Why so many Republicans talk about nonsense

[homersapien 11,402]

Opinion by

Jennifer Rubin

Columnist

June 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. EDT

 

The latest numbers on vaccination rates are telling: Mississippi has the lowest percentage of vaccinated residents, followed by Alabama, Arkansas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee. All except Louisiana have both Republican governors and legislatures, as do the next seven on the list. Among the 14 U.S. senators representing the bottom seven, only two (both in Georgia) are Democrats. The Post reports, “Ten states, concentrated in the Deep South and rural West, report fewer than 35 percent of residents are fully immunized.”

Health care in these deep-red states is generally dreadful. Among the 12 states that have neither expanded nor voted to expand Medicaid, all but three have GOP governors and in those three (North Carolina, Kansas and Wisconsin), a Democratic governor faces a GOP legislature.

Of the 15 poorest states, all but two (Maine and New Mexico) are also deep red. Among the 30 Senate seats from those states, 27 are held by Republicans.

By these or just about any other measures, Republican states are failing to meet the basic needs of their residents. Among unvaccinated Americans, infection rates are climbing. More will get sick in those places, and some will die. Republicans are unwilling or incapable of meeting the challenge.

This sorry sight is unsurprising given that Republicans have all but given up on the notion of governance. At the national level, they consume themselves with race-baiting (e.g., scaring Americans about immigration and critical race theory), assailing private companies (e.g., corporations that defend voting rights, social media platforms, book publishers) and perpetrating the most ludicrous and dangerous lie in memory — that the 2020 election was stolen.

As Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman wrote recently for the New York Times, the GOP “no longer has a cognizable theory of government.” They claim to be economic populists but oppose raising any taxes on the rich and corporations, decry union organizing and attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Freedom” used to be a central theme, but they are on a crusade to criminalize abortion and compel unwilling women to endure nine months of pregnancy — even in cases of rape or incest. They are also in favor of ordering teachers not to teach unfavorable facts about America.

Once upon a time, Republicans claimed to be for “law and order” and friends of the police; then came the grifter-in-chief and the Jan. 6 insurrection. Republicans used to present themselves as free market advocates; then they decided free trade and robust legal immigration were objectionable. And while Republicans used to consider corporations people with First Amendment rights (with the right to make campaign donations), now, they are willing to punish corporations that do not adhere to their agenda.

One might wonder from time to time why Republicans even bother running for election. Because they have so little interest in governing (other than in protecting tax cuts for the rich, shielding the gun lobby from reasonable regulation and dictating women’s reproductive choices), they might as well take on the role of social media trolls and right-wing media guests full-time.

In truth, a great many Republicans simply like to be “important people” with the perks of holding office. It seems the notion of finding other work causes them to break out in a cold sweat, so they adopt insane MAGA positions so as not to offend the mob they helped rile up. Certainly, there are true believers who believe Trumpian rubbish and take right-wing TV hosts’ conspiracies as gospel, but they are a distinct minority. Time and again, we hear from Republican dissenters that most of their colleagues do not really believe the MAGA party lies; what they believe in is the necessity of their own reelection.

Democrats should be more blunt in castigating Republicans who are not even trying to serve their constituents. They should say it often and simply: Republicans have little to notion to offer anyone but the very rich. They rely on scaring and enraging their base both to distract from their lack of interest in governing and to goad supporters to turn out to defeat Democrats. And now, they want to make it harder for critics to vote them out of office. What a racket.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/20/why-so-many-republicans-talk-about-nonsense/

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Well there is a lot of nonsense there.

[caleb1633 1,418]

The pushback against teaching CRT in schools is anything but fear mongering or nonsense.

[DKW 86 7,434]

Quote

As Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman wrote recently for the New York Times, the GOP “no longer has a cognizable theory of government.” They claim to be economic populists but oppose raising any taxes on the rich and corporations, decry union organizing and attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Freedom” used to be a central theme, but they are on a crusade to criminalize abortion and compel unwilling women to endure nine months of pregnancy — even in cases of rape or incest. They are also in favor of ordering teachers not to teach unfavorable facts about America.

Not a Republican by any means...

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Yes we do oppose raising taxes on anybody especially the ones who pay the vast majority of the taxes already. Corporations pass it on to consumers, duh. We want employees to choose whether they want to join a union or not, not to force them to join one as a condition of employment. The ACA was an illegal unconstitutional measure that forces by law individuals to purchase a product from a private company regardless of the consumers desire will or ability to pay. And it dramatically increased medical costs for all. So no. Abortion is a crime. Women have a choice when they spread their legs. Even babies from rape and incest would choose to live if you gave them a choice. Choice scoreboard:  Mother-2. Baby-0. Doesn’t seem fair to anyone unless you have already been born. So yeah Pete is as clueless as any other democrat or liberal about what Republicans are.

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Yes we do oppose raising taxes on anybody especially the ones who pay the vast majority of the taxes already. Corporations pass it on to consumers, duh. We want employees to choose whether they want to join a union or not, not to force them to join one as a condition of employment. The ACA was an illegal unconstitutional measure that forces by law individuals to purchase a product from a private company regardless of the consumers desire will or ability to pay. And it dramatically increased medical costs for all. So no. Abortion is a crime. Women have a choice when they spread their legs. Even babies from rape and incest would choose to live if you gave them a choice. Choice scoreboard:  Mother-2. Baby-0. Doesn’t seem fair to anyone unless you have already been born. So yeah Pete is as clueless as any other democrat or liberal about what Republicans are.

I'm not very familiar with ACA, so I'm not going to take a firm stance either way—though I do tend to believe that the government component of Healthcare should be managed at the state level vice Federal—but didn't the Supreme Court just uphold ACA as Constitutional?

[CoffeeTiger 5,146]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Yes we do oppose raising taxes on anybody especially the ones who pay the vast majority of the taxes already.

Because they have the vast majority of the wealth in the United States. The rich pay the vast majority of the taxes because they are the only ones with the financial means to pay...and they are the only ones who have the ability to pay more than they do now. 

Quote

 

Corporations pass it on to consumers, duh.

Cut out the tax loopholes and force companies to pay what the tax code originally intened for them to pay because they paid our law makers to pass laws to continuously decrease their liabilities over the years. 

Quote

We want employees to choose whether they want to join a union or not, not to force them to join one as a condition of employment.

Incorrect. Most Republicans I know oppose Unions period. This is why even in right to work states, Republican lawmakers and voters regularly campaign strongly against the formation of unions at all. Nobody on earth is more against labor Unions than low wage U.S. Republicans who have never been apart of one. 

Quote

The ACA was an illegal unconstitutional measure that forces by law individuals to purchase a product from a private company regardless of the consumers desire will or ability to pay. And it dramatically increased medical costs for all.

Incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Affordable_Care_Act

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the ACA is constitutional and so is the Mandate. Nobody is forced by law to purchase insurance. If you chose not to have health insurance you were however accessed a tax to help pay for the program. 

The law did increase overall national healthcare spending partly because the law expanded medical coverage to millions of people who did not have access to affordable healthcare before ACA was implemented. ACA also prevented insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions. 

The Republicans have tried multiple times to challenge and kill the ACA through court and congress and have failed every single time...even when they controlled congress. The ACA is popular nationally and the Republicans have failed to propose any new healthcare legislation to replace it even through they have promised to do so for over half a decade. 

Quote

 Abortion is a crime.

Incorrect. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

The supreme court has ruled that Abortion is constitutional and legal in the 1st and 2nd trimester. 

Quote

Women have a choice when they spread their legs.

YES! This is the exact wording anti-abortion advocates use all the time. Has nothing to do with the life of the child, it's all about punishing the woman for her poor decisions. She sinned by having sex and 'opening her legs' for a man so now her only rightful punishment is to be forced to carry a fetus to birth and be a mother to a child she doesn't want.

If we remove the pain and inconvenience of pregnancy and childbirth women will just start thinking they can have sex whenever the want. A good christian nation like the US can't allow that. 

Quote

Even babies from rape and incest would choose to live if you gave them a choice. Choice scoreboard:  Mother-2. Baby-0.

What's funny is that you always say this, but at the same time you believe suicide is a sin and wrong. So people really don't have a choice in life do they? 

The fetuses decision making faculties are not developed enough to make a decision about life in the womb anyway so its a silly argument. 

And of course an actual grown woman has more choice than a clump of cells in her belly. 

 

Quote

So yeah Pete is as clueless as any other democrat or liberal about what Republicans are.

He's pretty spot on. It's mainly Republicans that don't recognize that they are what they are. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[AUFAN78 3,926]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

Opinion by

Jennifer Rubin

Columnist

June 20, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. EDT

 

The latest numbers on vaccination rates are telling: Mississippi has the lowest percentage of vaccinated residents, followed by Alabama, Arkansas, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee. All except Louisiana have both Republican governors and legislatures, as do the next seven on the list. Among the 14 U.S. senators representing the bottom seven, only two (both in Georgia) are Democrats. The Post reports, “Ten states, concentrated in the Deep South and rural West, report fewer than 35 percent of residents are fully immunized.”

Health care in these deep-red states is generally dreadful. Among the 12 states that have neither expanded nor voted to expand Medicaid, all but three have GOP governors and in those three (North Carolina, Kansas and Wisconsin), a Democratic governor faces a GOP legislature.

Of the 15 poorest states, all but two (Maine and New Mexico) are also deep red. Among the 30 Senate seats from those states, 27 are held by Republicans.

By these or just about any other measures, Republican states are failing to meet the basic needs of their residents. Among unvaccinated Americans, infection rates are climbing. More will get sick in those places, and some will die. Republicans are unwilling or incapable of meeting the challenge.

This sorry sight is unsurprising given that Republicans have all but given up on the notion of governance. At the national level, they consume themselves with race-baiting (e.g., scaring Americans about immigration and critical race theory), assailing private companies (e.g., corporations that defend voting rights, social media platforms, book publishers) and perpetrating the most ludicrous and dangerous lie in memory — that the 2020 election was stolen.

As Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman wrote recently for the New York Times, the GOP “no longer has a cognizable theory of government.” They claim to be economic populists but oppose raising any taxes on the rich and corporations, decry union organizing and attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Freedom” used to be a central theme, but they are on a crusade to criminalize abortion and compel unwilling women to endure nine months of pregnancy — even in cases of rape or incest. They are also in favor of ordering teachers not to teach unfavorable facts about America.

Once upon a time, Republicans claimed to be for “law and order” and friends of the police; then came the grifter-in-chief and the Jan. 6 insurrection. Republicans used to present themselves as free market advocates; then they decided free trade and robust legal immigration were objectionable. And while Republicans used to consider corporations people with First Amendment rights (with the right to make campaign donations), now, they are willing to punish corporations that do not adhere to their agenda.

One might wonder from time to time why Republicans even bother running for election. Because they have so little interest in governing (other than in protecting tax cuts for the rich, shielding the gun lobby from reasonable regulation and dictating women’s reproductive choices), they might as well take on the role of social media trolls and right-wing media guests full-time.

In truth, a great many Republicans simply like to be “important people” with the perks of holding office. It seems the notion of finding other work causes them to break out in a cold sweat, so they adopt insane MAGA positions so as not to offend the mob they helped rile up. Certainly, there are true believers who believe Trumpian rubbish and take right-wing TV hosts’ conspiracies as gospel, but they are a distinct minority. Time and again, we hear from Republican dissenters that most of their colleagues do not really believe the MAGA party lies; what they believe in is the necessity of their own reelection.

Democrats should be more blunt in castigating Republicans who are not even trying to serve their constituents. They should say it often and simply: Republicans have little to notion to offer anyone but the very rich. They rely on scaring and enraging their base both to distract from their lack of interest in governing and to goad supporters to turn out to defeat Democrats. And now, they want to make it harder for critics to vote them out of office. What a racket.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/20/why-so-many-republicans-talk-about-nonsense/

I stopped reading after the sixth misrepresentation. WAPO. SMDH. 

[homersapien 11,402]

5 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

The pushback against teaching CRT in schools is anything but fear mongering or nonsense.

What are you afraid of?

[caleb1633 1,418]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What are you afraid of?

Regression and division. Grouping people together by race and characterizing them as being a certain way based on the color of their skin or other immutable traits is not a recipe for progress. It's a recipe for endless division. It's ironic that anyone can call themselves a liberal and favor the teaching of Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theorists actually resent liberalism, as is seen in the Introduction to Critical Race Theory by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic:

 "[C]ritical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order”

and

“[C]ritical race scholars are discontented with liberalism as a framework for addressing America’s racial problems. Many liberals believe in color blindness and neutral principles of constitutional law. They believe in equality, especially equal treatment for all persons, regardless of their different histories or current situations.”

I consider myself a liberal. Many today brand themselves as such but then promote ideologies that are fundamentally against liberalism, such as Critical Race Theory.

[homersapien 11,402]

8 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Regression and division. Grouping people together by race and characterizing them as being a certain way based on the color of their skin or other immutable traits is not a recipe for progress. It's a recipe for endless division. It's ironic that anyone can call themselves a liberal and favor the teaching of Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theorists actually resent liberalism, as is seen in the Introduction to Critical Race Theory by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic:

 "[C]ritical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order”

and

“[C]ritical race scholars are discontented with liberalism as a framework for addressing America’s racial problems. Many liberals believe in color blindness and neutral principles of constitutional law. They believe in equality, especially equal treatment for all persons, regardless of their different histories or current situations.”

I consider myself a liberal. Many today brand themselves as such but then promote ideologies that are fundamentally against liberalism, such as Critical Race Theory.

See my posts on the Critical Race Theory thread:

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/20/1008449181/understanding-the-republican-opposition-to-critical-race-theory

 

CRT sounds like an accurate thesis to me.  I think it's right on.

I also think conservative objections to it are fundamentally irrational.

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by homersapien

[caleb1633 1,418]

Just now, homersapien said:

See my posts on the Critical Race Theory thread.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/20/1008449181/understanding-the-republican-opposition-to-critical-race-theory

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

CRT sounds like an accurate thesis to me.  I think it's right on.

I also think conservative objections to it are fundamentally irrational.

 

Really? So you agree with Derek Bell that there's really been no progress at all on race? That racism just simply became better at disguising itself? You really believe that all white people benefit from white privilege and are complicit in white supremacy? You really believe that it's never a question of IF racism occurred but HOW racism occurred? Because those are all things being taught by CRT. Additionally, to call CRT an analytical tool is laughable. As someone who is an Intel professional that actually works with analytical tools on a daily basis, none of them start with a conclusion (racism) and simply twist anything in such a way that it reinforces that conclusion. Actual analytical tools are diagnostic and self-critical. Critical Race Theory is not. It's anti-analytical. 

To understand how ridiculous this ideology is, think of it this way: Imagine that kids in modern Germany were being taught that Nazism never went away and that all of them are benefiting from Nazi privilege and complicit in a system that perpetuates the systemic oppression of Jews. Sounds ridiculous, right? That's pretty much what our kids are being taught, except in an American context.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."  Martin Luther King Jr.

[homersapien 11,402]

3 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

Really? So you agree with Derek Bell that there's really been no progress at all on race? Can you support that assertion with a quote?

That racism just simply became better at disguising itself? That's largely true. When I was younger - back in the 60's - a large number of racists were unabashedly so, in public. 

As racism has become more unacceptable culturally ("political incorrect"), racists have tended to hide their racism.  Of course recently - with the election of Trump - that has become less so.  MAGA!

 

You really believe that all white people benefit from white privilege... Yes.  That's more or less true.

...and are complicit in white supremacy? Of course not. d

The first doesn't logically mandate the latter.

 

You really believe that it's never a question of IF racism occurred but HOW racism occurred?  It certainly isn't applicable to every individual in every particular case or point in time, but speaking generally - say over the lifetime of any given black person - it's true.

Because those are all things being taught by CRT. Additionally, to call CRT an analytical tool is laughable. As someone who is an Intel professional that actually works with analytical tools on a daily basis, none of them start with a conclusion (racism) and simply twist anything in such a way that it reinforces that conclusion. Actual analytical tools are diagnostic and self-critical. Critical Race Theory is not. It's anti-analytical.  I think you are over-thinking this.  As a 'theory' of racism, it most certainly can be used as an analytical tool.  It reflects a set of precepts which accurately reflect reality.  That you apparently don't understand these precepts - or even reject them - doesn't invalidate the theory, just the opposite. You are bringing a set of biases which prevents you from an objective response.

To understand how ridiculous this ideology is, think of it this way: Imagine that kids in modern Germany were being taught that Nazism never went away and that all of them are benefiting from Nazi privilege and complicit in a system that perpetuates the systemic oppression of Jews. Sounds ridiculous, right? Yes, because your example in no way represents the reality of what CRT is about.  You are assigning your fundamental misconceptions of what CRT is to a different hypothetical case in a way which is just as wrong. 

A better way of addressing your example - a way that more accurately comports with CRT - is for German kids to be taught the common psychology of all people that made the holocaust possible. 

That is, they should be taught how otherwise rational individual can be manipulated through propaganda and fear to embrace or accept irrational ideas.

This psychology applies to all people - of every race - everywhere, not just Germans. (See the Rwandan massacres for an example of people of color behaving like Nazis.)

That's pretty much what our kids are being taught, except in an American context. BS.  That is not what they are being taught. 

While I won't rule out the odd teacher who is ignorant and doesn't understand CRT any more than you do, you need to be able to prove such an general assertion with multiple examples.

 

Edited June 22, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,402]

A good primer on Critical Race Theory by the American Bar Association:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

Edited June 22, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,056]

7 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

I'm not very familiar with ACA, so I'm not going to take a firm stance either way—though I do tend to believe that the government component of Healthcare should be managed at the state level vice Federal—but didn't the Supreme Court just uphold ACA as Constitutional?

In the original case Roberts determined it was unconstitutional as written because the penalty for not buying it was a fine not a tax. So he rewrote it for the democrats and called it a tax and claimed as a tax it was constitutional. This is while Obama was claiming not to raise taxes on middle and lower classes publicly but his lawyers were in the Supreme Court arguing privately that it was a tax not a fine. Roberts saved the ACA by himself by rewriting the bill for Obama. The recent case had to do with the individual mandate being eliminated thus making Obamacare an empty shell. The court did not rule on any merits whatsoever, they only ruled that the states who were suing to abolish it did not have standing to bring the suit. They took the cowards way out.

[caleb1633 1,418]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Really? So you agree with Derek Bell that there's really been no progress at all on race? Can you support that assertion with a quote?

Bell states this explicitly in his 1987 book, And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice: "Progress in American race relations is largely a mirage obscuring the fact that whites continue, consciously or unconsciously, to do all in their power to ensure their dominion and maintain their control.”

 

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

That racism just simply became better at disguising itself? That's largely true. When I was younger - back in the 60's - a large number of racists were unabashedly so, in public. 

As racism has become more unacceptable culturally ("political incorrect"), racists have tended to hide their racism.  Of course recently - with the election of Trump - that has become less so.  MAGA!

Hypothesis contrary to fact. It is well documented how much racial progress has occurred over the decades, to include racial attitudes. Racists still exist, but they are in exponentially fewer numbers now, at least according to data. To think people are just hiding their racism is rather unfalsifiable and is presumptive.

You really believe that all white people benefit from white privilege... Yes.  That's more or less true.

"White Privilege" is a concept that was presented by Peggy McIntosh in a three page essay published in 1989. It didn't have a single citation, and no true data or analysis to support it. It was all her opinion, yet people stamped it as truth because it confirmed their bias. The simplistic narrative of "White Privilege" is a negative generalization that wouldn't be acceptable to place upon any other racial group, and fundamentally goes against the concept of judging people as individuals. It also just simply isn't true. Per Wilfred Reilly, 7 of the 8 most successful ethnic groups in the U.S. are considered minorities. In his book Discrimination and Disparities, Thomas Sowell ascerts that, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Indian Americans, and Jewish Americans all have achieved greater economic success than whites. Asian women actually have higher average incomes than white males. When it comes to disparities between races, simple mathematical adjustments for characteristics such as median age and study time closes almost all of the large racial performance gaps typically attributed to racism. Even where there’s some remaining effect of prejudice relating to a belief that racial minorities perform less well than whites, it is very often smaller than the impact of class, sex, region, or other characteristics.

...and are complicit in white supremacy? Of course not. d

The first doesn't logically mandate the latter.

Then you don't agree with Critical Race Theory, because here's what they believe: 

"All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” - Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good.

“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.

To them, the homeless white veteran living in a gutter has more privilege than Oprah Winfrey.

You really believe that it's never a question of IF racism occurred but HOW racism occurred?  It certainly isn't applicable to every individual in every particular case or point in time, but speaking generally - say over the lifetime of any given black person - it's true.

Then you don't believe in CRT. According to Robin DiAngelo, if a white cashier is working at a store, and a white person and black person come in at the same time, it doesn't matter who is helped first, they are racist. If they help the white person first, it's because they don't think the black person is as important. If they help the black person first, it's because they don't trust them to be in the store alone. "Logic."

 

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Because those are all things being taught by CRT. Additionally, to call CRT an analytical tool is laughable. As someone who is an Intel professional that actually works with analytical tools on a daily basis, none of them start with a conclusion (racism) and simply twist anything in such a way that it reinforces that conclusion. Actual analytical tools are diagnostic and self-critical. Critical Race Theory is not. It's anti-analytical.  I think you are over-thinking this.  As a 'theory' of racism, it most certainly can be used as an analytical tool.  It reflects a set of precepts which accurately reflect reality.  That you apparently don't understand these precepts - or even reject them - doesn't invalidate the theory, just the opposite. You are bringing a set of biases which prevents you from an objective response.

You are wrong about me not understanding CRT. I've been researching Wokeness and CRT in depth for over a year now. I've read their literature, I've seen what they've been pushing, I've researched their ideological roots. I am not wrong in believing that this ideology is divisive and intellectually and morally bankrupt. If anyone is overthinking here, it's the Critical Race Theorists and its proponents who will twist anything into an issue of race. These Woke idiots are the ones trying to say that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but yes, I'm overthinking things.

 

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

To understand how ridiculous this ideology is, think of it this way: Imagine that kids in modern Germany were being taught that Nazism never went away and that all of them are benefiting from Nazi privilege and complicit in a system that perpetuates the systemic oppression of Jews. Sounds ridiculous, right? Yes, because your example in no way represents the reality of what CRT is about.  You are assigning your fundamental misconceptions of what CRT is to a different hypothetical case in a way which is just as wrong. 

A better way of addressing your example - a way that more accurately comports with CRT - is for German kids to be taught the common psychology of all people that made the holocaust possible. 

That is, they should be taught how otherwise rational individual can be manipulated through propaganda and fear to embrace or accept irrational ideas.

This psychology applies to all people - of every race - everywhere, not just Germans. (See the Rwandan massacres for an example of people of color behaving like Nazis.)

Then they would teach against racial scapegoating, something the Nazis did with the ‘stab-in-the-back legend’ about how the Jews cost them World War I. CRT does exactly this by shifting the blame to "Whiteness" and white people for all the problems in our society. Before you usher in a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, that is not me suggesting that we're headed towards "White genocide" or some other kind of Holocaust. Though you might find it enlightening to know that there was recently a shooting in Phenix City, AL where a black man targeted white people who he felt like had "stolen from him." We also have Yahoo News saying that an attack against an Asian person doesn't have to be done by a white person for "White supremacy" to be the cause. This is cult-like thinking. It's a secular religion, and the original sin is "White supremacy" and "Whiteness." They will attempt to center everything around that, which is also why you have the Mayor of Ft. Lauderdale presumptively saying that the man who drove his car into one of the LGBTQ rallies recently was a terrorist (turns out the guy was a parade participant who'd had too much alcohol). This is why you have people foaming at the mouth to try and call the Atlanta sex spa shooting a racist act, even after the FBI assessed the situation to be otherwise. Critical Race Theory has made everyone obsessed with race to the point that they'll see racism even without a shred of evidence that it ever occurred. The double standards of the ideology are also ridiculous. If someone doesn't date women of color, they're racist; but if they date or marry a woman of color, that's considered exoticism, which is also racist. You backing CRT is backing this Woke Cult insanity. Also, yes, I'm sure most minorities have experienced the occasional racist a**hole, but I'd argue it's more of an aberration than the norm. I'm sure there have also been a multitude of instances that have been interpretated as racist that actually weren't. But to the Wokees preaching CRT, racism isn't an individual action. It's the "system." There doesn't even have to be individual racists for the "system" to be racist. 

That's pretty much what our kids are being taught, except in an American context. BS.  That is not what they are being taught. 

While I won't rule out the odd teacher who is ignorant and doesn't understand CRT any more than you do, you need to be able to prove such an general assertion with multiple examples.

How many examples do you require for me to provide?

Our kids are absolutely being taught this kind of crap, and it's also being taught in churches and by corporations. I can provide you plenty of examples.

I think you're using the less than perfect understanding Republicans have of CRT to stonewall a conversation about the merits of teaching the garbage to our kids. The concepts of Wokeness (the overarching ideology that CRT falls under) are vague, but a lack of understanding doesn't negate the merit of their disputes. One doesn't have to be a subject matter expert on Mein Kampf in order to oppose it.