Critical Remnant Theory

Has conservatism always been a grift? Not according to Jonah and today’s guest, the illustrious ...

By

Has conservatism always been a grift? Not according to Jonah and today’s guest, the illustrious David French. The pair ascend through various levels of wonkery, beginning with an assessment of critical race theory’s philosophical origins and ending with an exploration of superhero morality. Along the way, they discuss First Amendment jurisprudence, crippling video game addictions, and the ongoing debate over whether Army of the Dead is actually worth watching. To learn if David is secretly a supreme being, however, you’ll have to tune in again next Tuesday … 

Show Notes:

– David’s French Press

– Advisory Opinions, for all of you who speak legalese

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (27)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Isaac Alexander

    Thomas Sewell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a great treatise on the history of the "southern pride" attitude David alludes to. I think both Jonah and David's analysis fell a little short in that, as Sewell writes, it was the poorer white immigrants from Northern England (ie, Highland Scots/Irish), whom migrated to the south, bringing their culture of pride with them. Southern blacks (slaves at the time) mimicked the cultural attitudes of these poor white transplants, not the other way around. Dr. Sewell references studies whereby southern blacks taught in schools run by northern transplants displayed less of these attitudes than those of blacks in schools run by southern whites. Fascinating how cultural practices can be passed over hundreds of years.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Isaac Alexander

      I spelled his name wrong... Dr. Sowell. Apologies. (Weird that we can't edit these after they are posted.)

      Collapse
  2. atngator

    Jonah, thank you for the Lebowski reference. And David, thank you for either intentionally or unintentionally teeing it up for Jonah.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Sgrantsm

    I wish I had a transcript of at least the part where Jonah begins his take on the right-wing Foxers mostly being from the outer boroughs of NYC and the state of NJ, AKA in NYC as the bridge and tunnell crowd, and how they identified with Queens-born-and-bred Trump, up to where they talk about movies. That includes the part where they discuss CRT. I have a lot to offer to them on both of those topics, but I want to respond to what they actually said.

    This is one of those times where I wish TD published transcripts of their podcasts. Other pundits I subscribe to publish theirs.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Israel Bigelow

    A great conversation is always to be had when you get Jonah and David together in a room. I also give David a lot of props for a great discussion with Christopher Rufo. I think David is right to point out that sloppy language like "divisive ideas" are too broad in many of the CRT bills to pass first amendment muster and conservatives should be thinking twice before tossing out the Constitution and the gains of the conservative legal movement. I also think he is right to point out that racism is a part of American history and can't be ignored. However, he understates the problem of posed by CRT and it's spread from the university to the broader public. First, you don't need to concede that CRT has it's uses in order to talk about slavery and racism (a point I'm glad Jonah made when criticizing a lot of the headlines from liberal outlets). CRT is a framework that rewrites American history in Marxist fashion to say racial oppression was the entire point of the American founding. It is being pushed under the rubric of diversity, equity, and inclusion and people even in red states will likely encounter it either through work or the school districts where they send their kids. Case in point, what rallied conservatives in Texas to form their bill was a movement on the other side of the spectrum to sneak CRT into state curriculum under the guise of "action civics". Conservatives can assert themselves in these state level discussion of curriculum (as Jonah points out they are at the local level too) without trampling over the first amendment.

    Also, a strong argument could be made that if conservatives don't assert themselves at the state level and simply punt to the local (like David said in the Rufo debate), we are actually strengthening the populist mobs that Jonah and David detest. Not all the defenses at the local level will be well-reasoned and nuanced. It will be people angry because they think that bureaucrats are trying to turn their kids into leftist activists and that their elected representatives aren't pursuing the best interests of the country. They'd have a point too.

    Collapse
  5. Kevin Sunday

    I guess I am unclear as to David's position why state legislatures shouldn't try to ban CRT. He said he is okay with school boards doing so, and said that state legislatures also have that power and that teachers in K-12 already have limited rights to academic freedom. Yes, David thinks it's troublesome to apply such restrictions to colleges and universities, and I would probably agree with him on that - but that's not my understanding of where all the energy is on this. It's at the public schools. And the grassroots is very, very engaged on this, so as a matter of practical politics I do think there needs to be some policy option offered to the voters in order to be responsive. For example, this was the #1 issue at a candidate forum in my state for off-year county judge elections. My state is a swing state that went for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020, and my county did the same thing. CRT isn't something a county judge could do much about, but voters wanted to hear their thoughts on it. So to borrow Jonah's repeated adage about immigration, if responsible people won't deal with this issue, irresponsible people will.

    Collapse
    1. Kevin Sunday

      One other note - sometimes when I see polls that 2/3 of the population can't name the three branches of government or who their Congressman is, I wonder how much these curriculum debates matter for most people. Though I do think it matters for the intellectual formation of the people who will end up in the elite positions of government, business, law, academia, media and culture.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    I'm with David like 95% of the way. But Jonah's push back kind of was full of my doubts.

    So this is something I'm thinking about because I just caught wind a couple days ago of a bill coming through the Michigan senate about this very issue.

    David is persuasive in terms of banning teaching certain things being pernicious.

    But what about simply mandating teaching a certain curriculum state wide? (this may already be in place I don't know)

    To over simplify maybe it would be better if we didn't ban 1619 stuff but mandated 1776 stuff at the state level?

    However Jonah comparing CRT to sex education was VERY persuasive to me.

    I think from High School on David is spot on.

    K-8th gradeish I think is pretty reasonable for the state to say naw dog

    I'll wait to read the bill.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    An excellent conversation! Love hearing the two of you work through ideas. I may go back and try to find David’s old appearances on the Remnant that I missed. Here’s an idea: have Steve on some time.

    Also, did I hear Jonah say, “my friend Andrew Breitbart?”

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Also I’d like to hear even more of a defense of principled conservatism to rebut that Bulwark piece. In addition to this and to the G File. I just mean more in depth or more of a discussion about it.

      Collapse
  8. Bob Rogers

    I'm sorry, but anyone who talks about "the code" without referencing Asimov's laws of robotics must refrain from talking about pop culture for a month.

    Collapse
    1. Richard Fulmer

      Close, but not quite the same. In Asimov's novel, robots were programmed not to hurt humans and had no choice.

      Collapse
      1. Bob Rogers

        Maybe in the first Robot novels, but in the later ones there was at least one robot God/superhero who was involved with the evolution of robots. Asimov was much more interested in the free will of the robots in the later novels.

        I have not read those in years. I think I've found something to do this summer.

        Collapse
  9. John Townson

    Jonah: thank you for pushing back on David's position regarding states passing laws re CRT type curriculum. David seems to focus on secondary legal issues- its ok for local school board to restrict curriculum but not state legislatures??- and miss the larger threat coming from the horrible anti white message that this movement is promoting. There are other holes in David's argument as well (ie the bills are bad because they wouldn't actually restrict CRT, and in next breath CRT is impossible to define); your positions and questions were graciously stated and were a welcome contribution. Thank you!

    Under the circumstances I think it is entirely reasonable for states to take action here and Im glad they are doing it. If the language in the proposed bills needs to be trimmed or clarified then lets work with the states to improve it.

    Collapse
  10. Richard Fulmer

    Jonah made the point that many people on both the left and the right feel that to reject their ideas is to reject them. Isn’t that a logical result of post-modernism and deconstructionism? Deconstructionists taught that people’s ideas are controlled by their culture and their ideas can only be understood in the context of their culture. As a result, literary critiques have too often devolved into an inspection of the author’s background followed by a dismissal of the author’s work and ideas because of that background.

    To a post-modernist, who we are dictates our beliefs. If this is true, then if you reject my beliefs, you reject me and, by extension, my tribe.

    Too many arguments (including some here in the DT comments) follow the post-modernist “logic” of: Your position is wrong because you are:
    - White
    - A boomer / a millennial
    - Male
    - Cis-gendered
    - Conservative / Progressive
    - A never-Trumper / an ever-Trumper

    Collapse
    1. Tm S.

      I have tried to make this point to some people (whom I care about) half my 60+ age who are activists on a variety of issues, and they seem to feel that I am personally rejecting them and disrespecting them when I disagree with their viewpoints. To be clear, I actually agree with many of their basic points, but feel their prescriptions for action are too extreme, or that they are simply further toward the end of the spectrum than I am. These discussions often devolve into suggestions that I am unqualified by my race, gender, economic status, sexual identity, etc. to comment and that my time has come and gone; that I must now just shut up and listen. My demographic and physical traits are inherently disqualifying. This is very troubling.

      Collapse
      1. Richard Fulmer

        If I believe X and am white does that make X wicked? If a person of color also believes X, does that suddenly render X noble and wise?

        Once upon a time, X was debated on its merits: Here are the facts, logic, and reason that render X good or bad. Today, X is judged by the age, skin color, wealth, and gender identification of its proponents and opponents.

        I wonder how this will work in business. Suppose, for example, the ACME Anvil Company wants to build a new factory and needs to decide where to build it. Should the company:
        1. Compare the locations in question on the basis of worker availability, housing costs, taxes, quality of schools, regulatory environment, infrastructure reliability, etc., or
        2. Identify the employee with the highest intersectionality score and let decide?

        Collapse
Load More