In case you didn’t know, Dispatch senior editor David French was Bill Kristol’s hand-picked independent candidate to run against Donald Trump in 2016. He doesn’t write for The Bulwark but he does seem to be one of those “conserving conservatism” types of conservative. He’s been arguing on Twitter against state bans on critical race theory in public schools (seeing it as a free speech issue) and found a piece in TIME to be excellent: “The Conservative Case Against Banning Critical Race Theory.”

Aziz Huq’s contention is that “The case against CRT, in short, is … about wanting to avoid certain feelings of discomfort or even shame.”

Ironically then, if there is a lesson to be learned from the war on CRT, it has nothing to do with how to talk about race—and everything with how the Trumpian revolution continues to devour the principles of American conservatism.

Trump … drink!

It just means teaching about slavery. Why don’t you want kids to learn history?

Here’s Dan McLaughlin’s rebuttal in National Review, which is hardly part of the “Trumpian revolution.”

If Time wants to publish a progressive academic reciting the usual progressive case against anti-CRT bills, it is certainly free to do so. But it is affirmatively deceptive to its readers to bill this as a “conservative case” when it is not written by a conservative and does not take conservative premises or arguments as legitimate. Worse, it fails to tell the reader that this is not a conservative writer. One would think that minimal standards of journalistic honesty would demand that.

It’s amazing how little some people think of parents and their ability to sniff out poison.