What we talk about when we talk about "critical race theory," Part IV: The conflict between CRT and the mainstream left

 Hello... [tap, tap]... is this thing on?  No, of course not.  Regardless, there is a body of scholarly work out there that irritates me, as does the debate around it, so I shall treat this blog as my Festivus Pole for just a tad longer.  Anyway, in Part II, I explained what critical race theory actually is.  I elaborated on the semi-canonical five tenets that one may find if one simply googles "critical race theory."  In Part III, then, I noted that while there are empirical puzzles to explain-- racial discrepancies-- the fact that critical race theory poses an answer does not give it any special status, nor place a burden on skeptics to provide an equally parsimonious explanation for racial discrepancies in America.  Critical race theory must stand or fall on its own intellectual merits.

Yet that is not actually the point of this series.  Rather, those posts constituted a very drawn-out, confrontational prologue, which partially serves as a snark-quotes "public service," explaining what critical race theory is from the perspective of a race-conscious skeptic.  However, as I set out in Part I, the real purpose of this series is the question of why we are having a public debate about critical race theory in the first place, and why modern liberals are defending this school of thought which attacks them.  These are the puzzles motivating the series.  Now that critical race theory is properly introduced, we can get into this.  In the past, I have been accused of not getting to the point.  I... can't imagine why.

Anyway, let's elaborate on the tension between modern liberalism and CRT.  Remember that critical race theory is an ideology as much as anything else.  It is a subcategory of critical theory, and critical theories have three components:  an explanation for the world, a set of normative principles, and practical guidance.  Those latter two components are almost a definition of ideology.  In political science, we define an ideology as follows:  a set of "constraints" that connect issue positions, such that one is constrained to follow the ideology's position on Issue A, Issue B, and so forth.  (See Converse 1964).  The constraints themselves are the normative principles, and the policies that follow from those normative principles are the practical guidances.  So yeah, critical race theory is an ideology, and the ideological aspect of it follows from the explanation for the world, which one would like to be true of any given ideology.

Yet critical race theory, remember, is an ideology that is hostile to modern American liberalism.  Modern American liberalism is rooted in the following basic ideas.  First, existing governmental institutions can be used to achieve positive outcomes.  There is a danger, of course.  One who is overly confident in the capacity or goodness of government will make certain kinds of errors, just as one who is overly skeptical or paranoid about government will make a different kind of error, but to the FDR/LBJ/modern-day liberal, the government can be used to solve problems.  If there is a problem, find a government program to solve it.

The other element of modern American liberalism is the basic, underlying theoretical construct tied to John Rawls, or MLK, depending upon whom you ask.  To the casual political observer or casual voter, there is the "I have a dream" speech, with its goal of treating people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  Any appeal to this principle is now distorted through a funhouse mirror by CRT advocates, as though setting this as a goal is denying the current existence of any racial disparities.  That rhetorical twist, when you see it used, will range between a gross misunderstanding from someone who isn't listening, and just plain dishonesty.  Either way, it is not true engagement.

For those more philosophically inclined, we have John Rawls, and A Theory of Justice.  The principle as stated more abstractly is as follows.  The veil of ignorance.  In order to evaluate a system, imagine yourself behind a veil of ignorance, such that you do not know what position you will occupy within the system.  Would you accept the system from behind the veil of ignorance?

The veil of ignorance can lead us to the goal of "equality," and in the most simplistic description of ideological divisions, one may be told that modern-day conservatives will tend to favor liberty over equality, while modern-day liberals favor equality.  Yet, if you recall my background post on liberalism (Part I), it isn't so simple.  After all, liberty comes in two varieties-- positive and negative.  What actually happened in the 20th Century is that liberals and conservatives diverged in the flavor of "liberty" that they chose, in the economic realm.  In the economic realm, conservatives leaned towards negative liberty, while the word, "liberal," became attached to the positive conception of liberty in the US, creating much confusion over the word, "liberal," but giving us what we generally call the liberal-conservative spectrum.  See Part I.

Equality is actually similarly complex.  When we discuss equality, what kind of equality do we mean?  Equality of outcomes, or equality of opportunity?  The Marxist would say that all resources should be equally distributed, via bloodshed, of course.  (Rot in the dustbin, Marx.)  Equality of outcome, and much of the modern, and less-than-mainstream left is moving in that direction, but I'm focusing on the mainstream left for the moment in order to draw out the conflict between CRT and the mainstream left.  Which is not to disregard the growing prominence of the pure equality of outcome perspective in its most extreme form, but that Marxist view has generally not held much sway.

Nevertheless, there are gradations.  If we want to be rudimentary about this, the liberal-conservative split here is something like the following:  conservatives would take an "equality of opportunity" perspective, and observe the characteristics of the rules rather than observing the outcomes.  In fact, the modern conservative perspective would object to observing outcomes at all.  Observe only the rules.  Liberals would take an "equality of outcome" perspective, with the following hedge.  In some sense, the mainstream of the left sort of thinks that they advocate "equality of opportunity," but the way they assess it is as follows.  If there is an inequality of outcome, they infer that there must have been an inequality of opportunity.  Push that far enough, and for all practical purposes, you wind up caring exclusively about outcomes rather than looking at processes.  That's where it gets messy.  And of course, this element of hedging is where the CRT perspective will look askance at the mainstream left.  We'll get to that.

So here's the question.  Do you look at the process as the thing to study, or the outcomes?  Or some combination?  It doesn't have to be a dichotomy.  Not everything does.  You know, you are allowed to have some complexity in your view of the world!  Just sayin'...

But let's connect this to Rawls.  Behind the veil of ignorance, do you want a process that just guarantees everyone the same outcome in the end, no matter what?  Some do, but... that's not an intellectually serious position.  So, an equal chance?  Meaning... what?  Meaning that the outcome, for you, will be determined by stuff that's fair, and relevant, and within your control, right?

It's facing discrimination for irrelevant, meaningless shit beyond your control that would bug you, mostly.  This is why racial discrimination violates the principles of the veil of ignorance.

So what about racial preferences in favor of minorities?

Race-based affirmative action.  This is where we're goin'.

This stuff runs right up against Rawlsian principles.  It is also somewhat misunderstood because the term "affirmative action" is a broad category of policies under an umbrella term that is meaninglessly redundant.  Race-based quotas and blunt discrimination are illegal.  That doesn't mean they don't happen, but they're illegal.  Lots of illegal things happen.  Also, there's gambling in Casablanca, your favorite "singer" has a voice altered by autotune, your favorite politician is full of shit and manipulating you even though you think that's the good one, and climate change means we're all just fiddlin' while you get distracted by meaningless stuff, and I'll get to the extent to which this counts as a meaningless distraction in the conclusion (Part VI, I think).  Good morning!

Anyway, quotas and blunt discrimination are illegal.  Recruiting/outreach efforts, and other soft policies are constitutionally kosher, according to current law.  But how far can you go?

To a mainstream liberal, operating within the constraints of Rawlsian principles, and thinking in terms of Rawlsian principles, here's the tension.  Remember that empirical observation driving the puzzle?  That puzzle that I can't solve for you, and that I don't think CRT solves?  (See Part III).  Well, let's say you want to have policies that reduce racial disparities, because you don't like those disparities.

Let's say, for example, you work in, oh, say, an educational setting, and you know of research suggesting benefits of diversity in the classroom.

Just... as a hypothetical.

Hi!

But then there's Johnny Rawls.  The world is not simple.  Anyone who thinks through the politics and principles of a serious issue will find competing principles bumping up against each other, and I have no intention of trying to solve any problem for you because that is, in technical terms, "above my pay grade."  All I can do is point them out for you.  Or even better, point out the concept of tension between competing goals.  This is where modern liberals have historically found themselves on such matters-- a tension between the Rawlsian principle of the veil of ignorance and the goals that might be met by some sort of race-based policy.  Not necessarily race-based discrimination (but we'll get to that), but other policies.  Is there a way to balance this?  Plenty would say to skip this and just go for class-based affirmative action, if class is the thing, and since my purpose is not to engage the debate, but rather to point out the tension, I don't care for the purposes of this post.  The point is merely the existence of the tension.

But.

What if you reject the concept of the veil of ignorance?  Few would admit to doing so, because on its face, the principle is so appealing.  That would be like rejecting the golden rule, but what if you rejected Rawls?  And King?  What if you simply saw the entire US system as a plot to establish and maintain a racial hierarchy?  Remember that this is the core of critical race theory.

You'd almost have to reject Rawls.  If the entire system operated as a way to oppress African-Americans, for the purpose of oppressing African-Americans, then even this principle of neutrality would be a part of that system.  That blindfolded statue of justice?  The idea of neutrality becomes an illusion... a narrative to sustain the racial hierarchy.  Remember, everything in CRT is about narratives, and the critical race theorist looks at every statement throughout US history about blind justice and says not only, "lie!," but, "lie constructed to maintain the racial hierarchy."

Keep in mind, too, the core observation of systemic racism.  This is the real thing.  Systemic racism is real.  It is our description of a system in which racially disparate outcomes occur, even if no individual within the system harbors racial animus nor racially discriminatory intent, because of the structure of the system.  Critical race theorists argue that the idea of neutrality is actually part of systemic racism because it will lead to disparate outcomes.  (Hint, hint-- equality of outcome...)  There is no such thing as neutrality, according to critical race theory, just as there is no such thing as objectivity.  Remember... postmodernism is the root.  When you begin with postmodern epistemology, you cannot accept any set of rules constructed based on objective, Enlightenment epistemology.  Neutrality is just another narrative, and one to be fought because it produces racially disparate outcomes.  So says critical race theory, and hence Rawls, for whatever the critical race theorist may say about the man and the writings... the concepts go out the window.

If you look at the world, the policy world, through the lens of the LBJ/MLK/Rawls liberal, you will look at racially disparate outcomes and find yourself in tension.  You may wish to enact policies to address those disparities, but the further you go in doing so, the more you run the risk of violating the principles of the veil of ignorance.  That tension virtually defines the modern liberal view of race and policy.  What can you do, without running afoul of the core principles in either direction?

Critical race theorists simplify the matter by brushing aside the principles on one side.  Those would be the principles of Rawls, MLK, and anyone else who thinks about process, really.  Remember, the conservative view is to ignore outcomes, and look exclusively at process.  There's a tension within mainstream lefties based on process and outcomes.  Critical race theorists throw out the idea of looking at the process at all, and look exclusively at outcomes.  Why?

If neutrality is an illusion, and worse yet, a narrative constructed to support the white racial hierarchy, then striving for it misses the point.  Rather, racial preferences that favor African-Americans are the point.  The goal.  And there is no principle against which they are in tension because the purpose of such preferences is to combat a system that exists for the purpose of racial oppression.

So where does the mainstream liberal of yester-year fit into the critical race theorist's framework?  The role of the stooge.  The useful idiot.  The harmless, loyal opposition in a one-party state that will never truly cede power.  At best.

So here's the thing, "liberals."  If you are an old-fashioned, LBJ/MLK/Rawls liberal in the style of the 1960s through Barack Obama, critical race theorists don't like you.  It isn't just that they disagree with you on policy, although they do to a matter of degree.  It is more personal than that, though.  They look at you in the way that one who rejects a system sees one who operates within a system.

This creates something a little odd.  A critical race theorist and a mainstream liberal may see eye to eye on a set of policies.  A rather broad set of policies.  Here, I'm going to reference my last book, and not just 'cuz.  After all, since nobody is reading this, I ain't sellin' any books this way.  I just think this is a useful framework.  So, Incremental Polarization: A Unified Spatial Theory of Legislative Elections, Parties & Roll Call Voting.  Here's what we do when we study Congress using theoretical models of voting.  We put everyone on a line-- the left-right spectrum.  Any given vote pits one alternative against another, conventionally the status quo against some specified alternative.  Half-way between the two policies is the cutpoint (or cutting line, in a multidimensional policy space).  If you are to the left of the cutpoint, you prefer the liberal policy.  If you are to the right of the cutpoint, you prefer the conservative policy.  Vote accordingly.  We have been modeling votes this way for a long time.  Empirically, though, we don't observe the policy locations themselves.  We just observe the votes, and what can happen is that party politics will construct agendas that unify the majority party, and perhaps divide the minority party.  See, for example, Cox & McCubbins.

But what is it that winds up dividing one caucus from itself?  Basically, it is having a wingnut/moonbat faction.  As a technical point of terminology, let us establish the proper nomenclature.  A wingnut is a right-wing extremist with no connection to reality.  Jim Jordan, for example, is a wingnut.  Also, he is probably an accessory to sexual abuse, and many other things besides.  He is a terrible person, and Nancy Pelosi probably did a good thing keeping him off the January 6 Committee.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, is a moonbat.  A moonbat is a left-wing extremist with no connection to reality.  No, let's not abolish the police, thank you very much.  Not only would I like the police to continue to exist, so would the vast majority of the population, and I would not like to hand power over to Jim Jordan by having "abolish the police" become the Democratic Platform.  Because, yeah, that hands power to Jim Jordan.  (I'd kinda like both Ocasio-Cortez and Jordan to go away, but since that ain't gonna happen, I'm perpetually irritated, without even the reward of a pearl in my shell.)

Anyway, what separates someone like Nancy Pelosi from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?  Many things.  Experience, intelligence, pragmatism, a desire to accomplish things rather than get "likes" on twitter... I could go on for a long time, but among the many things that distinguish these two politicians is that Pelosi is an old-style, LBJ/MLK/Rawls/Obama-style liberal, and Ocasio-Cortez is an extremist moonbat.

Yet if you observe roll call votes, what happens?  Most of the time, Ocasio-Cortez is going to vote Pelosi's way.  Why?  The construction of the agenda.

On the other hand, remember John Boehner?  When he was Speaker, he had a caucus led by assholes like... Jim Jordan.  On policy, it wasn't just that the Jim Jordans of the chamber were more extreme, although they were.  It was that the agenda wound up revealing the differences.  I wrote about this in Incremental Polarization.  Most of the time, parties enable polarization by unifying their caucuses, but that got flipped during the tea party era, because of the combination of extreme polarization and divided government, which forced the GOP to cut deals with Obama in order to do basic things like raise the debt ceiling.  In order to... not... blow up... the economy of every country on the planet like a fuckin' psycho.

So, the problem is that Jim Jordan is a psycho.  Boehner actually called him a "legislative terrorist."  When the legislative agenda shifted to a structure that revealed the distinction between "conservative" and "raging psychopath," Jim Jordan did his Jim Jordan thing, as did a bunch of others.

Most of the time, we wouldn't see those divisions, and we didn't.  We would just see a bloc of "conservatives," who looked unified.  Yet, those divisions were always there.  They were simply revealed by the politics of the moment.  So I argued, anyway.  Jim Jordan and John Boehner were never the same kind of politician.  It's just that whether or not we observe those differences will depend on what we are discussing.

You can observe a tension between Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi.  It's there.  We all see it.  They snark at each other all the time.  Yet, without a legislative agenda drawing a cutting line between them, they'll be on the same side (although conventionally, the Speaker doesn't cast a vote except to break a tie).

That should give you a sense of what is going on.  The far left looks at Pelosi, and even though on any given bill, they'll vote for her bill, they kinda think she's a sellout.  Even though by any objective measure, she's pretty far left.

Critical race theory sees mainstream liberalism in even more harsh terms.  Ask a critical race theorist about an arbitrary bill in the House, and there is a reasonable chance that your CRT-ist will say, yeah, sure, let's pass it.  "But," with our usual proviso that everything before the but is irrelevant, and the after the "but" is something about how it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Why?  Because if the American political and legal system are built on a system of "permanent racism," set up for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a racial hierarchy, then anything other than trying to tear down that system is just a table scrap.  The critical race theorist sees no principled tension between the Rawlsian veil of ignorance and equalization of outcomes using blunt tools that are unconstitutional under any reading of existing law because the critical race theorist does not actually accept the principle of the veil of ignorance, nor the structure of existing law, nor the theory behind it, seeing the latter, and to some degree even Rawls, as existing within and to prop up racial disparities, regardless of whatever lip service may occasionally be paid to Rawls, the name.

So any appeal by mainstream liberals to such principles, laws or philosophy will simply meet with derision from a critical race theorist.  All you are doing is showing what a tool you are.

If you are an LBJ/MLK/Rawls/Obama-style liberal, then critical race theorists don't just disagree with you.  They think you are part of the problem.

And yet, so many modern "liberals," or self-described "progressives," to the degree that there is any difference (mainly ignorance of terminology), who are more closely aligned with the tradition from LBJ to Obama, seem to feel the need to defend this thing called "critical race theory."

Holy shit, liberals!  They tricked you into defending them, even though they hate you!

How did that happen?

So I think there are two more parts to this series that nobody's readin'.  In Part V, I shall have some thoughts on how it came to be that we have a public discussion of this thing called "critical race theory," and more strangely, one in which mainstream liberals are defending a body of scholarship that attacks them.  Then, in Part VI, I'll wrap this up with some observations about why this matters.

For now, music.  Fishbone, "Fight the Youth," from The Reality of My Surroundings.