by UnHerd
Thursday, 1
October 2020

How Trump mainstreamed Critical Race Theory

Freddie Sayers speaks to James Lindsay about the dangers posed by the ideology
by UnHerd

Critical Race Theory was officially mainstreamed last month when President Donald Trump called the ideology in a speech last month a “Marxist doctrine” that was “inundating students across America”. This week, it came up again in the presidential debate after Trump defended his decision to a memo condemning the federal funding of any training based on it.

One person who understands this subject better than most is James Lindsay (whose work, reportedly, influenced the content of the President’s speech). Along with co-author, Helen Pluckrose, who has a piece in the magazine today, these two academics co-wrote a book called Cynical Theories, which provides the most comprehensive analysis of the rise of CRT to date.

Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email

Already registered? Sign in

Freddie Sayers spoke to James about CRT and whether the dangers posed by the ideology are as real as the President suggests.

Join the discussion

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.

Notify of
1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Julie S
Julie S
2 years ago

Thank you for doing this interview to get a clearer understanding of this belief system we find ourselves surrounded by today.

Hearing James Lindsay say this movement is Post-modern (subjective, feeling, experience based) Marxism along with his comment about this being potentially a move, not to authoritarianism but totalitarianism (thought police), explains a lot about the whole situation with lockdowns/mask mandates. This group feels fear therefore that is their truth and no one can say anything factual to shift their truth. I’m not sure how we can get anyone to the table to have a discussion to implement his suggestions. This group also does not appear to believe in objective standards for anything.

Considering this to be the equivalent of a religion, which I would say is accurate, people of most (not all) religions will have a discussion to help another person understand why they believe what they believe, based on more than how they feel from their experience or they will admit their belief is based on feeling. When a person NEEDS you to agree with them unquestioningly it usually is more about their own doubt.