There's a real plague in our society, especially among essayists and the like, where we assume bad faith of those we disagree with and then create straw men that we then easily knock down in order to make ourselves "win the argument."

Before I go on, I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to what you've written here. There's long been a denial of a truthful examination of the shadow side of American history, especially by those who have most benefitted from the spoils of the actions committed that they wish not to be spoken of in polite company.

However, one can recognize this and be all for increasing awareness of the past and forms of reparations in the present to make amends for that past and still find critical race theory to be flawed in its perspective.

I honestly don't know if the politician you wrote about has some understanding of the dark side of US history and racial relations. But it'd be more interesting to read articles by intelligent writers like you that gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't resort to sophomoric insults of his name. In other words, why not try to steel man his perspective and then take it down? Because when you write as you did here, it doesn't come across as convincing. It just reads like preaching to the choir and well, that's precisely the problem with our cultural communication these days.