The Soft Totalitarianism of ‘Anti-Racist’ Ideology

Dissent from a prevailing orthodoxy is not necessarily a vice.

By
68

“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

I’ve long argued that this exhortation is a soft form of totalitarianism. It’s rhetorical bullying. The speaker assumes he or she has authoritative knowledge of not just the problem but the solution. And if you disagree, you’re a problem.

There’s no safe harbor, no middle position where someone can say “let’s discuss this more,” never mind “I disagree” or “your solution is bad.” That’s why “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” is so often used in conjunction with “the time for debate is over.”

Now, when I say it’s totalitarian, that doesn’t mean I’m saying everyone who uses it is a totalitarian. It just means I think they’re usually mistaken.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
68
By
Comments (68)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    I think I've said this here before, but in my view anti-racism is to racism as anti-matter is to matter. They're just the same but have the opposite charge.

    Collapse
  2. Daniel

    The issue for me isn't the logic of "you are for or against us" - (it mirrors, for example, Catholic moral teaching (acts of omission ect.) I don't find these arguments illiberal (and no one would if Kendi wasn't throwing the charged term racist around).

    I read most of his book. The core of Kendi's world view is illiberal. He throws Jefferson out and argues "all human groups are equal." He argues we can achieve justice by taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group for acts that were neither committed nor suffered by those living. Ect. ect.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Dustin Anglin

    I have always framed "anti-racist" ideology as an "anti-complacency" stance when it comes to racism in this country, as that status quo of a system that is unbalanced is not a neutral position. Sort of the idea that not being racists is necessary, but insufficient to solving entrenched, and sometimes non-obvious areas of racial inequalities, especially ones that white people often don't see because they haven't been subject to it.

    I think Jonah's criticism is fair, made in good faith, and I personally agree with it, though I might not frame it with such incendiary language. When I hear "if you aren't my friend, you are my enemy" kind of arguments, I tend to see them as an overzealousness, reflecting a strength of conviction that I simply assume most won't feel is necessary in order to agree with the some of the ideas of the speaker. When George W Bush said it, I don't think he meant to declare war on all skeptical nations, I think he was merely expressing his conviction that sometimes not taking a stance is a stance, in his case against global terrorism, and in Kendi's case, against institutional racism in this country.

    Collapse
  4. Ted Sisson

    I have been listening to Professor Kendi's new podcast in an attempt to understand what he is talking about and I still do not understand antiracism. I am beginning to think the plan is to define and redefine words so no one knows what anything means. Maybe you could have him on the Remnant.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JonathanRRogers

      It would great if Kendi would come on the Remnant. I think that's very unlikely, since he doesn't seem to be interested in conversations with people who criticize his ideas. For example, Coleman Hughes invited him to his show, "Conversations with Coleman." https://letter.wiki/conversation/965

      Glenn Loury and John McWhorter had a nuanced conversation in which they discussed whether it was reasonable or not for Kendi and people like him to avoid talking to them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68nimcszjT4

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Cornelius O’Brien

      that would be awesome

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      JonathanRRogers

      It is certainly true that Kendi redefines "racism" and "antiracism." I haven't listened to his podcast, but I've read a bit of his work. For him, everything is about outcome. He wrote, "An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups."
      https://news.yale.edu/2020/12/07/kendi-racism-about-power-and-policy-not-people
      https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/defining-racism-ibram-kendi-weird-definition-antiracism/

      Collapse
      1. Ted Sisson

        Thank you Jonathan

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Kendi is such an educated idiot. I would be laughing, but the amount of people who defend the anti-racist idea's he spouts makes me realize the absolute stupidity of our elites. To flagellate themselves and try absolve themselves of the sins of the past, they grind present day truth and reality into the ground.

    What a sad man, with a sad ideology, and an even bleaker world view.

    Too many people fall for this nonsense.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    One of the most annoying habits of such people is to state "well, I'm tired of making this argument. It's already settled!" Guess what? If you have keep repeating your argument, your argument didn't convince your opponents and the issue isn't settled.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    “Now, when I say it’s totalitarian, that doesn’t mean I’m saying everyone who uses it is a totalitarian. It just means I think they’re usually mistaken. ”

    Personally, I think a better word is intolerant. Mr. Kendi is an intolerant individual and I don’t think he’s mistaken. He means to be intolerant.

    I wouldn’t argue that necessarily makes him a bad person, but it certainly makes him a problematic intellectual influence because of the unintended consequences. Ignorant people who find themselves in a society that permits (never mind encourages) intolerance will always find ways to weaponize it.

    Discussing unintended consequences and absolutes reminds me of one of my favorite Star Wars quotes:

    “Only the Sith deal in absolutes.”

    Obi-Wan Kenobi, dealing in absolutes.

    Collapse
    1. Alex DeLarge

      "intolertarianism" needs to be a word.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        As the Stalin meme says:

        “Excellent comment, comrade. I shall seize and redistribute it.”

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Juan J

      I’m going to critique Jonah because I expect better from him.

      I agree, Jason, this isn’t totalitarianism at all. It’s intolerance and it’s bullying those who don’t agree with you. It’s similar to a person in a wheelchair with severe impairments who acts like a jerk towards people. If you respond like a jerk to the handicapped individual, you’re the bigger jerk. Society expects one to have some compassion and sensitivity to the handicapped individual.

      In this case we have a historically marginalized community who was treated horribly in the past and still suffers some mistreatments. If someone from a marginalized community proposes a path forward, we should be all ears and receptive. But when the logic breaks down you call them on it. Plain and simple. When they redefine words, you call them on it. When they call you names for disagreeing with them, you call them on it.

      What you don’t do is make this an ideological battle and start calling them Marxists and destroyers of America. If you do, you’re now the bigger a-hole, and how dare you make that lady in a wheelchair cry.

      This is no different when someone tells you that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, because their rabbi says so. No. From a historical perspective, I can say the creation of Israel was illegitimate. But guess what? It’s not totalitarians trying to equate the two. It’s someone you have an honest disagreement with and you’re not going to let them redefine anti-Semitism, even if they are Jewish.

      You don’t get to redefine racism, justice, and morality just because you’re a Black scholar. The scholar's obligation is to make a compelling argument that stands up to reason.

      But then the right-wing a-holes chime in and muddy everything up.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Juan J

        Btw, Jonah is not "right-wing". Some would say I created a strawman, but that strawman is real and has influence. I just disagree with Jonah when he says "totalitarians". I expected a much better analysis from him.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      Sith's are cool in Sci-fi though.

      Not so much in real life.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        I just noticed the hilarious irony of that quote today.

        And I remember when there was a big to do about GW saying “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” for much the same reasoning Jonah lays out here.

        Collapse
  8. Gary

    Thanks for the article, Jonah. The main thrust is spot on.
    However, I would like to add some thoughts to a point you have made several times in the past: namely that climate change is not an “existential threat.” I think that perhaps what you mean is that it is not necessarily an existential threat, and I would agree with that. But it does not follow that it is not an existential threat. I say that for two basic reasons (although I confess that I am not an expert in either field).
    First, an ecological reason: Our current stable ecosystem depends on negative-feedback loops which tend to push back against any perturbations that arise. It can be visualized as a marble in a salad bowl on the kitchen countertop—if you thump the marble with your finger, it climbs up the side of the bowl until the negative feedbacks, in this case primarily friction and gravity, cause it to stop and return to a stable point at the bottom. That is our old environment. But what if you thump the marble so hard that it goes over the side of the bowl? Maybe it comes down on the countertop, falls to the floor, and gets eaten by Zoe, or maybe it rolls into the sink and goes down the drain. It’s hard to say where it will end up. And our ecosystem is far more complicated than that. We don’t know where the edges of the bowl are, so we don’t know when the system might become unstable, and we don’t know how far it is to the countertop.
    Second, a behavioral reason: If climate warming, with its effect on agriculture and water supplies, causes increased social unrest and conflict between countries with nuclear arsenals, it stands to reason that the risk of a nuclear exchange taking place might increase. And once the worms start coming out of that can, who can say where it will stop? Increased cancer rates? Lower life expectancy? Starvation? Annihilation?
    To sum up, I don’t think it is possible to say that climate change is not an existential threat, only that it isn’t necessarily one. Which isn’t a very reassuring statement.

    Collapse
  9. Ty

    I don't understand the use of the word totalitarianism even "soft" in this context. Totalitarianism doesn't mean if you disagree with me I think you're wrong or even bad. It's a system of government. Use of the word feels needlessly inflammatory and doesn't feel explanatory.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    You are most certainly not a racist Jonah.

    You do underwhelming articulate climate change. Which will pretty strongly effect you and your generation. Sadly your children and grandchildren will wonder why we didn't do more. Look over here in the Southwest.

    Anyway, I think Kendi is by preponderance of the evidence..correct.

    I mean....when did any Dispatch author or Contributors first write about the Tulsa Massacre?

    I only am 18 months into The Dispatch. I might have missed it. Which doesn't mean you our any single Dispatch writer has ever had even one femto-second of racist thought in your lives.

    It just means... we have hidden blind spots in our American history. I learned mine in the 1960s. Imagine all I was not taught.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      SusanC

      David wrote about Tulsa. https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/when-our-forefathers-fail

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Yes I know. My poorly made point was not that they didn't write about Tulsa, but when. The point is not judgemental but observational.

        Raise your hand if you knew about Tulsa
        10 years ago
        20 years ago
        30 years ago.

        The salient question is.... why and what prevented our collective understanding?

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      “ You do underwhelming articulate climate change. Which will pretty strongly effect you and your generation. Sadly your children and grandchildren will wonder why we didn't do more. Look over here in the Southwest.”

      I assume you are referring to the current drought conditions. The American Southwest has a long and well documented history of mega-droughts. One of the last ones is what wiped out the Anasazi civilization around 1300. Some have lasted as long as fifty years in the past. They are a typical part of the climate history of the American Southwest.

      As far as I know, no serious climatologist is claiming that current drought conditions in the Southwest are caused by anthropomorphic climate change. Now maybe there are serious climatologists claiming that the current drought conditions are caused by anthropomorphic climate change. So, if you have evidence that they are then please cite some sources. I’ll certainly give them a look.

      That said, anyone who doubts or disputes that we live in the Anthropocene needs look no further than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Humans do have a substantial impact on the planet and have for some time. That impact isn’t always positive.

      And speaking of the Dust Bowl, I’d love to hear Jonah talk about it, FDR and the federal governments efforts to deal with it and mitigate the impact it had on Americans.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6488/314

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          “ Paleoclimatic proxies indicate that SWNA experienced many severe swings in hydroclimate before the observed period. In particular, tree-ring records reveal several megadrought events during the Medieval era and subsequent centuries (~850–1600 CE) that dwarfed all droughts in the following 400 years in intensity and duration (12). These megadroughts were likely associated with cool eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures, which promote an atmospheric wave train that blocks Pacific storms from reaching SWNA (13–15). Any attribution of recent drought to anthropogenic climate change must consider this region’s capacity for large internal hydroclimatic variability.”

          “The tree-ring record serves as an ominous reminder that natural climate variability can drive SWNA megadroughts that are as severe and longer than the 21st-century drought thus far. The atmosphere and ocean anomalies that drove past megadroughts very likely dwarfed those that occurred during 2000–2018, but superposition of the 2000–2018 climate dynamics on background anthropogenic soil drying put an otherwise moderately severe soil-moisture drought onto a trajectory characteristic of the megadroughts of 800–1600 CE. Critical to the megadrought-like trajectory of the 21st-century event were enhanced evaporative demand, early snowpack loss, and a broad spatial extent, all promoted by anthropogenic warming. Natural variability may very well end the early 21st-century drought in the coming years, and this transition may be under way after a wet 2019. However, our work demonstrates that the magnitude of background anthropogenic soil drying is already substantial relative to the range of natural multidecadal variability. Furthermore, anthropogenic global warming and its drying influence in SWNA are likely still in their infancy. The magnitude of future droughts in North America and elsewhere will depend greatly on future rates of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions globally. The effects of future droughts on humans will be further dependent on sustainable resource use because buffering mechanisms such as ground water and reservoir storage are at risk of being depleted during dry times.”

          The paper is claiming to show that anthropomorphic climate change is contributing to the soil being drier across most of the region for the last 19 years. It provides evidence to support this claim. It does not claim that it is causing the drought. There is a difference.

          According to the paper, past mega-droughts are thought to have been partly caused by cooler sea surface temperatures in the Eastern Pacific Ocean blocking the wave train that brings storms, and moisture, to the region.

          Collapse
    3. Ingenero.lux

      When did any Dispatch writer discuss the Trail of Tears or the Mexican-American War or any other of a myriad of terrible historical events they haven’t covered? This isn’t a history site. They cover some pieces, but come on. Criticizing a news site for not covering a specific, terrible even in our past is silly. And how the devil does not covering the Tulsa Massacre prove Kendi right? I’ve seen concern about issues impacting the Black community and discussion of them, so how does not discussing Tulsa change that, or how does it prove Kendi correct that there’s no ground between being an Anti-Racist and supporting his specific program and being a Racist?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        You can read it as critical. It is not. It just the fact they they, me and millions were unaware until recently. Maybe Texans knew. Or not. How many people knew 10 or 20 years ago?

        I fault no one just learning.

        The question is..why did it take so long? And what can that teach us.

        Collapse
        1. Ingenero.lux

          Oklahomans, not Texans. Tulsa, OK. If it wasn’t critical, then I don’t quite get your point - Kendi isn’t simply bringing attention to less-known pieces of history or forgotten atrocities (something I am all for), he’s literally saying you either support anti-racist efforts or are tacitly racist/“part of the problem”. As to why, it’s not a pleasant piece of history, and a lot of those end up in the bin in favor of the crowd-pleasers. They shouldn’t, and it’s a very good thing that we’re discussing these pieces of history more, but most of us quite simply can’t dig through the historical documents to find all of these issues - there are too many towns, too many centuries, and too much to review. It’s good more is making the history books, but they can’t cover everything, so we simply make things as comprehensive as we can.

          Collapse
Load More