Derrick Bell believed his country had fallen (Steve Liss/Getty Images)
The Karl Marx of critical race theory was a bespectacled, mild-mannered man with a slightly whimsical voice. Born a year after Martin Luther King Jr, Derrick Bell became the first black American to be a tenured professor at Harvard Law School. It should never have happened: neither of his parents attended college, and Bell himself had studied at the relatively undistinguished Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Today, his central argument, that racism is a permanent feature of American society, is now mainstream.
Critical race theory is now widely accepted by the liberal-Left media and much of academia. It’s not just the bad laws of the Jim Crow south. And it’s not just a few racist people here and there. Racism is not some bad apples; it is as American as apple pie.
For Martin Luther King and, later, Barack Obama, American racism was the consequence of a liberal and egalitarian country failing to live up to its principles; for supporters of critical race theory, by contrast, these principles were predicated on the subjugation of black people. The American Dream is rotten to the core.
In critical race theory, then, the key historical moment is not the abolition of slavery — or the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which brought an end to segregation in public places — but the 1954 Supreme Court ruling that “separate but equal” public schooling was unconstitutional. It violated the fourteenth amendment — which, after former slaves were granted citizenship, had assured all citizens “equal protection of the laws”. If black Americans have separate schooling, they can’t realise that equality: so concluded the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.
This seems like a tremendous achievement. Indeed, in many standard textbooks on the history of the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board is seen as the first big crack in the edifice of Old Jim Crow. But the founding father of critical race theory was sceptical about its positive impact. In an article published in the Harvard Law Review in 1980, Bell argued that the decision was based on:
“value to whites, not simply those concerned about the immorality of racial inequality, but also those whites in policymaking positions able to see the economic and political advances at home and abroad that would follow abandonment of segregation.”
In other words, the decision was motivated not by principled idealism but cynical self-interest. Domestic legislation in the fifties was shadowed by the Cold War — and in the battle against communism, America wanted to be seen as a moral exemplar.
But Bell’s critique of Brown v. Board runs deeper than this. Bell considered himself a realist, and viewed those who celebrated Supreme Court victories with bemusement. A few laws don’t change 250 years of slavery followed by 100 years of segregation and terror. “My position”, he wrote in his 1992 Faces at the Bottom of the Well, “is that the legal rules regarding racial discrimination have become not only reified (that is, ascribing material existence and power to what are really just ideas) … but deified”. This is because “the worship of equality rules as having absolute power benefits whites by preserving a benevolent but fictional self-image, and such worship benefits blacks by preserving hope”.
Hope was the very emotion, however, that animated the politics of King and Obama. (The latter’s second book was entitled: The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.) But Bell is having none of this.
“I think,” he writes, “we’ve arrived at a place in history where the harms of such worship outweigh its benefit”. Those who persist in clinging on to the vision of the nation as a bastion of enlightened values are, according to him, at best naive.
This display of world-weariness, in contrast to doe-eyed idealism, is one shared by the most esteemed black American intellectual in the second term of Obama’s presidency: Ta-Nehisi Coates. No one writes much about Coates anymore. Perhaps because he left Twitter. The last memorable thing he did was base a villain in a comic book on Jordan Peterson. But six years ago, after the publication of his book Between the World and Me, which won the National Book Award for Nonfiction, he was anointed by Toni Morrison as James Baldwin’s successor — the nation’s intellectual and moral conscience on matters of race.
Coates isn’t a theoretician like Bell; he is a polemicist. In his writing, the realist attitude central to Bell’s critical race theory is expressed with piquant force. Racism is a constitutive part of America’s identity, Coates argues, and anyone who deviates from this fact is deluded, naive or malevolent. “There is nothing”, Coates writes about racists, “uniquely evil in these destroyers or even in this moment. The destroyers are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy”.
Coates is known for his essays in The Atlantic, which are stylish, personal, historical and very long. The overall mood is one of disenchantment. The American Dream is not for black people. Between the World and Me is written as a letter to his son, and it contains no consoling words for the future: “I have no praise anthems, nor old Negro spirituals”. The view that the moral arc of history bends towards justice is an illusion. “America”, Coates writes, “understands itself as God’s handiwork, but the black body is the clearest evidence that America is the work of men”. He is an atheist.
Bell was not; he was a Christian. And his detached pessimism was tempered by an aggressive moralism. In his book, Ethical Ambition, which mixes memoir and self-help, he emphasised that:
“humanity at its essence is both an ongoing readiness to recognize wrongs and try to make things better, and the desire to help those in need of assistance without expecting reward or public recognition”.
So there is a point in being human, and that point is to do good. The virtues that are most important to Bell are “passion, courage, faith, relationships, inspiration and humility”. He often reads less like a radical subversive than a hokey Grandpa, slipping you moral maxims rather than sweets. Which raises the question: how can someone with such piety end up conceiving an ideology characterised by doleful pessimism?
Bell is in truth an unlikely candidate for the godfather of critical race theory, an ideology sceptical about the positive impact of anti-racist legislation. When he was younger, he worked for the NAACP, the establishment anti-racism group that believed American society could be transformed through the legal system. He worked, in particular, as a civil rights lawyer in the fifties Deep South. But eventually the US Justice Department’s Civil Rights division asked him to stop being a member of the NAACP: they thought he couldn’t be objective. He quit his position in the department, but continued to work for the anti-racist organisation.
One plausible way to reconcile these two sides of Bell — the moralist and the pessimist — is to emphasise his Christianity. He believed in the permanence of racism just like any Christian believes in the inevitability of sin — nevertheless, the inevitability of sin does not mean we shouldn’t try to be better.
But perhaps a better way to account for this tension — a way that explains the similarities between Bell and non-Christians like Coates — is to view his conception of critical race theory as a case of thwarted idealism in the American Dream. America did not become a post-racial utopia after the civil rights revolution; therefore racism is a permanent feature of American society. Just like every passionate atheist is in some sense an inverted believer, people like Bell who are so antagonistic to American idealism belie their underlying attachment to it. This is true of critical race theory in general.
Although he is not a Christian, Coates is as profoundly American as Bell. His criticism of the nation is animated by his acceptance of American exceptionalism. “One cannot”, he writes, “at once, claim to be superhuman and then plead mortal error”. His proposal is this: “to take our countrymen’s claims of American exceptionalism seriously, which is to say I propose subjecting our country to an exceptional moral standard”. In other words, he takes at face value the ideals of the American Dream (the very same American Dream that, he argues, is not for black people).
Meanwhile, the opponents of critical race theory see its ideas as hostile to — or at least inconsistent with — America (Fox News has mentioned it over 1,900 times in four months). In an exact inversion of critical race theory’s contention that racism is present in every aspect of American life, many on the Right — in this case, Christopher Rufo — now complain that critical race theory has “pervaded every aspect of the federal government” and poses “an existential threat to the United States”. Rufo and his ilk aren’t opposed to, say, teaching the history of slavery and segregation in American schools; what they oppose is schoolchildren acknowledging their whiteness. Rufo calls it state-sanctioned racism.
The irony is that critical race theory is not, as it sees itself, a realist’s ideology. And it is not, as its main opponents view it, fundamentally un-American. Like many on the conservative American Right, it espouses an idealised view of the nation’s self-professed values: if they truly believed these values were fundamentally corrupt, then what would be the point, as Bell and Coates do, of holding America to them? The truly realist position is one like Coleman Hughes’s: he has shown, with evidence and dispassionate argumentation, that black Americans have made material progress in recent decades.
Although Rufo may deny this of himself, many on the conservative Right do cling on to a form of American idealism that is insensitive to the existence of racism. But critical race theorists cling on to their own idealism by concluding that, because America is not yet a post-racial society, racism is an inexorable feature of the country. The vision of the shining city on a hill becomes the sole means by which to judge the nation — while the material realities of black people fade into the distance.
This piece was originally published in August.
Tomiwa Owolade is a freelance writer and the author of This is Not America, which is out in paperback in May.
tomowolade 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Democrat masters are trading a corpse for an airhead.
What is the point of the article? The authors argument seems to boil down to the proposition that US politics have always been rottenly corrupt, so don’t get upset by the blatant evidence of corruption in the elevation of Kamala Harris, and ignore the Republican expressions of “shocked, SHOCKED” indignation
What a load of bullshit.
I’ll skip over the whole covering up of Biden’s condition since really the 2020 election.
Bottom line?
She was appointed and not elected. She was appointed by a cabal of political operatives such as Obama and by donors.
She has NEVER in her life achieved based on her own merits. She has never won a single delegate through a primary process. She has never held her own in a debate. Most of her achievements are negative ones.
AG of CA? OMG….what a God awful, heinous, mess of cruelty and incompetence.
Senator? Absolutely nothing of note. Lot of posturing and word salads but no major achievements either on her own or through influence with other senators.
As VP? Largely kept hidden and then sacrificed to cover the border. She was only selected because Biden wanted a black woman on the ticket and because she would accept being kept under cover and not form a power center of her own.
The woman is an empty vessel.
This can’t be serious.
This is a stunning example of bait-and-switch. Instead of addressing the plausible claims (which, of course, don’t make them true) of behind the scenes Democrat elite anointing Harris, we are taken in a time machine back to the Andrew Jackson era and the wild claims of conspiracies swirling around him. As once, so ever more – nothing to see here with Harris. In the meantime, plausible arguments about Harris aren’t refuted, but surrounded in a fog of dissembled ignorance.
The sudden deification of Kamala Harris in the wake of Joe Biden dropping out of the presidential race does make one feel rather queasy.
Joe Biden was suddenly discoverd to have serious cognitive problems when that condition could no longer be covered up. KH knew this all along, but she is unlikely to be questioned by supine media about her prior claims that JB was mentally 100% until the day that he was found not to be.
Joe Biden gave his VP the poisoned chalice of responsibility for the southern border. Now her supportive news and current affairs media are claiming that never happened (perhaps on the spurious grounds that “border czar” was not her actual job title).
Since her coronation as the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate, Kamala Harris has faced no serious probing questions about her policy history, or the meaning of the oft repeated inanities masquerading as the ultimate of profundities. She may be able to float all the way to the Oval Office without any serious challenge. Tulsi Gabbard took her to task successfully in the 2020 presidential race, but her party can probably make sure that no one else will this time.
Without the history lesson part – I’ve read about 500 posts on X that say the same thing as the author. Unherd is supposed to be presenting alternate view and takes on issues. Literally every article discussing Trump on Unherd hews closely to progressive mainstream narrative.
The author conspicuously elides that Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, the party that forcibly relocated Native Americans, was pro-slavery, and authored Jim Crow laws after slavery. In the constant drumbeat of the sins of the past those indisputable truths are always conveniently omitted.
And you ignore, along with many who try to assert unbroken party lines since 1960–or in your case since pre-1860– that the Republicans became the party of Southern whites and far-flung nativists after the Brown vs. Board of education decision in 1954. Then the Southern Strategy became more deliberate with Nixon, in the wake of the Johnson’s Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Remember?
Does the Democratic National Party pay you the going hourly rate for interns or by posts in websites where you are a figure of fun?
Have you ever made a substantive contribution or even said one thing that couldn’t be predicted by knowing you like Fox News, angry right-wing radio, and drinking cheap beer?
Unherd has fallen into the usual business model…pretend to be ‘centrist’, but only offer up leftist bollocks so people will pay to disagree.
Does UnHerd pay by the word? This sprawling essay would seem to say so. As word salads go, even Kamala would be hard pressed to top it.
What about Trump?
I agree with those who observe that this article is not very coherent or worthwhile, with the exception of a few historical “fun facts”. Mr. Kaufman can do better, and has in the past here. But I would readily bet that if his ridicule were pointed at rabid conspiracists on the Left–of whom there’s for sure no shortage–it would be celebrated by most of the (un)herd, at least among the outspoken commenters.
I wish less of what they published here seemed calculated to confirm existing outrage along “tribal” lines–or concoct even more of it. I still (want to) believe that some sizable percentage of this readership, perhaps even a plurality, is capable of real engagement and good-faith exchange, when given the raw material to help that along. Stop underestimating us!
Before Biden’s elimination, I opined that Democrats were propping him up only to remove him for Harris after the election. But Biden’s feebleness and loss of public support accelerated that plan. One question may be whether the gun used to shoot at Trump was the same one pointed at Biden to coerce his resignation. (8^)
How many times over the last four years have observers speculated that the plan hatched behind the scenes was for Biden to step aside so Harris could become President? Now that has effectively happened, suddenly any reference to it is just a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
And for good measure, stun the audience with the detail that billionaire Trump has been involved in 4,000 legal actions in the lawsuit capital of the planet. It would have been quicker to just call readers ‘deplorables’ and demand we don’t believe the evidence of our lying eyes.
Not sure if I should bloviate or hyperventilate after reading that article.
The Democrats have been, since the end of the Civil War, the party of Power for long periods of time. They had, for most of the last century, two bases of that power; the industrial Northeast and the old ex-slaver South. In the House of Representatives the Southerners controlled all the money and procedural committees through seniority while the liberal wing ran foreign affairs and attended to the image of the party. All this worked well under Roosevelt and Truman, even Kennedy, but the alliance came unstuck when Johnson forced through Civil Rights. Nixon formed the Southern Strategy and the old Confederate states went steadily Republican.
Where were the Democrats to find a new second power base? The answer, now luridly apparent, is California. It’s easy to forget that sixty years ago California was a Republican stronghold that elected its native son, Nixon. Even, a lifetime later, that Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor..
In the month between Biden’s disaster in debate and his announcement of withdrawal a vicious fight took place between Democrat factions. The Obama/ Blinken group who had been managing Biden’s Presidency lost out. The Clintonites barely got to the starting line even with Alex Soros on their team. The winners are the San Francisco Mafia. Nancy Pelosi, her dauphin Gavin Newsome, their placewoman Kamala Harris. The victory announcement took the form of widespread news stories that Nancy had told Joe ‘We can do this the easy way or the hard way; you have three weeks…’
California has completely replaced the Old South as the Democrats’ rotten borough. As consolations the Republicans dominate Florida and (for now) Texas.
Until January 2025 the US government will be absent from the world. Biden may as well be dead. Blinken, his faction defeated, is on a farewell tour of Asia. Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Israel will do what they see fit to do without reference to Washington. Interesting times!
“everything is in context”.
And the context here is that Kamala and everyone else in the DNC apparatus knew that Joe was damaged goods. They lied about it and tried to hide it until the debate made that no longer possible. The writer can twist, squirm, prevaricate, and obfuscate, but people have learned to trust their lying eyes.
Of course, if charges of corruption don’t harm Harris, there’s always her race and sex.
You mean the factors that made her the running mate in the first place? Because let’s not revise history to pretend otherwise. Biden was explicit in saying his running mate would be a female racial minority. It was Joe who eliminated about 90% of the potential candidate pool from consideration.
The condescension from white guys like this author who insist that women and racial minorities be treated with kid gloves is exactly why DEI is hated by many. It’s an insistence on watered-down standards that says even the writer does not believe Kamala measures up, that she cannot possibly be held to the same standards as the white politicians, especially the white male ones, like her boss.
Thanks for this piece that reminds Americans that our political past is anything but spotless. However I do think that based upon recent standards, the fact that Kamala ascends to the nomination with zero democratic votes is breathtaking, at the very least.
Honestly, watching Camela Harris speak with a southern drawl at a southern rally was about the most obviously coup like and banana republic behaviour I’ve ever seen. She’s literally cringe acting her way into the presidency to cringe lefty people.
Your deliberate misspelling of her name is pretty cringe too, dude. “Literally” holmes.
Oh please. What blather. Harris is an unqualified, unserious candidate bereft of executive experience.
She has plenty of a certain kind of experience. She was known as “heels up Kamala” for providing a certain service under the desk of SF Mayor Willie Brown, Jr., who from gratitude and appreciation launched her on her political career.
She wasn’t known by that and isn’t now, except among incels, insult comics, and other people afraid of women in power.
Perhaps you divide your time between this place, X, 4chan, and open mic night at the Southern Chuckle Huts.
Good article. But ALL US presidential candidates and definitely all winners are selected after complex, behind the scenes deals get made. Wall Street money supports KH because she promises to give them what they want, whereas Wall Street can’t quite trust DT – he’s too much of a wild card.
I don’t care for the language of this article. Anyone who is not a democrat is obviously unable to convey information without being told they wrote “bloviated headlines|, or “pontificated” and “harangued” according the writer. It was a coup so don’t shoot the messengers.
I guess it’s fine for UnHerd to cover all political sides but, frankly, this was just a waste of time.
Didn’t read a word of this. Only clicked it because I knew the comments would be so delicious!
It would not surprise me if the Democrats pull the 25th on Biden a short while before the election, so Harris can get a bump by becoming President, and reading a Presidential speech her scriptwriters have written, but not so far in advance that she can make a mess of being President.
Joe Biden is perfectly healthy and capable of being President for the next 6 months.
It is perfectly normal for the President not to be seen for 6 days while he has a mild cold.
Kamala Harris was never in charge of the Border.
It is perfectly normal for the President to nominate somebody to be the next President, and then never show up at her campaign rallies.
Kamala Harris is 59 and appeals to the young voters.
Whodathunk Part 2:
Donald Trump is an honorable man who didn’t try to cheat his nephew out of his inheritance.
He didn’t assault E. Jean Carroll.
He didn’t try to “find” over 10,000 votes in Georgia.
He didn’t watch a violent mob, that he had riled up, run rampant on his cherished TV for hours.
He did a wonderful job as president, was respected by non-authoritarian leaders, and now belongs back in the White House in his late 70s so he can, in his own words, exact ultimate retribution and revenge, both for himself and his ever-credulous minions.
AJ Mac divides his time between here, the Guardian and MSNBC.
I’m more of a CNN and NewsNation guy. I like a portion of the NYT and I’ll check the WSJ and National Review**. The Guardian and MSNBC both tend to be too biased and off-center for me. I think I’m less bubble bound than most, and I spend plenty of time away from all of it.
What’s your media diet? Is this the closest thing to a moderate source you can dip your delicate toes into?
*Yeah no response after the insult-comic cheap shot, your specialty. Thought I’d try you anyway.
**And PBS, the BBC, Loury and McWhorter, the Bulwark, the Economist, New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc. not all the time and not every day–you?
You usually bring a mild version of the tone I remember from wading into the muck of Breitbart years ago. Are you even in favor of anything?
She goes from no hope political plodder to saviour of American democracy and international political titan inside a fortnight? Seems to me that the same cabal that kept Hunter’s laptop out of the papers and Joe’s mental incapacity away from the American public is still running the show. In Kamala they have the perfect candidate, a DEI sock-puppet who’ll say and do whatever the autocue tells her to.
You know how some bird flocks like starlings are able to turn on a dime as if they have telepathic communition? That describes the American news media in its various forms. Even the words and phrases are the same, like JD Vance is “weird” and pro-abortion females should not be described as single women with cats and causes because… well, because.
Yawn. More lies from the stupid left.
This article is bizarre. No proof of a “plot to swap the octogenarian commander-in-chief at the top of the ticket for Veep Kamala Harris without voter approval” is needed. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a literal description of what just happened. The Democrat Party actively hid the mental decline of Biden during the Primaries, blocking any debate that would have allowed registered Democrat voters to see for themselves the decline so obvious just a few months later in the debate with Trump. And now the Democrat Party has switched Biden’s campaign funds to Harris, annointing her the new Democrat candidate without any vote in any Democrat Primary ever being won by Harris.
Good Lord! This piffle was written by a Professor of Journalism- and then we wonder why trust in the trade is at an all time low.
“Piffle” gives the article a dignity it doesn’t deserve.
You almost got it Paddy – the Professorship and the profession is the problem. It’s not a trade anymore.
They don’t learn the ropes through experience, mentored by senior journalists who came up the same way. They get taught by academics.
All those years in Uni when the apprentices of old were trudging round the local courts and knocking on doors.
The real conspiracy is the Dems, most notably Harris, hid Biden’s obvious mental decline for four years. They rigged the nomination process to push out RFK and prevent any debates or meaningful challenge to his nomination. This was all aided and abetted by their foot soldiers in the regime media of course. But ya, nothing to see here.
Surely what they did must count as treason?
No… because the Dems and their Ministry of Truth mainstream media are the Establishment. Supporting the Establishment cannot be treasonous. At least until a new Establishment condenses out of the chaos, and we are some way off that.
How is internal party politics treason. Shouldn’t parties, which are not state or government organizations be allowed to come up with candidates in any way they choose. The bigger problem in the US is that two parties have monopolized the party market.
Yes, if there were more parties to choose from.
What is treasonous is concealing for years on end the fact that the person you have put forward for election to the Presidency is incompetent due to senility. The entire Democratic establishment has been complicit in a massive fraud against the American people. There need to be consequences.
This is stupid even for you, nazi boy.
Spot on Jim.
As sad and pathectic this essay is, even more horrifying is the fact this clown teaches journalism.
People who complain about Unheard publishing drivel like this haven’t understood that the best way to discredit your opponents is to give a platform to the most ridiculous of them. It’s like putting Ben Butterworth on GB News.
Or giving Sean Hannity or Piers Morgan their own show.
Are you sad that he doesn’t pander to your fat orange hero, Jimmy?
Which explains a lot about the state of our news media and the complete lack of trust in it.
The corruption was hiding Joe Biden’s mental incompetence from public view. There’s no excuse for that. We now know that those close to him, including people like Karine Jean-Pierre, knew he was not capable of being president for years. They lied to us, even through the primary season.
Now they pretend that everything’s fine since Joe Biden stepped down from the race and Kamala Harris replaced him. But that’s not fine. That’s machine politics, which Kamala Harris has benefited from her whole career. What a shame it will be if the first woman to be president gets there through corruption like this.
Shame on the Democratic party.
Hilary Clinton was really upset to have ‘her turn’ taken from her. The machine politics failed in her case. How sad.
The machine preferred the half-white man with the bathhouse history “because”.
Crediting the ascension of Kamala Harris to a sinister conspiracy ascribes to the Democrats a level of competence and intelligence that I’m simply not willing to cede to them.
Dude seriously. It’s amazing to me how often I see folks simultaneously condemn a party for some grand thought-out plot to destabilize the country/world, while also complaining about how incapable they are of running the country in even the most basic capacity.
Of course, theories can always be true, but faaaaaar more often than not, they turn out to be false. And then people go quiet, shuffle that one under the rug, and come up with something else.
That is a completely skewed comparison. Making intrigues, conspiracies and plots against each other is something that all people can figure out. It lies deep in our sociality and is already mastered to a considerable extent by us as children.
It requires completely different abilities to rule a country.
I skimmed this article instead of reading it. First, it is a rant and not a thoughtful analysis. Secondly, it is a poorly-written rant. Of the two, I’m unsure which is the worse fault.
What’s worse? He teaches journalism,
Those who can do. Those who can’t…
That explains everything. Thank you.
Ah, he is a source for the rot in journalism.
Tedious in the extreme. I’m beginning to think Unherd is deliberately gas lighting us with these articles. At least provide something with a coherent argument, a point of view worth wrestling with. The simple reason they are using the term ‘coup’ slightly tongue in cheek, is because this is the language with which the Democrats and MSM have saturated political discourse since 2016. What’s good for the goose……It’s another way of saying: you’re a bunch of FFing hypocrites.
What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander. So true!
“Here was proof positive, bloviated headlines of The New York Post, of “a sinister plot to swap the octogenarian commander-in-chief at the top of the ticket for Veep Kamala Harris without voter approval””. Harris is going to need “voter approval” if she is to become President.
Tell that to the Venezuelans!
The MAGA freak-out continues! So enjoyable! Particular seeing that poisonous little goblin, Miller, completely losing it!
I am loving every moment of thus!
Me too. It’s going to be such fun watching the global lefty hissy fit when Trump steamrollers this useless airhead. Not enough popcorn.
Oh, the guy who thinks its OK to shoot kids if they are “socialists” is a Trump cultist – quelle surprise!
Trump loses in another landslide.
its OK to shoot kids if they are “socialists”
Well, it’s probably more humane than pesticide. What would you suggest?
Look pal: the worst day in American history was the day that the lying skunk Aaron Burr killed My Guy Alexander Hamilton.
It’s been downhill ever since.
Is the Democratic Party and its Media Parrots directed by the Screen Actors Guild? Every Anti-Trump article is some long drawn out screed full of historical revisionism. They all position the Progressives on the correct side of History and refuse to address valid criticism.
Is it not strange when a candidate gets 87% of the primary vote only to be swapped out 100 days before the election and the “Party of Democracy” acts like nothing happened?
As Kamala and friends would say, “It’s indeed weird”.
What was historical revisionism?
KH’s entire career has been revised. Anyone actually paying attention can see that clearly.
Wow, Frederick Kaufman is here, a professor of English and Journalism at the College of Staten Island, The New Yorker, Gourmet, Vice (posthumously), etc., etc.
.
Globalize the Intifada! Everywhere Is Queer!
.
Evolution of UnHerd is faster than expected