Tara, I agree with you that cultural narratives are the better path to productive change/dialogue than legislation is, in general.

For that reason, I acknowledge that my "counterlegislation" via The DECISIVE Act is certainly reactionary and performative. But I believe it's reactionary and performative in a way that we NEED right now, since the two "sides" (pro-CRT and anti-CRT), thus far, have each been doing a piss-poor job of tackling the controversy with any meaningful degree of intellectual honesty.

The DECISIVE Act wouldn't be intended to actually pass. First of all, Wisconsin Republicans control our state legislature, so they're not going to ALLOW IT to even be voted on. The strategy isn't to actually get it passed into law or even put up for a vote -- it's to use the proposed legislation as a tool through which to SHIFT THE NARRATIVE altogether. Wisconsin Republicans are going to try to do this with AR414 (which they know our Democratic Governor will most likely veto), so they can have a talking-point to use as a blanket indictment against Democratic candidates up-and-down the ballot in general throughout the next several election cycles.

My DECISIVE Act essentially gives people (candidates and activists alike) with a sane and balanced view of CRT the power/vehicle through which to take back the narrative in a persuasive manner.