Andrew Sullivan delivers Critical (race) theory a gut punch with this well written and well thought out piece. Read the whole thing. There is much to agree with here. I'll focus on the following:
The genius of liberalism in unleashing human freedom and the human mind changed us more in centuries than we had changed in hundreds of millennia. And at its core, there is the model of the single, interchangeable, equal citizen, using reason to deliberate the common good with fellow citizens. No ultimate authority; just inquiry and provisional truth. No final answer: an endless conversation. No single power, but many in competition.
In this open-ended conversation, all can participate, conservatives and liberals, and will have successes and failures in their turn. What matters, both conservatives and liberals agree, is not the end result, but the liberal democratic, open-ended means. That shift — from specifying a single end to insisting only on playing by the rules — is the key origin of modern freedom.
My central problem with critical theory is that it takes precise aim at these very core principles and rejects them. By rejecting them, in the otherwise noble cause of helping the marginalized, it is a very seductive and potent threat to liberal civilization.
A.S. goes on to explain how CRT proponents cast free expression as a white construct which furthers oppression and racism. Why? Because the system was built by white westerners who do not have the lived experience of marginalized people
I'm always on the lookout for what the end game is for the CRT proponent. A.S. doesn't provide that either. Maybe they don't have one. A.S. does describe what he sees as the consequence of CRT whether intended or not:
I’m sorry but this matters. It’s not the only thing that matters right now, I know. But if we remove the corner-stone of liberal democracy — the concept of a free, interchangeable citizen using reason to deliberate the common good with her fellow citizens, regardless of any identity — then it is only a matter of time before it falls. This does not mean ignoring or overlooking the real struggles that African-Americans in particular have endured and continue to endure. It is to insist that we can do better — within a self-correcting, open liberal system — without surrendering to tribalism, race obsessiveness, or utopian attempts to force racial justice which violate the core guardrails against tyranny we rely upon for the survival of liberal democracy.
I cannot be a stronger proponent of free expression and the benefits of free exchange of ideas. I further believe that the old saw about the life-span of empires or countries will be rendered irrelevant so long as the country or empire in question maintains in perpetuity the free exchange of ideas. A.S. nails it with his observations that our system requires endless conversations from a robust variety of sources. There is no final answer. There is no right answer. There is no settled science.. There is only a continual and ongoing conversation with free exchange of ideas.
This is why I am concerned about what I have seen in just the last few months. Government, business, media, education, entertainment, sports, and more are coalescing around set of ideas that many not only disagree with, but are prohibited through threats of reprisals of various kinds from even speaking about. The examples are many and A.S. mentions a few of them. We cannot go down that road hope to survive.
Finally, I love Sullivan's punch at the phrase "being on the right side of history". I thought that was a crock from the very first time I heard it--from you know who. Claiming that your position is the right side of history and somebody else's isn't, is simply an arrogant and smug way of saying "you are full of shit". I prefer the latter. It's much easier to understand.