Image Credit: 

Opponents of the academic doctrine known as Critical Race Theory protest outside of the Loudoun County School Board headquarters, in Ashburn, Virginia, U.S. June 22, 2021. (REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein)


Flawed Reasoning on CRT

Impassioned attacks on critical race theory (CRT) are the subject of AMAC Magazine’s August issue. A publication of The Association of Mature American Citizens, a Republican alternative to the American Association of Retired People, the magazine’s lead editorial by Robert B. Charles described CRT as an “anti-American … rebranding of Marxism.” This is equally true of most of the issue’s thematically related accompanying articles, all of which repeated some variation of the following formula: CRT is a foreign import of Marxist derivation that teaches the opposite of what we should believe as Americans.

Charles ended his essay by exhorting individuals not to buy into the resentment and blame game of Marxist CRT. “Americans cleave by values, not skin color,” he wrote. “Critical race theory is junk—a disgrace.”

Yet Charles does not show that CRT is Marxist nor that it’s anti-American, only that it is something he doesn’t like and would prefer not having taught in our schools. I share his preference, but view the target of his diatribe rather differently.

CRT, as these denunciations suggest, is an unpleasant and not well-substantiated collection of antiwhite charges and narratives. Yet contrary to the offended response in the magazine, CRT has developed in our own country, not elsewhere, and it seems to be an inversion of traditional patriotic myths. It calls to mind German anti-fascism, which reduces the onetime honored German fatherland to an object of hate.

It is also clear to me that CRT is not principally about race, any more than it is about Marxism. It is about laying guilt trips on those whom our elites seek to control and using race as a way of achieving one’s ultimate purpose.

The same process has always been at work in talk by German social critics about “overcoming” their national past. This supposed task reveals an increasingly transparent effort to reconstruct people’s minds and to make them responsive to an expanding leftist social agenda. One starts with something as blatantly evil as Nazi war crimes, and then extends the stigma of Nazi-like activities to the failure to have open borders or to provide sufficient instruction in LGBT lifestyles in elementary schools. Mention of some initial injustice or atrocity, such as the Holocaustwhich unfortunately happenedallows the cultural left to get its foot in the door to inflict its plan on the rest of us for broad social reconstruction.

In America we are committed to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” and even though we have not always lived up to that ideal, we are now trying to make good on the promise of our founding. But there are certain distinctions that should be made if we hope to transcend the divisiveness of CRT.

America stands for equality of opportunity, not equality of results; building a color-blind society is different from harping on white racial guilt. It is ridiculous to imagine that you get ahead of the story by arguing that it is only partly true, e.g., by telling the young and our critics that we used to be wretched racists, but we aren’t any longer; or that we have always been committed to inclusiveness, but for a while forgot about it or betrayed that ideal.

The paramount question is not whether these expressions of hate rest entirely on authenticated historical facts. What we should be asking is why intellectuals and the media hate their societies and their heritages enough to fabricate these uniformly negative images.

Why must we view the U.S. as being required to practice what English political thinker Michael Oakeshott described as “telocratic politics,” a collectivist existence organized around a highest moral value? Why can’t we have a government under law providing its citizens with ordered liberty?

Even if the Declaration tells us that in some limited sense “all men are created equal,” why must we obsess over that statement and make it define our overriding goal as a country? And to whatever extent we are morally preoccupied with that overriding egalitarian goal, are we justified in distinguishing “equality of opportunity” from equity or “equality of result”?

The left, in my opinion, may be correct on this point. Until we achieve a more level playing field, we may not be able to realize “equality of opportunity,” an ideal that seems different from what Napoleon and European liberals of the 19th century spoke of as “careers open to talent.” It is one thing to advance the most fit for demanding posts and to educate the most talented of all social classes; it is another matter to aim at human equality, in a situation in which social, material, and biological opportunities have not been evenly distributed. It then becomes the duty of the telocratic state to make opportunities more equal, so that we can all compete without a situation in which some enjoy more advantages than others at the starting gate.

As Brion McClanahan pointed out here in “Stop Playing the Left’s Game,” (July 2021 Chronicles), the left is simply better at arguing leftist positions. In the end, CRT is not the main teaching in this process, but merely a prologue to the rest of the woke agenda.

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried is editor in chief of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. He is also the Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years, a Guggenheim recipient, and a Yale Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


I am not really sure I understand the distinction being made here. What is "the Left" if it is not a cultural form of Marxism? People from Pat Buchanan to Paul Weyrich to William Lind have described perfectly as Cultural Marxism what has now acquired the moniker of "woke." After all, CRT does not exist in a vacuum. It is of a piece with all sorts of culturally subversive ideologies linked to ever more bizarre forms of egalitarianism born from the womb of Marxism. Why seek to salvage anything from the term "Marxism" or its malignant reality in our civilization?


Dr. Gottfried writes: “CRT is not principally about race, any more than it is about Marxism. It is about laying guilt trips on those whom our elites seek to control and using race as a way of achieving one’s ultimate purpose.” Right! CRT distorts contemporary reality and American history with respect to race, and it is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles and concepts of Marxism. I truly wish that everyone would stop referring to this unpatriotic and manipulative ideology as “cultural Marxism.” Doing so gives us true Marxists a bad name, or better said, a worse name than Marxism deserves on the basis of its own shortcomings. ⁋ Charles McKelvey, Professor Emeritus, Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina


But CRT does have Marxist roots. And this is exactly the way to frame the battle. It is true that CRT was developed in the US but it was developed by neoMarxists in US universities. A bit of postmodern philosophy was sprinkled in too. It isn't straight forward Marxism but Critical Theory of which CRT is a piece is accurately labeled as Cultural Marxism. Marxism was concerned with egalitarianism, so I think the link is logical.


It is not easy to define this phenomenon due to its somewhat amorphous nature - simultaneously culturally on the left but also heavily pushed by the Fortune 500. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with Professor Gottfried that the link with Marxism is tendentious. On the other hand, there is no doubting the influence of Hegel; and of Marcuse and the 1968 protests, which were ultimately pro-capitalist and more focused on anti-colonialism than the traditional Marxist class struggle. It's worth noting that the Trotskyist Fourth International views identity politics and its derivative phenomena, such as CRT, as emanations of what it calls a "pseudo-left." It seems logical to view identity politics as basically a form of class warfare waged by the very rich against the rest of society; a way to consolidate and make permanent the concentration of wealth and vast inequality that has opened up over the past few decades. Its ends are thus decidedly not Marxist, whatever the origins.