Renowned columnist Victor Davis Hanson has published a critical examination of what he describes as rigid ideological frameworks dominating contemporary political discourse, particularly focusing on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and their practical implications.
The DEI Framework Under Scrutiny
In his analysis published November 23, 2025, Hanson characterizes Diversity, Equity and Inclusion as a euphemism for a rigid racialist theology that operates on deductive principles rather than empirical evidence. He argues that DEI initiatives fundamentally postulate that significant portions of the population face systematic oppression primarily from white males, without accounting for economic class or individual circumstances.
The columnist notes that this approach fails to recognize affluent non-white Americans or disadvantaged white individuals, creating what he views as inherent contradictions in the ideology's application. Hanson suggests this rigidity leads to absurd conclusions that undermine the credibility of the entire framework.
Michelle Obama's Racial Claims Examined
Hanson directs particular attention to former First Lady Michelle Obama's recent public statements during her book tour. He critiques her repeated assertions about experiencing racism during her time in the White House, despite her position as one of the most influential and powerful women in the United States.
The column references Obama's specific claims, including her statements about hiring three stylists daily to straighten her hair to meet white expectations and her suggestion that black individuals avoid swimming due to hair maintenance pressures. Hanson questions these assertions by noting that many ethnic groups have straight hair and numerous white individuals struggle with curly hair management.
Hanson contrasts these claims with the Obamas' substantial wealth, noting they own three estates in addition to their Chicago home, with combined property values around $40 million and a net worth estimated between $70 and $100 million. He argues that this economic reality makes claims of racial victimization increasingly difficult to reconcile with their privileged lifestyle.
Trump Derangement Syndrome and Epstein Files
The analysis extends to what Hanson terms Trump Derangement Syndrome, describing it as another rigid ideology that mandates viewing former President Donald Trump as inherently evil. He examines the recent release of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents, noting the Biden administration's initial reluctance to disclose information during its four-year control of the files.
Hanson observes that when Trump continued the previous administration's policy of keeping the files private, critics immediately assumed he was hiding damaging information. However, the columnist points out that the released documents have not revealed significant new information about Trump but have instead implicated Democratic figures including former Harvard president Larry Summers and Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett.
The files reportedly show Plaskett texting Epstein for guidance on how to question congressional witnesses about Trump, revealing what Hanson characterizes as concerning partisan cooperation with the convicted predator.
Climate Change Ideology and Democratic Figures
Hanson also addresses climate change orthodoxy, highlighting what he sees as contradictions between Democratic leaders' public positions and personal practices. He notes that prominent figures including the Obamas, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi frequently use private jets and maintain multiple large homes while advocating for fossil fuel restrictions for ordinary citizens.
The column references Bill Gates' apparent reconsideration of renewable energy limitations, particularly regarding the 100 gigawatts of additional electrical generation needed annually to support artificial intelligence development. Hanson suggests this demonstrates the practical limitations of current climate change approaches.
He concludes that the fundamental problem with these ideological frameworks is their deductive nature, where facts must conform to predetermined conclusions rather than evidence guiding understanding. This approach, he argues, ultimately makes adherents appear ridiculous when reality contradicts their dogmatic positions.
