Coalition For the Sane: I'll Believe in Your Theory Only if It Works in Practice

 

I am a very scholarly person but I'm also a very pragmatic one.  I believe in what I see in the real world rather then what is discussed in so many academic circles. In order for me to accept a way of thinking you can't just make the argument that our current system is broken beyond repair and we need to throw it out completely and start all over.

First of all most of these 'thinkers' never have any direct proof that a system like capitalism is broken beyond repair. Their argument, for the loud bellowing and some statistics is basically: "the rich people have too much money and there are too many more people, therefore we have to get rid of capitalism."

To be clear every system of economic theory all has rich people and poor people.  That was just as true with every communist country and every socialist one. The argument that countries like China or Cuba or Venezuela is that they're not 'real communist or socialist countries'.  This is denying the evidence of your eyes as well as demonstrating that you prefer the academic bubble of theory to the real world. Anyone who thinks that way is an idiot, no matter how many degrees they have in front of them.

And for the record just because you are a very intelligent person doesn't mean you aren't capable of believing in dumb things. During the first part of the 20^th century a lot of smart people believed in the very racist theory of eugenics including Oliver Wendell Holmes, Margaret Sanger and John Muir. Does this negate all of the good they did in the real world? Not to most people. To many current smart people, it puts all of their works in a shadow of doubt to the point that they believe we should disregard them from our studies all together or make sure that the historical portrait features 'a fuller picture'.

That is the believe of the leftist historians ranging from Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky all the way down to Nikole Hannah-Jones. They operate in a theory known as 'deconstruction'. Their academic writings are ostensibly to pain a fuller picture of our society so that we 'question authority'. All of this is popular among academics and almost no one else, particularly conservatives and Republican politicians.

They use these arguments to make the political point that the  left hates America and is trying to make school children not have respect for their country. These academics argue that because the Republicans are trying to suppress their work, they must therefore being telling the correct version of events and therefore it must be true.

But unlike in the academic world or the political one, two things can be true at once. Having read so many of these books, the only point of them seems to be to argue that America or the Western world is empirically flawed to the point that no citizen should have any reason to respect it.  The fact Republicans are using it to score points with their base doesn't negate that truth.

 

And I'm fully aware the right has more then its share of ridiculous academic theories that do not work in practice. The one that we've seen the biggest effect of is 'trickle down economics'. Stripped away of the scholarly or political thinking it doesn't work from the standpoint of human nature.

If I were to have a million dollars, this theory states, I should be allowed by tax laws to keep as much of it as possible because I would spent it and the money would eventually reach other people through what I buy. But I know in practice that if were to happen I would keep as much of it for myself in a bank and buy very few luxuries with it, if at all.

Its own value was political: it was a way to convince the wealthy to support Republican politicians in order for them to keep more of their money. Viewed that way, it had real world value. As economic  policy it had none.

There's truth to that with so many of the other scholarly theories of the right, such as originalist doctrine for judiciary and the grand unitary theory of the executive. At their core, they're just fig leaves for the conservatives to hold on power. They are junk theories, completely. But the thing is I'm pretty sure most of the scholars know that and are using them for the practical application of Republicans and conservatives to hold power.  So in a very, very twisted way, you can say these theories have real world applications. I have yet to see that in so many of the theories on the left side of the aisle.

I haven't really discussed critical race theory in my articles for a simple reason: I have no idea what its about. I think at its core its just a wedge issue for conservative politicians to try and rile up its base which they basically do at every election. So I decided to try and separate it from the political arguments – very difficult – and just look at a dictionary definition of it on Wikipedia. I'm aware that being a cis, white male I will likely be considered racist if I don't give universal approval of it but at this point it basically comes with the territory.

The thing is just looking at a basic description it really does seem as much junk theory as so much of the academic writing that I've seen from originalist opinions by Scalia and Roberts over the years. More to the point its one of those theories that exists in such big terms that not only is there no way to prove it, there's no way to disprove it. If someone argues as critical race theory does, that racism is systemic in laws and rules rather than just individual prejudice, the burden is on those to prove that it's not. Everything about critical race theory seems to argue everything about it is so subtle that the scholar can prove any example to fit its version of events.

And its worth noting that even before Republicans began attacking it, many academics were arguing against it. They said it was based far less on events and reason and based more on academic storytelling, rejected concepts like truth and merit, and most importantly undervalued liberalism. Indeed much of it involves revisionist interpretations of the Civil Rights act itself, arguing that because its political interest undervalued any good it did. This is part of so much left-wing theory which argues any good that is done must be done purely for an altruistic reason rather than a political one and if it doesn't it count. In other words if Lincoln believed preservation of the Union was more important then freeing the slaves, the passage of the 13^th Amendment should not be considered a good of his administration.

Critical Race Theory once had to do with law, which is the only practical application it would have. Now its basically moved on to analyze power structures in society no matter what laws are in effect.  Its only purpose seems to be to argue that 'equality is impossible and illusory in the US." In other words America is a racist society.

What it has essentially been for half a century is an academic series of studies that seem design to make this the point rather than any way to make America less racist. So I guess my real problem with critical race theory is that it doesn't seem to have any real word applications beyond so many of the academic deconstruction ones.

To be clear multiple academics were attacking well before conservative politicians got on board. The Encyclopedia Britanica have called it 'postmodernist inspired skepticism of objectivity and truth' and has a tendency to 'interpret any racial inequality or imbalance as proof of institutional racism and as grounds for directly imposing racially equitable outcomes in those realms."

In a 1997 book law professors Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry criticized CRT for basing it claims on personal narrative and for its lack of testable hypotheses and measurable data. The scholars then accused this criticism of representing 'dominant modes within social science which exclude people of color.' In other words anyone who criticizes critical race theory proves that it exists.

More importantly Farber and Sherry argued that the anti-meritocratic tenets in CRT, critical  feminism and critical legal studies, may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications, arguing that the success of Jews and Asians within what critical race theorists posit to be a structurally unfair system may lend itself to allegations of cheating and advantage taking. Bluntly, it might cause racism. The scholars argued in response that there's a difference between criticizing an unfair system and criticizing individuals who perform well inside that system. Which is a nice way of say: "If people read our work and reach the conclusion that certain people are breaking the system, that's not our fault, its there's."

Because of the conservative attacks, particularly by so many increasingly right-wing politician and speakers it has become far easier for proponents of CRT to argue that anyone who disagrees with it is a racist themselves. But they've been doing this even when academics who work within the system criticize them, even well-meaningly. This is typically within the way left works overall: as early as the 1960s students were accusing anyone who was an opponent of their beliefs as racist.

My basic problem with CRT is simple: what's the real world application of it? Even a cursory look at some of the writings basically seem to have it no different then so much other leftist writings. It makes vague discussion of things that can be done and spends ninety percent of its time reaching pre-ordained conclusions. I acknowledge racism exists in our society and I'd like a plan to try and rectify it. CRT essentially seems to argue that there's nothing anyone can do, and if you even suggest there is, you yourself are part of the problem.

I'm all for having curriculums that discuss a more realistic portrayal of race in our society and some of the bigger problems. But I'm a realist. I have no illusions that if high school students or college students are taught this forty minutes a day five days a week, it will end the problem. I don't think there's anything wrong with them learning about the flaws in our society; I do think that being told in the reductive language of the left that your country is irrevocably broken is the best way to fix them.

 And I also don't believe that just because you're not being taught something in a classroom means that knowledge is somehow erased from existence or that the world is engaged in a conspiracy to keep you from 'learning the truth'. No its still there. You just have to work a little harder to find it. I find it insulting that so many smart people believe the only reason problems in our society exist is because it isn't part of a course in grade school or high school.  Trust me, even before the internet was on every phone, ninety percent of the student body only cared about whether it would be on the exam.

I think my biggest problem with Critical Race Theory is that its labeled a 'theory'. Most theories are put into real world application and then put in practice. This isn't a theory in the way that trickle down or originalist or any scientific theory or hell, communism. There's no way to prove it, no way to test in a real word setting, no way to figure out how we move forward. I agree racism exists in America and its never going to ever truly go away. But not because laws or the system is racist but because it involves people and you will never be able to complete eradicate it from the human mind, much as we might want to. It's not a pleasant truth to acknowledge but its one we have to face.

CRT seems to use a lot of words and fancy terms to tell you that racism will always exist in our society. I could have told you that in thirty seconds. Where I disagree with our proponents is that I believe its incumbent on all of us, of all races, to do as much as we can to try to make it less so. Not eradicate it, we'll never do that, just less. That's this cis, white male's opinion. You want to call me racist for saying that? Well, the proponents do that anyway.