sebtskingdomdiversity.com/blog/is-critical-race-theory-unchristian-part-1
The other link is much shorter:
https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-race-theory-4685094
(Why do I want a "middle-of-the-road" perspective? Because I think that there are some useful ideas in CRT. I'm ready for the "reformation" - the sensible Presbyterian version as it were.)
"Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay (neither of whom consider themselves to be conservative or right wing) is worth reading. It doesn't leave me with much hope about a middle ground with any of the critical theories including CRT.
How does one define a rational middle ground with a cult that aims to destroy current society without a cogent program (or even a vision) of something better to replace it with?
I guess I am not surprised that an Evangelical Christian theologian is willing to accommodate CRT in the never ending battle to control people.
We have too many stereotypes. Dr. Mullins is much more thoughtful than might be assumed by those with secondary impressions of Evangelical Christianity. His ideas could open doors within that community that will break the ice of our nation's polarization.
Pluckrose & Lindsay sound like more heavy lifting than I'm wiling to do! 😰(But others here will undoubtedly be game, so thanks.)
Ah...all of those great African kingdoms. Ah...those Kings and Queens! The cities they built! The civilizations they gave birth to! Was that not the great retort by so-called black intellectuals to racist America just a half a minute ago? But wait. How exactly were the great pyramids built? Those great cities that adorned Northern Africa? Those powerful Nubian armies? All of that was done without precision, planning, scheduling, mathematical reasoning, hard work, etc.?
The stupidity is astounding. But what's more astounding is how the thinking John refers to could last a second in the light of day. As Malcolm Muggeridge once said...."we (the West) have educated ourselves into imbecility". This ideology is making a strong foothold in our culture and society. We either cut it from the vine now or watch the vine burn to the ground later. There is little time to waste.
Those near my age may recognize this as a repackaging of the "self esteem" movement which became prominent in education in the 1990s. I was fortunate to have this occur mostly after my time in school, but I watched it play a role in the unraveling of my younger brother's grade school education. The entire ideology revolved around discrediting achievement in favor of effort, or some similarly abstract and unempirical attribute which alleviates the requirement to actually learn something.
The impetus behind these ideas is as transparent now as it was then. Schools which don't issue grades (where people "just learn") have an obvious appeal to those who struggle to maintain good grades - i.e. to demonstrate what they have "just learned". But this mollycoddling of students was much easier to push back against when it wasn't being fueled by white guilt (and ultimately, elitist black guilt).
Nonetheless, ideas about education that is "holistic, organic, authentic, ..." or otherwise discribed by some litany of new-age, hipster buzzwords should be seen for what they really are, because they have been around forever. They are the province of those with an abundance of empathy but a dearth of good sense. The well-meaning who take for granted a world which doesn't actually run on good intentions. The people who always hate subjects like math and science, because there are right and wrong answers. The kind of people who equate rationality with close-mindedness, or who value charisma over competence and inspiration over education, or who think real learning requires Dead Poet Society theatrics. The kind of people who will declare an "autonomous zone" in a major city where nobody will need cops or public services because they have a bunch of college-age, utopian tag-artists ordering pizza and singing songs.
No, these ideas aren't "black" and they certainly aren't "anti-racist". They are anti-modernity, anti-society, anti-structure, anti-responsibility, and all too often, anti-reality. They are nothing more than simple Bohemianism: otherwise known as hippie bullsh*t. Which can be fun for a spell, even interesting for a long visit - but you wouldn't want to construct a society out of it.
There are so many disturbing implications in this blogpost I don’t know where to start.
One, the revolutionary Left, having given up on the working class as a revolutionary vanguard, has reframed the language of revolution in terms of race. Replace “white’ with bourgeois and you’d think you were listening to an old-style leftist.
Two, they have been able to reel in many gullible White middle-class liberals revealing a disturbing form of racism among them. You have the white supremacists who angrily declare that Blacks can’t achieve because they are black, and you now see the White liberal who sadly declares Blacks can’t achieve because they are black. Racism is much more widespread in America than anyone wants to admit. African Americans must realize they can only lift themselves up. They need to give up on White help not “white” values.
Third and most disturbing of all, too many African Americans are willing to see themselves the way Whites see them. We may lose another generation thanks to the bad policies that arise from the ridiculous ideas of critical race theory and that will be tragedy.
We have not transcended race in America, and it may be a bigger and longer lasting problem than anyone can imagine.
You, sir, have sold out your mind, your, people, and your culture to assimilate to the thought patterns of a cancerous, diseased strain of humanity that should have never existed to begin with.
Tell that to the Asians. They're using reason, logic, precision, etc. and it's clearly working for them, and always has.
Congrats. You managed to prove in a single sentence what it took John a complete essay to demonstrate.
You are really funny and this made my day.
You're silly.
nä-mə-ˈstā: I bow to you —used as a respectful greeting in India.
Outside India, not so much.
You are 100% correct and I will not use it anymore.
By which I mean whites. Actually I refuse to refuse to call whites people.
How on earth can you not see this as bigoted?
Sarcasm.
Um, no....I meant it in sincerity.
IF a horrible, stupid, racist person insults me, I can only take as a compliment, with pride. I can only hope you live somewhere that will depend on street-smarts to keep the electricity flowing.
Okay, not sarcasm, trolling.
I still have that "educational infographic" saved for when the opportunity occurs where I am doubted for arguing, "they really do mean these things."
"The idea seems to be that mathematical reasoning is not 'how we black people think'...” For professional reasons, I know a fair amount about the brain and cognition. I've always wanted to ask someone who holds such a belief what the underlying physiological mechanism is between skin color, brain, and cognition. And, someone tell me again what the difference is between a racist and the Woke? Sometimes I have trouble telling the difference. Don't hate me for being confused.
I don't think the Woke (CRT'ers) are making a biological / physiological argument. In fact, some familiarity with their underlying ideology and with their talking points indicates that "science" (quotation marks) should not hold a "privileged" position w.r.t. truth claims. Look at the frontal assault on the realness of biological sex (sex, not gender).
If the underlying goal is dismantling normative structures and liberalism / liberal democracy, then claiming that Black people should not be expected to conform to "white" ways of knowing and doing makes sense. It's less about Black people per se, than undermining common sources of truth and dialogue.
Well, that's one way to look at it.
Yes, but all my neighbors' signs tell me that "science is real," and everyone on the news says "trust the scientists." What to do, what to do...
Trust NO ONE. Remain skeptical. Verify all that you're told. Trusting science is not the same thing as trusting scientists and scientific establishments. All forms ofknowledge have been hijacked in the name of wokeness. Science is no less prone to distortion that other ways of knowing. If the laws of logic can be brought into question, all forms of truth are imperiled.
Oooh! How WHITE of you!
I what exact way is what I said "white". I'll wait.
The best I can do is roll my eyes at the "science is real" thing. It's on the same sign full of unfalsifiable slogans and support for a movement that most certainly does not think "science is real" in the sense of universal methods of discovering truths. I can't bring myself to ask any of them what the fuck "science is real" even means.
Means the same as "Water is Life", and "Love is Love" - absolute bupkis.
The science is real thing is a rejoinder to irrational climate skepticism. The no human is illegal thing is a rejoinder to the right's jingoistic crusade against undocumented immigrants- despite the net good that undocumented immigrants are to the country. Love is love is a rejoinder to the right's bizarre war against same sex marriage- bizarre because marriage affirms the family values the right champions while also enshrining the sort of individual rights the right believes in.
The sign itself is cheesy and inane- a kind of all in one Hallmark card of front yard political allegiance declaration. Given the context of the current moment, it seems to be meant as a provocative culture war volley. Personally, I find that annoying, in much the same way I find all dumb slogans annoying- and thus worthy of satire. I came up with nonsensical alternatives for each phrase- Jack Knives Clatter, No Ramen is Medieval, gloves are gloves. I find it amusing.
But I digress.... Annoying as the slogans are, the ethical impulse behind them is not illiberal and reason supports the positions they stake out. These should not be controversial positions- and in reality, they are not. Climate change is real, and harmful. We should mitigate it. We have to find a humane way to deal with the 10.5 million undocumented immigrants here. That LGBTQ rights and acceptance are enshrined and normative is a good thing. It leads to greater flourishing and less suffering.
Public support for the supposedly "progressive" or "woke" view on each of these issues is overwhelming, ranging from from 60 some %, to over 75%. In other words, most Americans see the sign and just shrug. I think that's part of why I find the sign annoying. What's the point of declaring what most people already agree with?
The deeper point of this particular thread is that pushback against the excesses of "third wave antiracism" as McWhorter has dubbed the current antiracist movement, is not tantamount to the sentiment or political commitments that animate a Judge Jeanine or Tucker Carlson rant.
WHAT "war against same-sex marriage"?? You sound like an idiot, projecting beloved fantasies of how evil your "opponents" are. Which evil, of course, elevates your self-regarding virtue.
You're just a tribalist, hoping they'll come for you last. Good luck.
Twenty nine states banned same sex marriage before the Supreme Court legalized it federally by a narrow 5-4 margin. Many of those states amended their constitutions to enact the ban. It was major political wedge issue throughout the aughts, and into the 2010s.
Even now, when nearly 70% of all Americans support marriage equality, only 49% of Republicans do.
The war was lost, but it was waged fiercely.
I read McWhorter because I am not a tribalist. I'm curious to know why you think otherwise.
Here's a better sign:
Scientists are people. The scientific establishment is as susceptable to lies and deception as any other humanly constructed entity. Proceed with caution anytime science and politics and/or science and culture interstect. Remain skeptical, especially when you hear folks using terms like "settled science" and "X percent of scientists" agree.
Every advance of science was made AGAINST a consensus regarding established science. But now we're going to ban people for questioning orthodoxy? How very, very enlightened.
Well stated. Thank you.
I was aware that the "Science is Real" thing is simply saying that "We are not climate science denying Fox News watching deplorables." It's still lame, IMO.
Similarly with the "Love is Love" thing, but not as lame, IMO.
A key way you and I may differ is in how such empty sloganeering relates to liberalism - true liberalism as a set of practices with open, honest discourse, science, reason, debate, and very broad speech freedoms. On the surface, it's "harmless", "good" even. I guess we shouldn't get too down the rabbit hole on these signs. They're just bumper stickers in the yard.
Grain of salt regarding many of the surveys regarding public support. Tell me what you want and I'll design the survey to get you as close to it as possible. I'm not saying that I disagree that a majority of people agree with many of these perspectives in the general sense or vaguely, but when the details come into focus, we often find people's views are more nuanced and also less fixed and firm.
I have no idea who Judge Jeanine is and I'm OK with that. But I agree with your concluding statement, knowing who Tucker Carlson is. (Aside: I've tuned into Fox News infrequently over the years and come across him and for a few minutes been like "not unreasonable, fine, yes I agree, so what..." and then five minutes later "what the fuck are you going on about man?")
Don't overlook the humor in the "rejoinders." The left embraces climate change, so they boast they believe science. Then they pronounce that biological sex is a social construct. That humans are blank slates, with no genetic predispositions whatsoever. That nuclear energy, the only real option to address climate change, must be opposed.
Illegal humans? Bank robbers are not "illegal humans," but their actions are clearly problematic.
Obviously everyone knows why the left pushes the slogans. Their motives are not deep. The funny part is their audacity in ignoring their own daily condemnations of Galileo.
The whole trans rights thing is not about making a scientific claim about sex and gender. It’s an ethical impulse that allows the cultural space for people be who they are/want to be.
Who
Is harmed by calling somebody by they/them pronouns, or being cool with a biological
man wearing a skirt and fake tits in public? Sure, at the margins this can get out if hand, but in real life I’ve observed lots of people’s lives being better because of the recent cultural shift that affords people the freedom to be who they feel like without the harm that comes from suppression and/or oppression.
What always strikes me odd about the Kendi/DiAngelo position is that their funding comes from the system of whiteness they decry. They assume we can make these changes to our society without it impacting productivity. The way to win this argument is to focus on the way their proposals will impact productivity, and to point out that their theories would have a negative impact on the way of life we currently enjoy.
I'm a bit puzzled at why you think either of them care about productivity. And, um, they both very much want to "disrupt" "the way of life we currently enjoy". (I'd add that if either of them were to ask what you mean be "we", I'd grudgingly accept the point they'd make in asking it.)
Disrupting the system that made both of them rich is counter-intuitive
Not at all. You can personally enrich yourself while attacking the system that delivers it. If you have enough accumulated wealth and power you'll weather the storm.
Think about the Iron Law of Institutions. Corporate America - lots of middle and upper management people making decisions that are sub-optimal for the company (upon which they rely for their paycheck) in order to create circumstances more favorable for them personally in the near term.
There is a vast difference between making self serving decisions at the margins and trying to dismantle an entire system which funds your research and livelihood. People who work in corporate America are not trying to dismantle it. They understand that if that happened they wouldn’t have jobs. But Kendi is blind to the fact that his job depends on capitalism.
I'd think they envision themselves as the overlords in the post-revolution society. People who participate in these kinds of movements don't picture themselves as the victims of internecine subterfuge when victory is won. They see themselves as Lenin, not Trotsky, they see themselves and their families as the anointed, the Castros in Cuba. Because one system sustains you currently does not mean that you can't believe that you would thrive in a different system, particularly if you're seen as a prophet and revolutionary hero.
Certainly worked for Robespierre. And his head.
I understand people who see themselves as revolutionaries, and who actually foment revolution, believing that. But I have a hard time seeing academics that way. Although maybe there is something to that. A revolution of the non revenue producing educational elite.
Both have written best-selling books. I wonder what they've done with all the proceeds.
You can make the same comment about the elite private schools that have gone woke and who have done everything possible to promote equity except distribute part of their endowment to the kids who need it the most.
Black or white, one can appreciate both graffiti on a 1972 NYC subway car and calculus, Biggie and Dostoyevsky, quantum mechanics, and a ridiculous ankle breaking crossover with some shit talking thrown in.
I can agree with that. That enlightened view isn't what I'm hearing though. There's a real nasty, knee-jerk, hateful dismissal of anything ever accomplished by, well, Europeans, let's say. VERY equivalent to the uglier manifestations of white racism. Does that make it a good thing?
What makes graffiti, rap music, jazz etc., interesting, is that they are variations on Western art forms, and they include the aspect of a secondary intellectual narrative that is unique to Western culture. Even the really good films made by the new generation of black filmmakers like Get Out, are commentaries on white culture. I understand the perspective of trying to change the culture so that your identity group becomes less of an outsider (Jews did this through humor, literature & music & becoming part of the professional class), but the goal of dismantling whiteness, when it serves as the foundation of all modern culture and knowledge, seems self-defeating and makes the people promoting it appear as if they lack self-awareness. Cornell West did a good job of articulating this point in his opinion piece in WaPo about Howard University eliminating its classics department. If Homer & Shakespeare can't be the foundation of our culture because they are too white, then who do they propose the future Phillip Roths & Coltranes of the world incorporate their identity into so as to expand our culture? Was there another culture as profound as Western culture that we don't know about which will generate the next Jay Z?
I get what you're saying, and I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment- especially the part about the pointlessness of the dismantling project. I'm also intrigued by what you say about a secondary intellectual narrative. Tell me more.
On the other hand, you make a lot of claims that I don't think you have evidence for. How is whiteness the basis for all modern culture and knowledge? I'm not sure what you mean by "whiteness" and "all modern culture and knowledge, or even "western culture." Is the Hindu/Arabic number system a product of whiteness? What about the foundations of the modern administrative state laid out by the first ancient Persian empire? Or the sophisticated psychology sketched out by Siddhartha Gotama 2500 years ago in northern India and expounded upon by countless contemplatives throughout Asia since?
As for jazz or hip-hop, a case can be made that they are a kind of cultural creoles- the product of the alchemy of the merging of many cultural streams- some of which are distinctively west African in origin and nature. I'm not getting why these forms should be properly viewed as variations on foundational "western" art forms. And again, what do you mean by "western?" Where does western culture begin and eastern, or southern culture take over? Does it mean western European post enlightenment? What is the term meant to encapsulate and convey and why?
You err in positing "cultures" as discrete and competitive. They're not. They're amorphous and interactive and ever changing.
There is no single word that defines the culture of the United States. It would involve British, German, Spanish, French, African, Roman, Greek, Semitic and Asian influences, and the reprocessing of those influenced aspects. Your dumb point about "Arabic" numbers, as if ideas are owned by the descendants of their originators, is completely invalid. I reply to that point with a dismissive: "So. What?" What possible 21st century meaning is there to the place of origin of that system? I imagine we said "Thanks" somewhere along the line. Are you advocating payment of ROYALTIES or something?
Music played on Western instruments clearly has its form influenced thereby. You're gonna say the blues had no influence from Western music? Are you kidding? Blues is now part of the Western, or should I say WORLD culture. There are Japanese people playing great rock-and-roll, and great Korean acoustic guitarists, and wonderful Chinese classical violinists. But you never see any small-minded Westerners going "Yeah, that's ours. You took that from us." Which seems to be what you're trying to do.
Note that I just refer to the cultures-of-origin of these things, I don't really think there's a "whiteness" aspect to any of it, not being a racist and all. Your mileage may vary.
insert - Wasn't intended to diminish or exclude non-Western contributions.
Warhol's Cambell's soup can is an example of a secondary intellectual narrative. It is an exact copy of the can, but he has added the element of intent that tells a story about our greater culture and society. Another example would be Roman Polanski films which typically have a secondary narrative about being alone in the world and trying to make your way through it. And when Robert Johnson is standing at the Crossroads, he is at a location, but the location is also a metaphor for an existential crisis of being stuck in a bad place and not being able to leave.
My comment about western culture and knowledge wasn't intended other contributions. I was simply framing the issue in the way they frame it. They aren't running around complaining about Siddartha but they are complaining about Homer and white Christian men. The music discussion is a bit more complicated so I am just going to leave it as it will get too wonky. But let's just say that the basic changes in jazz come from Gershwin's I got Rhythm.
Thank for this.
Well stated. I have one important quibble: You didn't question or qualify "dismantling whiteness".
The architects of this program have taken the various attributes of capitalism and liberal democracy and tolerance that had been lamented and attacked in earlier critical theory and post-modern work and re-package them as "whiteness". CRT uses race as a leading edge for the much broader, deeper program. "Whiteness" is the term they have chosen to carry the pre-existing objections to capitalism and liberalism.
That’s. Good encapsulation of whiteness which I will use in the future. Thanks for that
Sure, as long as we don't elevate one to the exclusion of the other, or devalue either on the grounds of racial grievance.
Well, well, well, John McWhorter on Fox News tonight with Ben Dominich. Glad to see it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBC etc. don't want to hear what he has to say so a guys gotta do what a guys gotta do.
Ideally, McWhorter appearing on Fox will challenge the Fox's carefully contrived straw man of "the Left." I hope he mentions all of us Democratic/Progressive/Liberal commenters who agree with his ideas about CRT in education.
Seriously? This is not good. John has been explicit in declaring his audience for these ideas - the NPR listening, NYT reading left-leaning crowd. He claimed that he would not go on Fox News to promote his book. The Fox News audience is largely composed of people who think Joe Biden stole the election. Ben Domenech has become a propagandist hack. At best he is preaching to the choir. At worst he is going to de-legitimize his message in the minds of the people who need to hear it most.
You are projecting a straw man of your own. Is it good when you do it, and bad when your imagined "Fox viewer" does it? Sounds appropriately hypocritical.
You obviously don't know the Fox News audience and what those of us who do not identify with the ultra woke progressive democrat liturgy think and feel. The NYT and NPR have lost relevancy and any moral force long ago.
Maybe you're just being a troll.
Ok, let's get acquainted here.
Firstly, DO NOT EVER call me a troll. 😡 I have nothing but the utmost contempt for trolls, and don't think much better of those who use the accusation to discredit people with whom they disagree. I am always serious about what I say, and do so in honesty and good faith (even when I'm being a bit mean, which is admittedly not my usual style). If I want to waste time I will waste my own, not others'.
Secondly, since I am also someone who does not "identify with the ultra woke progressive democrat liturgy" (as are most people who regularly read this column), I have some idea how you feel. In fact, part of my comment was an acknowledgement that most Fox News viewers would feel the same, so that there would be little benefit in "preaching to the choir". Furthermore, I have no problem with the conservative authors you mentioned (those which I recognize), and even read some of them (conversely, I despise Glen Greenwald).
However, as Tom alluded to, there is a wide gulf between simply being woke-resistant and being a loyal Fox News viewer. Maybe some of them largely confine themselves to the actual journalists on the network, like Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, Neil Cavuto, etc. That's fine.
But FN's real moneymakers are their opinion hosts, who are some of the most consistent sources of irresponsible misinformation and right-wing political hackery in all of media. Like Tucker Carlson, who has been busy lately pushing COVID vaccine denialism, White Replacement Theory, and anti-anti-QAnon gaslighting. Or Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and the dearly departed Lou Dobbs, who each spent months validating Trump's attempt to defraud the American public and overturn our democracy. Or Sean Hannity, a conspiracy-theorizing simpleton and one of Trump's personal buddies, who makes a mockery of responsible journalism by attending Trump rallies, and spent a good chunk of Trump's presidency pushing the bogus story claiming that Hillary, Obama, and the DNC conspired to steal the 2106 election. I could go on.
The point is, Fox News spent four years acting more like a propaganda arm of the Trump administration than an actual news organization. And now they regularly trot out guests like Domenech to make the same tired, baseless claims about Biden supposedly being senile and not in control of his administration. This after four years of running PR for Trump's master class in comic incompetence and jaw-dropping ignorance - to say nothing of his remorseless mendacity, malicious misgovernance, and criminal abuse of power.
So I may not know everything about Fox News viewers, but I know plenty about Fox News. Enough to worry that their viewers will largely already agree with John's thoughts on the matter, and what little constructive nuance he may be able to impart will pale in comparison to how much of a turn-off it will be to his intended audience to have his ideas associated with Fox's justifiably toxic brand.
I could be wrong. I hope I am.
Okay, a couple of points.
You have demonstrated that you aren't a troll. My original comment was "maybe" you're being a troll, so question answered.
You clearly know a lot about Fox News, more than I do, and you seem to watch it more than I do.
I really don't want to get into a pissing contest about Fox vs CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, etc. Alternative povs and excesses on both sides, if you have one side you need the other.
My main objection to your original comment was that you are offering advice to John on how to best communicate/promote his Elect/antiracist/racist message. Your concern is that he will scare off exactly those that he needs to convince because he appeared on Fox News. IMHO John is a big boy and he is more than up to the task of developing and implimenting his own strategy. I'm glad he went on Fox and would like to see him go on CNN or MSNBC as well (not going to happen).
I don't know if you watch John on Glenn Loury's "Glenn Show". If you don't, it's very worthwhile.
Actually I listen to Glenn Loury's podcast, which John appears on about half the time. I only recently learned he had a show, so I haven't seen it.
I do appreciate your measured response. I was a bit irritated in mine, which I try to avoid. Thank you.
I am probably undervaluing John's judgement on this. I hope he's doing the right thing. His speaking out on these matters will be a failure if he can't get it on CNN or other mainstream networks, so I sincerely hope you are wrong about that, but fear you may be right. It nonetheless dismays me, which was the impetus for my original post.
Well written. A few tidbit responses.
Why the GG hate? He is a bit too much, I'll say, but I don't think he's some turncoat double double agent. I think his personality probably leads him to extreme contrarianism and an attacking, unrelenting style. I see him as going too far on most things, but being correct and driven by a sense of justice and truth. But good people can disagree and I can be swayed - I don't think I've paid nearly as close attention to him over the years as many who dislike him. Maybe I've missed something.
I supported Biden, quite vocally, but had a real fear that the combination of his advanced age and likely at least modest cognitive decline combined with his vanity, his goal to make himself a Consequential President, putting behind his decades of bad decisions not to mention cringe-worthy gaffes, would make him a woke vehicle. So far he is trending at the worst end of my expectations. Fox News may play it up, but I don't think you need to be a right wing loon to suspect he can be played.
I've watched in horror as standards and pretense of objectivity have collapsed during the Trump years. TDS combined with C(R)T infiltration have had an alarming impact at places like the NYT. I'm a former subscriber. So, sure, Fox News might be the reference point for slanted and distorting news-ish coverage, but that's less depressing to me.
I'm surprised you feel that way about Biden. I couldn't disagree more. I don't agree with everything he's decided (particularly and especially on Afghanistan), but I think he's doing a fantastic job of just putting his nose to the grindstone and staying out of the culture wars. He's definitely prioritizing traditional progressive goals, but his statements on politically sensitive, divisive issues have, I think, displayed a fairly light touch (especially given the passions on the left which he has to manage) and a reasonableness I find hard to criticize.
And I think this idea of him being a senile figurehead with no idea what's going on is a kneejerk talking point with no basis in reality that Biden repeatedly and easily disproves. Maybe we're focusing on different things?
My dislike of Greenwald is primarily rooted in my very unorthodox (on the left at least) opinion regarding his work with Edward Snowden. You may not be terribly receptive to what I have to say on this, and I get that. This is one of the issues where (much like woke/CRT ideology) the accepted wisdom among many on the left (that he exposed a massive illegal government surveillance operation) is just plain wrong, and while I think straight-up mainstream reporting has been OK with it, the punditry-world spin has been horrible, and from what I've seen there hasn't been much hard-hitting pushback from more independent sources (like there is on the issue of race).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exposing legitimate government malfeasance. You won't find a bigger critic of the Bush administration's malpractice on Iraq and the damage it did to the reputation of our intelligence community. And what Trump wrought on Alexander Vindman our IGs ... don't even get me started. Furthermore, the lack of transparency necessitated by government IC work makes accurate reporting difficult. But that just places more responsibility on investigative reporters, and requires more astute judgement from them. The judgement needed to resist a temptingly salacious, potentially career-defining narrative if it might not be all it appears.
Greenwald wanted to be the next Woodward/Bernstein, and if he'd actually had himself a Deep Throat (i.e. a high level somebody that actually knew what they were talking about and revealed legitimately criminal activity for which people were subsequently held accountable) that would have been one thing. But instead his lone source was an arrogant, low-level nobody willing to sell out his own country to both China and Russia, along with a bogus narrative about a public spying campaign concocted from the existence of legitimate programs used lawfully by our IC, authorized by the Patriot Act, approved by Congress and the FISA courts, and which at worst involved a disagreement with statutory interpretation and a second-guessing of the Supreme Court.
Again, I fault nobody for disagreeing with the existence of these programs - that's democracy. But Greenwald painted a flagrantly false picture of the American government as an authoritarian surveillance state, needlessly contributing to the undermining of faith in our public institutions. Yes, the federal government could have handled the aftermath better (much better), but that doesn't absolve Greenwald. In the end, he got his Pulitzer, and an Oliver Stone film made about the whole affair (a huge red flag for skeptics if there ever was one) and now he is lionized for his shoddy hit piece by people I've long respected. It frankly hurts to see.
I suppose if it weren't for that, I might find his otherwise completely obnoxious personality tolerable, or at least somewhat defensible. But now those things just compound, and after his obviously politically motivated push of a questionable Hunter Biden story of even more dubious relevance (knowing that there would be little time to properly assess the veracity of the story before the election and that it would almost certainly aid Trump in getting elected), I can barely stand to look at him.
Finally, as to the NYT, I haven't completely given up on them. Their actual reporting is still first rate. The 1619 Project would have been (and still could be) a work of remarkable scholarship if only the editorial board and Nicole Hannah-Jones had resisted the temptation to spin the main premise the way they did. And they still employ conservative opinion writers like Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat, which is more than many right-leaning publications can say. But yes, I am very worried.
I grew out of my left wing immigrant persona many many years ago, but I have become somewhat intrigued by Greenwald. His Substack is the best so far and he's got balls to spare. I disagree with him on some key things, but I also learn shit from him.
Biden has turned out infinitely worse than I expected. I just hope the damage is limited until 2022 when the reckoning comes in the House. On CRT and The Elect, the subject of John's Substack, I can't imagine it being any worse.
One has to work hard these days to find real news. Trivial coverage on all the MSM including Fox frankly.
It is possible to have lost trust in the NYT and NPR without ever tuning into Fox News.
I would agree with Eric73 that going on Fox News is counter-productive. It won't change the minds of anyone watching Fox News - they already agree and many of them couldn't tell (and couldn't care less about) the difference between critical theories and liberal attitudes. (Hint: They're very different.) All it will do is make it much more difficult for John to be heard by non-Fox types, in particular "liberals" who are being pulled into the Woke ideology.
Your comments are pretty smug. I guess you and Eric73 live in some kind of bubble.
FYI, Tom Sowell, Shelby Steele, Eli Steele, Bob Woodson, Jason Riley and Larry Elder are all people that John has acknowledged as people he respects, are all regulars on Fox News. I don't recall seeing much of these folks on the mainstream left wing media.
Glenn Greenwald, Abigail Shrier and Bari Weiss also appear on Fox News.
If the liberals being pulled into super woke ideology and Electism would read or listen to the folks I mention above that appear on Fox News, rather than listen to the uttering of our semi senile President and his scold of a press secretary they might learn something.
Not smug, not at all. Concerned and thinking full frontal assault isn't always the best approach. All of the people you mention above have very little ability to influence moderate liberals in part due to their association with Fox News. It's not fair. Life isn't.
Ah, your "moderate" liberals only read and listen to those that they already agree with. This is the definition of confirmation bias.
If they won't read or listen to Sowell they've lost the right to be considered rational or thinking people.
I trust that you are not one of these Fox News hating moderate liberals that have their head in the sand.
This reminds me very much of what in some circles is called an example of "the pre/trans fallacy": that pre-rational stages of development are the same as trans-rational stages--because they are both NON-rational. But, this is a fallacy. Three-year-old inhabits a "spunky, funky, holistic, intuitive world" simply because they have not yet progressed through the rational stages of human development. Whereas an adult who has become capable of rational thought, self-reflection, critical judgment, etc., (apparently to some now a racist "white" concept) can also experience and appreciate "a holistic, intuitive" mode of existence, but it is a state dependent on, informed by, and shaped through rational processes. (As everyone knows, the concept of a more enlightened, more authentic, and more intuitive self is sometimes described as one's "inner Child" precisely because it's meant to imply a way of being that is free of reasonable, rational, critical thought and processes.) In reality, of course, a psychologically sound adult cannot remain a child in his or her way of successfully navigating life. But since these same non-rational modes (spontaneous, organic, intuitive, "keeping-it-real" ways of interacting) are also available to healthy adults and judged to be positive, pleasant, and even therapeutic, you get adults who elevate the PRE-rational childlike way of life as if it were the same thing as a TRANS-rational. They conflate the two because they are both NON-rational. So, no, it is not actually true that one can just jettison a whole stage of personal development (rational) and arrive at adulthood as an authentic, true, healthy, and fulfilled person in the world.
You might want to clarify early that your use of the term "trans" here is not related to transgender, transsexual, etc.
I mean only the prefix "trans" that indicates "beyond." The transrational does not engage with the question of how something sensibly fits into a rational framework, instead, it is about allowing the experience to be felt and witnessed, uninterpretable by sense making or meaning-making. But one has to be capable of reasoning to truly transcend it--in a way we might think of as "awakening" in a "spiritual" sense. Prerational does not engage with a rational framework because it simply can't; the brain has not yet developed to that stage. Thank you, Tom.
I know, it became quickly apparent to me as I read it. Others may be confused due to the salience of "the trans issue". I think your further explanation is excellent.