Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

It struck me today that the sad fact is that even with the defeat at the ballot box the question in the title of this thread remains germane.

[pilowsky]

It struck me today that the sad fact is that even with the defeat at the ballot box the question in the title of this thread remains germane.

 

This depends on your definition of democracy.

I've lived and worked all over the world.

I was more uncomfortable in the USA than I was in China.

Australia, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand - all have problems, but these are actual functioning democracies where people look after each other to a much greater extent than in the USA.

In the USA, you have money, or you're dirt.

Lose your job, and you have nothing.

This doesn't happen in actual democracies where every member is valued.

Bernie Saunders would be regarded as a member of the right-wing of the Australian Labour Party.

Not the Chardonnay-swilling socialists and certainly not the 'loony left'.

In the USA, he's not even a member of the Democrats - this is bizarre.

No wonder, so many Americans refuse to accept that a short while ago, they ran concentration and extermination camps (reserves and plantations).

The execrable treatment of straight non-white anglo Saxon protestants whose parents weren't born in the USA continues to this day.

[Winstonm]

This depends on your definition of democracy.

I've lived and worked all over the world.

I was more uncomfortable in the USA than I was in China.

Australia, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand - all have problems, but these are actual functioning democracies where people look after each other to a much greater extent than in the USA.

In the USA, you have money, or you're dirt.

Lose your job, and you have nothing.

This doesn't happen in actual democracies where every member is valued.

Bernie Saunders would be regarded as a member of the right-wing of the Australian Labour Party.

Not the Chardonnay-swilling socialists and certainly not the 'loony left'.

In the USA, he's not even a member of the Democrats - this is bizarre.

No wonder, so many Americans refuse to accept that a short while ago, they ran concentration and extermination camps (reserves and plantations).

The execrable treatment of straight non-white anglo Saxon protestants whose parents weren't born in the USA continues to this day.

I was thinking more of the Republican states’ legislatures setting themselves up to overrule election outcomes.

[johnu]

Lose your job, and you have nothing.

 

In America, if you get seriously sick or injured and don't have health insurance, you will have less than nothing, just like god intended. America is a very religious country.

[pilowsky]

I've been psephologically inclined since I was 13 years old - maybe younger.

The word psephology comes from "pebble".

The basic problem with so-called democracy in the USA is that it isn't. Not all people get to cast a pebble.

 

My politician friends tell me that 30% of voters will always vote Conservative in any election, and 30% will always vote Progressive - whatever name you give the parties.

In the USA, at the last election, 33% of the eligible electorate didn't cast a vote.

If it isn't representative, it isn't democratic.

There are structural barriers to voting in the USA, and the process is regulated by individual states resulting in all kinds of problems.

 

So what does a real democracy look like?

1. Compulsory voting - we get a fine if we don't vote in every election.

2. One house of parliament that carries the franchise for the population - not the unrepresentative swill (quote from Paul Keating) that you find in a system with a senate.

3. Exhaustive preferential voting (it's called something else in the USA - but you don't have it - not run-off elections or first past the post (UK)

4. A federal electoral commission conducts elections for a federal parliament.

5. The commission is independent and adjusts boundaries on a population (not political) basis every five or so years.

The USA fails every one of these basic tests. Although we still have a senate full of useless party hacks and special interest groups, Australia passes most of them.

The structural impediments to voting also mean that there is barely even universal suffrage.

Far from 'no taxation without representation, ' vast tracts of taxpayers with permanent residency cannot vote.

To say nothing of the so-called illegal immigrants that pay tax and keep the US economy ticking over.

Does the Philipino maths teacher (https://bit.ly/EdJulesbergUSA) who helps fill the terrible teacher shortage in the USA get to vote?

If not, why not? She pays taxes.

[Winstonm]

In America, if you get seriously sick or injured and don't have health insurance, you will have less than nothing, just like god intended. America is a very religious country.

Amen to that!

[barmar]

While it's annoying, I can understand how the filibuster evolved to its modern form.

 

It's supposed to encourage debate and compromises, but would that really work in practice? We've seen examples where the Senate is forced to debate things: SCOTUS nominations, impeachment trials. The debates are mostly pro forma, almost totally partisan bloviating. There's no actual discussion taking place, no one is listening to the other side and giving it serious consideration.

 

If they changed the rules so we had to have "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" style filibusters, they'd do it, do nothing would be accomplished. So the current rule is simply acknowledging reality: in our highly polarized and partisan Congress, it's impossible to change the other party's mind on the Senate floor. Making them sit through a "debate" will annoy them, but not solve the problem. And it won't change the minds of constituents; if anything, they'll applaud them for taking a stand.

 

We saw something pass with bipartisan support last week, the creation of the Juneteenth holiday. It's purely symbolic, although meaningful. About the only really substantive thing they ever pass is last minute budget bills to keep the government from shutting down.

[helene_t]

Once we had to make a decision about something brought to a UK co-housing board. I was the only person who voted against the decision.

 

Chairperson: "What is your issue?"

Me: "oh, no big deal, I just disagree"

Chair: "but we all have to agree. Can you live with the decision?"

Me: "Yes, of course I can"

Chair: "OK, then you are supposed to approve!"

 

That was a bit of a culture shock. In Dutch co-housing boards we vote anonymously and with simple majority, the chair breaks a tie, if your side loses you just move on with no hard feelings. In the UK, we keep discussing until there's no disagreement among the shrinking number of delegates that can still be bothered to debate.

 

I suppose the UK model has merits in a culture where there's no partisanship and everyone shares a common aim of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities against the majorities' tyranny.

 

But obviously the Dutch model works better in a modern democracy.

[pilowsky]

Once we had to make a decision about something brought to a UK co-housing board. I was the only person who voted against the decision.

 

Chairperson: "What is your issue?"

Me: "oh, no big deal, I just disagree"

Chair: "but we all have to agree. Can you live with the decision?"

Me: "Yes, of course I can"

Chair: "OK, then you are supposed to approve!"

 

That was a bit of a culture shock. In Dutch co-housing boards we vote anonymously and with simple majority, the chair breaks a tie, if your side loses you just move on with no hard feelings. In the UK, we keep discussing until there's no disagreement among the shrinking number of delegates that can still be bothered to debate.

 

I suppose the UK model has merits in a culture where there's no partisanship and everyone shares a common aim of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities against the majorities' tyranny.

 

But obviously the Dutch model works better in a modern democracy.

 

Elections for my Club in Australia are about to start.

A message came out asking for candidates.

I offered to be the person that everyone disagrees with.

My offer was declined.

[pilowsky]

Now the SDNY is using squid to try and catch whales:

[y66]

Calamari isn’t the only member of this breaded crime ring in trouble, because prosecutors are also investigating Calamari’s son, Matthew Calamari Jr. Like his father, Calamari Jr. hasn’t been officially charged yet, but prosecutors recently advised both men to hire lawyers. You know the world is upside down when the Calamari are ordering lawyers for the whole table.

[akwoo]

Once we had to make a decision about something brought to a UK co-housing board. I was the only person who voted against the decision.

 

Chairperson: "What is your issue?"

Me: "oh, no big deal, I just disagree"

Chair: "but we all have to agree. Can you live with the decision?"

Me: "Yes, of course I can"

Chair: "OK, then you are supposed to approve!"

 

That was a bit of a culture shock. In Dutch co-housing boards we vote anonymously and with simple majority, the chair breaks a tie, if your side loses you just move on with no hard feelings. In the UK, we keep discussing until there's no disagreement among the shrinking number of delegates that can still be bothered to debate.

 

I suppose the UK model has merits in a culture where there's no partisanship and everyone shares a common aim of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities against the majorities' tyranny.

 

But obviously the Dutch model works better in a modern democracy.

 

I think democracy only works in a culture where there's no partisanship and everyone shares a common aim of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities against the majorities' tyranny.

 

Once you lose that, I'm not sure we should bother having democracy at all, because it just devolves into tyranny of ever shrinking majorities.

[johnu]

Yes, there was voter fraud in 2020, and dead people were voting!!!

 

GOP Official’s Curious Explanation on Why He Voted For Trump — On Behalf of His Dead Father

 

Edward Snodgrass, an Ohio Republican, who serves as a Porter Township trustee, recently admitted to voting for his deceased father in the 2020 General Election. The ballot was mailed to his father, H. Edward Snodgrass, on October 6th, a day after his passing. The younger Snodgrass then forged his father’s signature and mailed the ballot, which the local board of elections received on Oct. 15.

 

Snodgrass has provided contrasting explanations of his actions, claiming on one hand that, “I was simply trying to execute a dying man’s wishes.”

 

I don't see the problem??? A white Republican honoring his father's wishes? WTP???

 

Subtract 1 vote in the 2020 election for the twice impeached, one term Individual-1, Manchurian President, Grifter in Chief.

 

He is expected to serve a three-day prison sentence and a fine of $500, yet had he not taken the plea, he could have faced Six or more months in prison with a $5,000 fine.

 

Contrast this to the 5 year prison term for a black Texas woman who wasn't eligible to vote.

 

Texas woman sentenced to five years for trying to vote gets new appeal

[thepossum]

Once we had to make a decision about something brought to a UK co-housing board. I was the only person who voted against the decision.

 

Chairperson: "What is your issue?"

Me: "oh, no big deal, I just disagree"

Chair: "but we all have to agree. Can you live with the decision?"

Me: "Yes, of course I can"

Chair: "OK, then you are supposed to approve!"

 

That was a bit of a culture shock. In Dutch co-housing boards we vote anonymously and with simple majority, the chair breaks a tie, if your side loses you just move on with no hard feelings. In the UK, we keep discussing until there's no disagreement among the shrinking number of delegates that can still be bothered to debate.

 

I suppose the UK model has merits in a culture where there's no partisanship and everyone shares a common aim of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities against the majorities' tyranny.

 

But obviously the Dutch model works better in a modern democracy.

 

Once I had to chair a body corporate meeting. Somebody brought an issue for their place. We had an extended discussion that maybe we could all plan something as a group, and we agreed to all abstain. When it came to the vote though everyone abstained except for the person who brought the issue. It was passed by one vote :)

 

Thats democracy. Not quite the consensus we had hoped for

 

I think many associations have a goal of consensus but obviously you cant force a consensus. :)

[thepossum]

I think democracy only works in a culture where there's no partisanship and everyone shares a common aim of protecting the interests of vulnerable minorities against the majorities' tyranny.

 

Once you lose that, I'm not sure we should bother having democracy at all, because it just devolves into tyranny of ever shrinking majorities.

 

Which country do you live in. I would like to avoid it if possible :)

 

But obviously if it works and there is a person or group who know what's best for everyone who needs democracy. EDIT If they leave it at just thinking they know what's best, talking about what's best, even lecturing about what's best, that's ok, but the next step .....

 

Speaking of tyranny though I was particularly taken by the concept of tyranny of the majority when I first heard about it

[johnu]

What Is the Dark Triad, and Why Are People With These Personality Traits So Dangerous? Here's What Experts Say

 

The term the dark triad was coined by two researchers in 2002. It describes a witches' brew of three different but interrelated negative personality types. You've probably heard of them:

 

Narcissism: defined as feeling superior and entitled, but underneath the grandiosity is typically a sense of inadequacy

 

Machiavellianism: being highly manipulative, willing to deceive others to get what they want and having a cynical view of the world

 

Psychopathy: lacking empathy and being emotionally cold, while also impulsive and prone to taking big risks

 

"Central to these types is a person's disregard for others and an obsession with self," Paul Hokemeyer, PhD, a psychotherapist and author of Fragile Power: Why Having Everything Is Never Enough, tells Health. "They lack compassion, empathy, and a moral compass."

 

People with dark triad traits rate high in their willingness to exploit anyone to get ahead, and they experience little remorse when they cause harm to others. They can also be duplicitous and aggressive.

 

The only thing this article lacked was a real life example. It didn't take long to come up with the #1 example in the entire world. The twice impeached, one term Individual-1, Manchurian President, Grifter in Chief Trump.

[y66]

Rudy Giuliani’s Law License Suspended in New York by Deanna Paul at WSJ

 

A New York court suspended Rudy Giuliani’s state law license Thursday after concluding that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” in his effort to reverse the results of the 2020 election in favor of former President Donald Trump.

 

Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, represented Mr. Trump as his personal attorney during the latter years of his presidency. After the 2020 election, Mr. Giuliani led a legal team that laid out sprawling and unsupported allegations of a conspiracy between Democratic officials and foreign governments to steal the presidential election for Joe Biden.

 

“These false statements were made to improperly bolster [Giuliani’s] narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client,” the New York appellate division wrote in an order based on the findings of a continuing investigation by its attorney-grievance committee.

 

The 33-page order said that Mr. Giuliani’s conduct threatened the public interest, warranting its decision to suspend his license while the committee completes an investigation into numerous complaints against him for professional misconduct.

You hate to see it.

[Winstonm]

Rudy Giuliani's Law License Suspended in New York by Deanna Paul at WSJ

 

 

You hate to see it.

 

Yes, but notice he has not been disbarred; disbarring is a lawyer thing, lawyers protecting lawyers: what happened here was a judge's decision. Whereas the police investigate themselves behind a blue wall, lawyers also investigate themselves behind a gray flannel wall.

 

In all such cases there should be limited self investigation and the more serious investigation should be from independent organizations.

[Winstonm]

Here's another Amen, brother!

 

 

 

Pastors, congregations, confessions—all elements of religion today. And a new Justice Department court filing. The DOJ announced Thursday it has charged a Florida pastor and his minister son in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. According to the criminal complaint, James Cusick, the father, and Casey Cusick, the son, were each charged with illegal entry in a federal building, disorderly conduct, and violent behavior at the Capitol. The pair's involvement was disclosed to the FBI by David Lesperance, a congregant of their church who was also at the Capitol and later interviewed by the feds. Authorities also found body-cam and CCTV footage depicting the Cusicks inside the Capitol at the time of the riot.

 

The father and son are the pastor and vice president, respectively, of Global Outreach Church in Melbourne, Florida. There is no word on whether divine intervention prompted the two to storm the Capitol.

 

[y66]

U.S. police officers quit and retired at unusually high rates last year.

[y66]

Reportedly, there’s a deal on an infrastructure bill, which may or may not have the votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate and may not even have enough votes to clear the House and at any rate will be vetoed by President Joe Biden unless a different bill including other portions of his original proposal is passed and while no one knows what that bill would look like, if it does in fact pass it would almost certainly have to do so with only Democratic votes, which means it would have to go through the budget-reconciliation procedure in the Senate.

 

Got that?

 

As political scientist Matt Glassman said, “Regardless of who does it, when the legislative filibuster eventually gets blown up---and absent some major development, it'll be sooner rather than later---stuff like this whole two-bill reconciliation tandem bike negotiation episode is gonna look plain bananaland in retrospect.”

 

So let’s sort this deal through, and see why it’s not “bananaland” under the current rules. In fact, it’s a rather clever solution to a complicated problem, even though it involves a lot of hostage-taking.

 

1. Biden and pretty much every congressional Democrat want a very large infrastructure package, which would include funding for a sprawling hodgepodge of both traditional and less traditional stuff.

 

2. A handful of Democrats, including Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, care deeply about burnishing their reputations for bipartisanship.

 

3. Quite a few Republicans would like at least some of this spending to pass, including several who also want to prove their bipartisanship.

 

4. Most Republicans, whether they want infrastructure spending or not, have exactly the opposite goal. They very much do not want to be seen doing anything that looks even remotely bipartisan. If Biden is for it, they want to be against it.

 

Making everyone happy under these conditions was tricky, but it appears that this deal has come close. We’re to have two bills. One will be bipartisan, worked out in negotiations among the White House and a group of Democratic and Republican senators. It will include the kinds of projects that Republicans are happy to back and will be paid for without cutting spending that Democrats like or raising taxes that Republicans don’t like — in large part, this will be done by only pretending to pay for it (which economists find reasonable, given both the long-term payoffs of infrastructure and low interest rates). That bill will need 60 votes to defeat the filibuster.

 

A second bill will contain spending for all the other things that Biden proposed and Democrats want. It will be passed in the Senate under the reconciliation rules, which protect some bills from the filibuster. It has yet to be negotiated, but it will have to keep Manchin and Sinema on board, as well as the most liberal lawmakers in Congress. With no margin of error in the Senate and only a slim majority in the House, Democrats can’t afford to lose anyone.

 

Why not just cut a deal over the whole thing? Because the votes probably aren’t there. Only a handful of House Republicans would be willing to vote for any high-profile bipartisan bill, and anything that relatively moderate Republicans sign on to is going to lose at least some of the most liberal House Democrats. So even a compromise bill that could win 60 votes in the Senate (should it be possible) might well fail in the House.

 

The two-bill solution solves this problem by promising progressives that if they vote for the bipartisan plan, they’ll also get their priorities funded separately. Not everything they want — it has to get through Manchin and Sinema. But the idea is that Manchin and Sinema got what they really wanted Thursday, with a White House ceremony celebrating bipartisanship and compromise. As long as they care more about that than they do about the substance, it should all work out. Even if the bipartisan bill falls short (the group that negotiated the deal included only five Republican senators, which means they’ll need five more).

 

The good news late Thursday was that none of the five Republicans had backed away, even when Biden explicitly said that he would only sign the bipartisan bill if the reconciliation bill also passes. That suggests they had agreed to the two-bill plan, even though they won’t vote for the second part of it. It also suggests (as reporting indicates) that they trust Biden and the Democrats to use the second bill only for those items that were completely omitted from the compromise bill. After all, Republicans bargained down the totals spent on roads and bridges and so on in the bipartisan bill; they don’t want those numbers topped up when the second bill is drafted.

 

There are two paths to success from here. The first is the two-bill plan agreed to today. It’s possible that the five Republican negotiators have at least five allies prepared to support the first measure; that all 10 (or more) will stick with it as things move forward; and that Democrats will reach agreement on the second bill and hang together to vote for both. The other path? The bipartisan bill fails to get 60 votes in the Senate, but having made their point and received their credit, Manchin and Sinema negotiate a single bill they (and their most liberal colleagues) can live with, and pass it with only Democratic votes through reconciliation. Should that happen, it’s possible that the totals negotiated in the bipartisan deal could be revisited, although the swing votes would then have considerable leverage.

 

Or it could all fall apart. If the bipartisan deal fails to get 60 votes in the Senate, and if even one Democrat there refuses to move ahead with a Democrats-only single bill, then no deal will pass. Or if the liberals and moderates can’t agree on the reconciliation bill. Or … well, there are other things that can go wrong. My guess, though, is that this is the least likely outcome from where we are now.

[y66]

Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admonished lawmakers over questions about critical race theory at a Wednesday hearing, saying it is important for leaders to be well-versed in many schools of thought.

 

“I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist,” Milley told the House Armed Services Committee. “So what is wrong with understanding … the country which we are here to defend?”

 

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) criticized reports that the U.S. Military Academy teaches a course involving the theory, which broadly explores the idea that racism reaches beyond individual prejudice and affects minorities at the institutional level, particularly in criminal justice.

 

The course at the academy includes phrases such as “White rage,” Waltz claimed, and he pressed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the nation’s first Black Pentagon chief, to investigate further.

 

Soon after, when the committee gave Milley a chance to expand, he launched into an impassioned defense of inquiry about U.S. society and its racial dynamics.

 

“I want to understand White rage. And I’m White,” Milley said, focused on learning more about the mostly White, mostly male mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

 

“What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America. What caused that?” Milley asked. “I want to find that out.”

 

Milley said he was offended that critics, among them lawmakers and right-wing commentators like Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have accused the military of being “woke or something else because we’re studying some theories that are out there.”

[kenberg]

CRT has become a much talked about subject, especially the teaching of CRT in schools. Does anyone have some direct knowledge of how this actually plays out in schools?

 

I'll use a different topic to try to explain what I am getting at. In my high school psycholgy course, the teacher, who I liked then and remeber kindly now, gave the following opinion on sex:

 

"No girl, no matter how modern she thinks she is, can really be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage"

 

Here is my point: Whatever you think of that statement, we were not given an exam question that read "Can a girl be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage?". Answer yes or no, pass or fail.

 

He was a good man, he gave his opinion on various matters, we were not required to accept his opinions as fact and confirm them on exams.

 

 

A substantial exploration of various thoughts on American History is fine with me. I would not be so happy if tenets of CRT, views rather than historical facts, are presented as indisputable truth that must be recited as fact in order to pass a course. George Washington did not confess to his father that he had cut down the cherry tree and the Revolutionary War (yes, I said Revolutionary, not Civil) was not fought to preserve slavery. If I had to agree to either of these claims in order to get a high school diploma there would be problems.

So. In general I would like to hear just what happens in, say, a ninth-grade classroom where CRT is being taught. In particular, I would like to know if it is acceptable for students to disagree.

Does anyone have direct experience with what is being taught and how? By direct experience I mean, for example, they have kids who are taking such a ninth-grade class.

 

Side-note: In my high school history class we skipped the section of the text on the war with Mexico since (I assume this was the reason) it made the US look like a land grabber. So I read it on my own. I approve of taking a good hard look. But it should be an inquiry where discussion is expected and alternative views are allowed and even encouraged.

 

 

Much of the debate over CRT seems to be devoid of actual statements such as "Here is the text the students use, here is the exam that they must take". My views on the teaching of CRT would be heavily influenced by such information.

[Winstonm]

CRT has become a much talked about subject, especially the teaching of CRT in schools. Does anyone have some direct knowledge of how this actually plays out in schools?

 

I'll use a different topic to try to explain what I am getting at. In my high school psycholgy course, the teacher, who I liked then and remeber kindly now, gave the following opinion on sex:

 

"No girl, no matter how modern she thinks she is, can really be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage"

 

Here is my point: Whatever you think of that statement, we were not given an exam question that read "Can a girl be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage?". Answer yes or no, pass or fail.

 

He was a good man, he gave his opinion on various matters, we were not required to accept his opinions as fact and confirm them on exams.

 

 

A substantial exploration of various thoughts on American History is fine with me. I would not be so happy if tenets of CRT, views rather than historical facts, are presented as indisputable truth that must be recited as fact in order to pass a course. George Washington did not confess to his father that he had cut down the cherry tree and the Revolutionary War (yes, I said Revolutionary, not Civil) was not fought to preserve slavery. If I had to agree to either of these claims in order to get a high school diploma there would be problems.

So. In general I would like to hear just what happens in, say, a ninth-grade classroom where CRT is being taught. In particular, I would like to know if it is acceptable for students to disagree.

Does anyone have direct experience with what is being taught and how? By direct experience I mean, for example, they have kids who are taking such a ninth-grade class.

 

Side-note: In my high school history class we skipped the section of the text on the war with Mexico since (I assume this was the reason) it made the US look like a land grabber. So I read it on my own. I approve of taking a good hard look. But it should be an inquiry where discussion is expected and alternative views are allowed and even encouraged.

 

 

Much of the debate over CRT seems to be devoid of actual statements such as "Here is the text the students use, here is the exam that they must take". My views on the teaching of CRT would be heavily influenced by such information.

 

I have a granddaughter in private school here in ruby-red Oklahoma, a state that recently passed an anti-CRT law. I'll try to find out if there is any affect.

 

That said, it seems to me that trying to understand systemic racism is a squishy undertaking - that it is impossible to quantify. There are statistics - black Americans are arrested and convicted and sent to prison at a much greater rate than their percentage of total population would suggest: why that is so is squishy. And from what I know, that question is pretty much the impetus of CRT in legal theory, and it began as a narrow concern within law school academia.

 

Squishy should be a part of the learning experience. How else do you teach critical thinking? I don't think it is what students are taught but how they taught to think for themselves that is of critical importance.

[Gilithin]

CRT has become a much talked about subject, especially the teaching of CRT in schools. Does anyone have some direct knowledge of how this actually plays out in schools?

From what I have picked up from interviews with actual educators, there appears to be no state in which CRT is actually taught as part of the syllabus at school level. This is different at university level, where CRT is routinely taught in appropriate subjects. Certain aspects that are included in CRT, such as facts concerning the history of the USA, are of course taught in schools. If the current laws being introduced in red states were to ban such facts being taught to students, I would regard that as problematic but in fairness not more problematic than being allowed to teach the Big Bang over creationism or that the world is not flat despite certain Bible passages.