On this episode of the AIER Authors Corner, Ethan Yang interviews AIER Senior Fellow Phil Magness on the topic of Critical Race Theory. Although the subject has certainly become a major discussion point in American society, the level of understanding for the idea tends to be lacking on both sides. Through this episode, we hoped to not only discuss the implications of Critical Race Theory but also its basic scholarly underpinnings so that those who wish to oppose or support it are better informed.
Critical Race Theory as its name implies is a derivative of Critical Theory, which is a Marxist philosophical lens that understands society through power dynamics. Critical Race Theory by extension fundamentally analyses society with race and racial hierarchy as the main concern.
Critical Race Theory shares the same intellectual lineage as intersectionality theory, as they both trace back to American legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw. Much like intersectionality theory, they both have a generally agreeable and commonsense foundation but then quickly diverge into more controversial positions.
Phil Magness explores this in detail in an article published in Cato Unbound as well as in the podcast. Intersectionality theory starts with the idea that individuals can experience discrimination in different ways depending on the identities that they hold. For example, a black woman experiences discrimination from being both black and a woman which would differentiate her experience from that of a black man who experiences discrimination from just being black. Likewise, Critical Race Theory starts off with the commonsense idea that many societal institutions were created by racists or made, at one point, with racist intent. It is undeniable that racism helped shape the course of history and those legacies can still be felt today.
Both of these intellectual frameworks then advance towards more controversial and problematic frameworks. Magness points out that there are two general strands of intersectionality, which he calls elementary (which was just described) and compound. Compound intersectionality refers to the practice of compounding a large number of categories and factors into an analysis which could include things like class, citizenship status, and so on. Eventually, an entire case against institutions and systems is made on the grounds that they oppress certain groups of people. At this point, intersectionality theory becomes a political tool, as Magness notes that scholarly works which utilize this approach tend to issue sweeping denunciations of ideas deemed unfavorable. This is how seemingly race-neutral ideas, such as free-market economics, get labeled as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. This is why it is common that intersectionality and Critical Race Theory are viewed as normative frameworks to reform society rather than understand it, which is what a discipline like economics attempts to do.
Magness cites scholarly intersectional literature to demonstrate the inherent political underpinnings of intersectional theory, to which he notes that it condemns attempts to depoliticize the idea. It accuses those who wish to do so as corrupted by the “Neoliberal Knowledge Economy” as opposed to supporting the intersectional “political project.” This mirrors the revolutionary Marxist doctrine of condemning anything that impedes the revolution, even if it is simply a request for free discussion.
We can see similar aspects in the intellectual framework of Critical Race Theory and intersectionality. Magness outlines two core principles that are highly problematic. The first being a lack of falsifiability and empirical emphasis. This refers to the use of obscure and confusing language that is often only discernible by other trained intersectional Marxists. This not only avoids rigorous intellectual scrutiny but also attempts to gain some semblance of self-imposed superiority. The second component is what Magness refers to as “epistocratic tendencies,” which refers to the common refrain that only members of certain groups may speak on issues. This again lends further protection from empirical scrutiny and acts as a method of silencing dissent.
Critical Race Theory exhibits many of the same characteristics but instead of analyzing how individuals experience oppression in differing ways, it deconstructs societal institutions as inherently racist. Criticism or dissent of course, when viewed through this framework, would be considered racist. This makes the theory more of a political agenda rather than a formal academic concept. As demonstrated by the scholarly literature, that’s actually how it’s supposed to be and anyone who tries to depoliticize it would be a corrupting influence in favor of the Neoliberal Knowledge Economy.
In many ways, the advent of Critical Race Theory and compound intersectionality theory signal the reemergence of the far left into the mainstream political conversation after thoroughly losing the economic debate during the late 20th century. Instead of trying to prove that Socialism can beat Capitalism from an economic standpoint or limited government from a legal standpoint, these new tools of argument attempt to subvert that conversation altogether by arguing on the grounds of race. From this position, a new front is opened on the war against the traditional Western ideals of individualism, free markets, the rule of law, and limited government. A war fought not on the open battlefields of rigorous debate and empirical analysis but in the elusive jungles of obscurity and confusion.
YouTube, Spotify, and other Big Tech platforms are taking Freedom First Network down
It’s no secret we speak our minds and bring on guests who do the same. That’s one of the biggest reasons we put together the Freedom First Network in the first place. There are far too many news outlets, including so-called “conservative” media companies, who are so beholden to Big Tech that they temper their perspectives at best and outright coverup the truth at worst. Many, as you all know, will blatantly lie in order to maintain the narrative that supports the radical agenda taking over much of the United States.
We have had our YouTube channel taken down. Many of our shows have been suppressed or removed by Facebook and Twitter. Spotify banned one of our shows completely from their platform. Google hates us. We’ve even been censored by some of the smaller players like Medium, Transistor, and Captivate. But we stand behind our reporting and perspectives and we refuse to bow down to Big Tech tyranny for the sake of pageviews or video plays.
This isn’t the easiest road to travel, especially for a media company that is so new. We launched Freedom First Network in 2020 to fight against the very censorship that we’re seeing so widespread today. We have found great homes for our content on freer speech platforms like Rumble and we’re putting our best efforts forward into building our presence on Locals. Nevertheless, we cannot do it alone. We need help.
One of the things cofounders Jeff Dornik and JD Rucker agreed to from the start was to never be the pawns of companies that do not embrace our worldview. Finding advertisers and affiliates is easy; we receive requests by companies wanting to be pushed on our shows every day. But it’s important to us that we’re promoting companies, services, and products that are beneficial to maintaining a Freedom First stance in America. As a result, we do not take on sponsors easily. We would rather rely on our own products like Freedom First Coffee and the support of our wonderful viewers, listeners, and readers.
Those who want to support us and help keep the fight for America’s future moving forward can do so by donating through our Locals page. There, you can donate monthly or one-time. Some have told us to use Patreon or GoFundMe, but both of those platforms have demonstrated a hatred for free speech. Locals does not. They embrace it. We encourage everyone to join us on Locals, but donations are greatly appreciated as well. We do not have day jobs. Our fight for freedom is a full-time gig.
Please feel free to reach out to us through our contact form. It goes directly to our founders, so if you’re interested in getting involved, investing, sponsoring, or even bringing a show to our network, let us know. May God Bless the United States of America!
