There are many insights that you share in both this essay on "Toxic Femininity" and another of your recent essays ("Why I'm No Longer a Progressive" that seem to align well with the insights in these two essays from the co-founders of Protopia Labs (an organization dedicated to depolarization). They both use some similar language though with slightly different nuances. I think you'd really like their work, and I *know* they would appreciate yours. (P.S. I posted this comment on both of your essays, if that's okay... both are an inspiring read.
"Why We Need to Talk about Post-Liberalism" by Micha Narberhaus
The reality of biological sex, if you're referring to certain human physiological structures and functions, certainly exists, but that's one small component of the social construction of gender. That edifice is subject to critique, and I recognize that it has carried oppression and limitations which continue to affect many people. In a more general sense, I think Wokeism alludes to some legitimate grievances, utilizing, unfortunately, elements of Jacobinism and a disregard for valuable norms of liberal inquiry. You've well illustrated some of the perils of those impulses. I try to contextualize Wokeism in many centuries of social injustice, through which millions of lives have been lost or truncated. Wokeism really begins with cries for justice.
Harry, thanks for reading and commenting. I respect your more positive take even though I obviously don't share it. However I do share your sense that there is a long history in play here, as well as the desire to be empathetic towards others with different experiences and/or perspectives.
Carol, I hope you'll be patient with me. I've tried to ask this question before and have always gotten attacked as an idiot, hopelessly uninformed, etc.
So I'll try to be clear about my views before asking the question.
1. I hate wokeism. I was quite aware of what was essentially the same phenomenon in the 1970s, on the 3 occasions I decided to attend a secular, Leftist group, comprised mostly of highly academic folks. hated the language. In fact, a friend of mine just posted something on his Facebook page. I initially wrote a highly reactive comment then thought better of it and immediately deleted it. that ugly, wokeist, postmodern nonsense, showing off one's erudition with 5, 6 and 7 syllable incoherent word salad.
To repeat, I hate wokeism
2. You wrote that it's being pushed by Democratic Party, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, the art world, the medical establishment, corporate HR offices, professional associations, the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, and the legacy media (NPR, The New York Times, CNN, etc.)
I agree.
So I want to be VERY clear before I ask:
1. I hate wokeism
2. I FULLY agree it's present in all the areas you mention - in fact, you didn't mention junior and senior high schools, where it's undoubtedly present.
3. I think it's the single greatest impediment to economic justice, which the Democrats should shine in. I've never heard a single Democrat deal with it well except for Bernie. He was speaking to a group of Trump supporters - ALL Trump supporters. They kept trying to bait him on gay marriage, guns, trans rights, etc. He never took the bait. He'd simply say, "look, you know we disagree on those things. But you also know that my Republican opponents are not going to help you feed your family, help you get universal health care, improve the environment, make your workplaces safe and fair, etc"
And EVERYONE would be nodding vigorously. I've been saying for years instead of always being reactive and trying to fight the republicans (they have the perfect issue now - trans rights. Every time a Democrat defends his/her position on trans rights, the Far Right wackos just say, "See the Democrats ARE grooming children.) - instead of reactivity, say "WE are the pro-life party. We support women and fetuses from before birth to the end of live. WE are are pro life, protecting people from poisonous environments, from vulture capitalists (who the Trumpists all say they hate also) from reckless gun violence, etc.
So, so far we're in complete agreement, yes?
1. Hate wokeism
2. It's all the places you say and more
3. An enormous impediment to economic justice.
So what's my question? Please keep the above in mind, otherwise when you read the question you're just going to flip into, "Don's an idiot who is just trolling and doesn't know what he's talking about"
Ok.
I've been following this since the 1970s and saw it coming. I was aware, in 1992, that David Horowitz was hired by a right wing think tank to troll left wing academics and to find the most obnoxious, potentially frightening language for conservatives. He looked at many of the VERY SAME ACADEMICS who completely turned me off some 15-20 years previously. He then set about in a kind of devilishly brilliant way and slowly made his way into hate radio and various other think tanks and ultimately, the republican party big wigs to convince them THIS was the issue to kill the Democrats, AND they would buy it hook line and sinker.
he was right.
Boy I'm putting off the actual question because I'm afraid you're not going to take all our agreement into account:
I asked you before, What is the actual evidence that a significant majority of Democrats in the country (not representatives, just Democratic voters) are into this stuff? They say a third of the adult voting population, approximately, are Democrats. That's about 70 million people, somewhat in the ballpark (a little less) than voted for Biden, so that's probably right.
Now, we know for sure that the progressive wing of the Democrats - whether in Congress or among the voters - is a minority. I've heard 10%. But let's double that and say it's 20%. That's 14 million people.
So let's get some perspective on this:
In a country of 350 million people, among which 220 million are of voting age, about 4% of the total population and 6% of the voting population, are strongly woke.
6% of voters.
Remember, most sociologists have said in virtually any population, you can count on at least 10-15% to be the crazies, the folks who will buy virtually any Qanon nonsense, right or left wing conspiratorial nut jobs. So they generally write off that percentage.
But we're talking about 6% here.
now, i'm quite hesitant to disagree, if you say, "Well, who cares if it's a tiny number. They're in the media, in universities, and they have an overwhelming influence."
I won't disagree but I'll question you a bit.
Given that the total "influential" disgustingly, obnoxiously, horrifically woke population is about 6% of the population, considerably less than the percentage who think Jewish businessmen are using lasers to create wildfires in California, or think the Democrats are holding littlle children for Satanic rituals - does this 6% REALLY have the outsize influence so many think?
Ok, FINALLY, the precise question
Is it REMOTELY possible, despite the fact that you are no doubt a talented, very bright journalist who dedicated much of her life to getting accurate information about the world and the peoples of the world, that David Horowitz and his many colleagues in hate radio and far right think tanks, have so brilliantly manipulated the news that - ALTHOUGH YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT WOKEISM - that just possibly, some of our sense that it's taking over the world might be the result of devilishly, (satanically??) successful right wing fake news?
Don - Thanks for your very diplomatically crafted comment! I appreciate your thoughts and engagement.
Re your question: I'm not quite sure if you're saying that: 1) "right-wing fake news" essentitally created Wokeism, causing it to expand from a very small fringe on the left to something much more influential today; 2) right-wing media is exaggerating the influence of Wokeism - it's out there, but not so important in the bigger picture; or 3) both of these points. So, I'll try and respond to both regardless.
To do a bit of table setting first: I'm not sure if you caught the part of this (admittedly very long) essay that agreed with your point that most Democrats aren't Woke. There is an embedded link to a 2021 Pew Research Center analysis of the Democratic coalition there that, while it doesn't ask about "Wokeism" per se, indicates that this is the case quite clearly: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/the-democratic-coalition/
So we have no disagreement there.
We also seem to agree that a whole slew of quite powerful institutions that tend to be run by progressives have gone Woke. Putting these two facts together, the obvious conclusion (which is borne out by plenty of research) is that Wokeism is, on the whole, an elite phenomenon, driven by the college educated, professional-managerial class (PMC). So I think we agree there, too.
What I was trying to say in the essay is that there are a lot of Democrats, progressives, and left-of-center types that are going along with Wokeism for various reasons, but NOT because they actually buy it. I'm not sure whether we disagree on this point or not.
It is an important point, though. Because if a minority has succeeded in achieving such dominance that the majority are effectively silenced, then the fact that the majority doesn't agree with Wokeism doesn't mean that the ideology isn't powerful. In fact, I'd say the opposite - it is something that's helping the elite to consolidate its hold on dominant institutions and silence dissent, even among Democrats and on the left more generally.
Circling back to my rephrasing of your question above - re #1: No, I don't think that Wokeism achieved the hold that it has on the progressive left due to right-wing media. Most Blue Staters don't watch Fox News, let alone NewsMax or other even more right-wing outlets. They don't even pay attention to center-right institutions like AEI. Everything they know about right-wing media tends to come from what left-wing media tells them. Of course there are exceptions, but in my experience, this is definitely the pattern.
Moving on to question #2: Is right-wing media exaggerating the threat of Wokeism? Here, I'd say "yes" in some ways, but "no" in others.
"Yes" in the sense that some dedicated consumers of right-wing media are scared out of their minds in ways that are completely unnecessary and not at all reality-based. These are the types of people who think that Antifa is going to march into their small town, break down the door of their little ranch house, and shoot their dog. Or something.
There is a level of fear that's been generated that is way, way, WAY out of proportion - even though things are, in fact, quite bad. But it's like the conservative small-town view of Chicago: They seem to think that the second you step within city limits, you'll be dodging bullets. Yes, crime has spiked and it's a serious problem. But it's nothing like they imagine. I say this based on multiple passing conversations with such people when travelling through small town America.
Another "yes," right-wing media exaggerates: They like to paint all of Blue State America with the same Woke brush. As we agree, this is inaccurate.
Another "yes": They use this threat of Wokeism as a way to deflect attention from other problems that they are implicated in (economic inequality, for starters). The culture war is very convenient for both parties in this sense.
But that leads to a "no": In another sense, they're not exaggerating. The fact that Wokeism has taken over the elite wing of Blue State America enough to transform its institutions provides incredible momentum for the culture war to not only continue, but intensify.
And it's not like there's not a lot at stake there. Just ask parents of preteens and teens who have been swept up in various Woke trends that are clearly are very damanging to them. For those parents, nothing is more immediately urgent than the culture war, as their kids are at stake. Ditto with women athletes who are beaten in elite competitions by transwomen, anyone who's lost their job due to some unjustified cancellation, etc. (Or, in the opposite direction, women who can't access safe, legal abortion but really need it and should have that right to control their own bodies and destinies.) There is a lot at stake for a lot of people in the culture war.
But the more that we continue to ignore other problems and polarize around the culture war, the more the country goes down the tubes. So Wokeism is a serious problem. Because it's doing an enormous amount to drive the culture war forward. I agree that right-wing media misrepresents its dynamics. But I don't think that's what created it. And I don't think that the threat it poses isn't real simply because it's not a majoritarian position.
On the contrary, the fact that it's being driven by an elite minority indicates just how unrepresentative the Democratic Party truly is. Generally speaking, they don't care about representing the true views of their constituents. They only care about manipulating them and the rest of the system enough to win elections.
Well, I"m glad I put enough care into how I phrased it to understand you better. And I have to give you credit - the intensity of your previous reaction (I suppose rightly so, since I rejected your initial premise rather simplistically) inspired. me to look a lot more carefully and question my initial assumption that wokeism is MUCH less of a problem than liberals make it. Wrong, Don!
I think I could quibble a bit (I suspect if you looked more deeply into the history, you might - might! - find more subtle influence from the Right than many liberals or progressives might want to consciously admit, but if I'm wrong about that, and very well could be, there's still a majority of what you write that I think we do agree about)
I like your point, which I didn't get as thoroughly in the article but now I see more clearly, that a larger problem is folks on the left (or what "Left" there is in this country) going along with the more illiberal, intolerant aspects of wokeism even though they don't accept much or most of it)
So back to, what do we do about it?
I don't have my comment in front of me on my small iPad screen, so forgive me if I'm just repeating myself. There's a lot I could critique about Bernie Sanders proverbially "crotchety old man" act, but one thing he does so beautifully that I rarely see Democrats do is to follow George Lakoff's recommendation not to accept right wing framing.
Whether it's someone asking about guns, abortion, gay/trans rights, etc, Bernie says something like, "Look, you know that you and I may not see eye to eye on some of those issues, but look - you want to have food on the table for you and your kids, you need decent healthcare, education, a reliable decent living wage" and so on.
Well, I could see a Democrat speaking to progressives and conservatives the same way. Economic justice - how in the world can the Democrats be losing on that? How can they not get across the message that the Republicans just have nothing to offer on this?
The right wing non-news media has successfully pushed the Democrats into a corner on social issues, making them lose the working. class (and yes, a powerful influential minority of intolerant wokeists have no doubt helped alienate much of the working class - Hispanic and black as well as white) but whether it's Bernie himself (very unlikely) or someone else, somehow the Democrats better get back to a truly universal message that they once had and once reached vast majorities of the American voters, or this country may not last much longer as a democracy.
TLDR??
Sorry this is so long - last point - I don't see any solution that does not call upon all of us - not just Americans but humans across the globe - to find "That" in which we all ultimately have a common bond. Whether it's some kind of humanist "we all share the same beautiful planet" or a deeper spiritual vision, this to me seems the ultimate - if I may use the word - "salvation.". To the extent extremist wokeist language/policies are working against this overriding Unity, it absolutely needs to be transformed - in this I think we agree 100%
Don - I think I see where we disagree now more clearly. You think that the "right wing non-news media has successfully pushed the Democrats into a corner on social issues, making them lose the working. class." I think that the Democrats are dominated by elites, corporate interests, and powerful interest groups, which were united in their determination to neutralize Bernie and did so quite effectively.
I also think that the Dems are very much pushing a Woke culture war - have you checked out the Biden Admin's revamping of Title IX, super-aggressive pushing of "gender-affirming care" for children and youth, etc.? Of course, they keep a lot of this out of the MSM precisely because it is NOT popular, even with most Democrats, as we've discussed. But there are powerful players who do want it, and so it's happening. No one is "making" them do that except the powerful interests at the heart of the Dems own elite coalition.
I do agree with you on your point about needing to find common ground. I just think that the Dems have no real interest in the agenda you describe (that's why they wanted to crush Bernie). Also, the "progressive" wing of the party (AOC, etc.) is super-woke. So as currently constituted, I don't see the Dems improving anytime soon.
This is why I've turned to supporting electoral reform measures like RCV in desperation; I've given up on both parties and am just hoping that somehow their lockhold on American politics can be broken.
I think what I thought was our core disagreement was the extent to which wokeism has been bought into by a majority of Democrats. It looks like we basically agree on that. In fact, Dems having no interest in Bernie's agenda, and the corruption of corporate Democrats is probably something we do agree on.
RCV sounds great and is absolutely necessary. I'm going to close by going back to my most radical views, which involve a fundamental change in human nature. Whether liberal or conservative, very few agree that's possible. And I'm talking about almost the exact opposite of the transhumanists, who think humans can be transformed by machinery.
But I won't push it too much here as that doesn't seem to be a core part of your efforts, which I think, apart from that, are quite admirable, if possibly a bit Quixotic (as if mine is not equally or more so!)
You know, the Catholic social justice folks have a very interesting almost-social democratic alternative - I think it's spelled "Subsidiarism" - not sure. Right wing libertarians wrongly claim it as their own - it goes back to EF Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" (he was almost a lone voice in the 1950s telling people we had to prepare for climate change). The idea is you always TRY to do things at a local level if possible - AND only if feasible. If the local level was not sufficient, go to state, national and international levels (they recommended national banks, for example, which makes it clear this is not right wing libertarianism)
The reason this intersects with my view that human nature must be taken into account AND transformed, is the aim of working at the local level whenever possible emphasizes natural, organic, non bureacratic, intuitive, integral relating as much as possible, in a way which can transcend corporate domination AND polarizing rhetoric.
Ok, but that takes us far afield, sorry. If you're ever up for a challenging yet inspiring read - the most inspiring social commentary I've ever seen - look at Sri Aurobindo's socio-political writings. Given he was the leader of the Indian independence movement before Gandhi came on the scene, it might seem that he has some street cred in these matters!
Thanks for the dialog, your writings have been helpful. I hope you get many more subscribers.
Thank you! I fully admit to being quixotic (one of the benefits of self-publishing if that you're free to be so) and am interested in subsidiarity. At some point I plan to research it more deeply.
Another "at some point" recommendation for you:>))
This may not be to your liking, but I think in some way - seemingly only a personal level but we write and talk elsewhere about the implications for the world - it hints at the shift in consciousness I've been writing about. Our site is NOT done yet (at the tail end of a massive revisioning) but the 2nd video on the page - it's only about 9 minutes - draws on some recent fascinating brain research to suggest a way out for us all: https://www.remembertobe.life
You should be famous—you’re brilliant!
Thank you so much!
late hit, but chiming in to say this is such a good essay.
Thanks!
Hi, Carol.
There are many insights that you share in both this essay on "Toxic Femininity" and another of your recent essays ("Why I'm No Longer a Progressive" that seem to align well with the insights in these two essays from the co-founders of Protopia Labs (an organization dedicated to depolarization). They both use some similar language though with slightly different nuances. I think you'd really like their work, and I *know* they would appreciate yours. (P.S. I posted this comment on both of your essays, if that's okay... both are an inspiring read.
"Why We Need to Talk about Post-Liberalism" by Micha Narberhaus
https://michanarberhaus.substack.com/p/why-we-need-to-talk-about-post-liberalism
"Pride of the Elites: Political Correctness, Identity Politics and Class War:
How Elite Overproduction drives culture wars, and how to move beyond it" by Alexander Beiner
https://beiner.substack.com/p/pride-of-the-elites-political-correctness
The reality of biological sex, if you're referring to certain human physiological structures and functions, certainly exists, but that's one small component of the social construction of gender. That edifice is subject to critique, and I recognize that it has carried oppression and limitations which continue to affect many people. In a more general sense, I think Wokeism alludes to some legitimate grievances, utilizing, unfortunately, elements of Jacobinism and a disregard for valuable norms of liberal inquiry. You've well illustrated some of the perils of those impulses. I try to contextualize Wokeism in many centuries of social injustice, through which millions of lives have been lost or truncated. Wokeism really begins with cries for justice.
Harry, thanks for reading and commenting. I respect your more positive take even though I obviously don't share it. However I do share your sense that there is a long history in play here, as well as the desire to be empathetic towards others with different experiences and/or perspectives.
Carol, I hope you'll be patient with me. I've tried to ask this question before and have always gotten attacked as an idiot, hopelessly uninformed, etc.
So I'll try to be clear about my views before asking the question.
1. I hate wokeism. I was quite aware of what was essentially the same phenomenon in the 1970s, on the 3 occasions I decided to attend a secular, Leftist group, comprised mostly of highly academic folks. hated the language. In fact, a friend of mine just posted something on his Facebook page. I initially wrote a highly reactive comment then thought better of it and immediately deleted it. that ugly, wokeist, postmodern nonsense, showing off one's erudition with 5, 6 and 7 syllable incoherent word salad.
To repeat, I hate wokeism
2. You wrote that it's being pushed by Democratic Party, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, the art world, the medical establishment, corporate HR offices, professional associations, the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, and the legacy media (NPR, The New York Times, CNN, etc.)
I agree.
So I want to be VERY clear before I ask:
1. I hate wokeism
2. I FULLY agree it's present in all the areas you mention - in fact, you didn't mention junior and senior high schools, where it's undoubtedly present.
3. I think it's the single greatest impediment to economic justice, which the Democrats should shine in. I've never heard a single Democrat deal with it well except for Bernie. He was speaking to a group of Trump supporters - ALL Trump supporters. They kept trying to bait him on gay marriage, guns, trans rights, etc. He never took the bait. He'd simply say, "look, you know we disagree on those things. But you also know that my Republican opponents are not going to help you feed your family, help you get universal health care, improve the environment, make your workplaces safe and fair, etc"
And EVERYONE would be nodding vigorously. I've been saying for years instead of always being reactive and trying to fight the republicans (they have the perfect issue now - trans rights. Every time a Democrat defends his/her position on trans rights, the Far Right wackos just say, "See the Democrats ARE grooming children.) - instead of reactivity, say "WE are the pro-life party. We support women and fetuses from before birth to the end of live. WE are are pro life, protecting people from poisonous environments, from vulture capitalists (who the Trumpists all say they hate also) from reckless gun violence, etc.
So, so far we're in complete agreement, yes?
1. Hate wokeism
2. It's all the places you say and more
3. An enormous impediment to economic justice.
So what's my question? Please keep the above in mind, otherwise when you read the question you're just going to flip into, "Don's an idiot who is just trolling and doesn't know what he's talking about"
Ok.
I've been following this since the 1970s and saw it coming. I was aware, in 1992, that David Horowitz was hired by a right wing think tank to troll left wing academics and to find the most obnoxious, potentially frightening language for conservatives. He looked at many of the VERY SAME ACADEMICS who completely turned me off some 15-20 years previously. He then set about in a kind of devilishly brilliant way and slowly made his way into hate radio and various other think tanks and ultimately, the republican party big wigs to convince them THIS was the issue to kill the Democrats, AND they would buy it hook line and sinker.
he was right.
Boy I'm putting off the actual question because I'm afraid you're not going to take all our agreement into account:
I asked you before, What is the actual evidence that a significant majority of Democrats in the country (not representatives, just Democratic voters) are into this stuff? They say a third of the adult voting population, approximately, are Democrats. That's about 70 million people, somewhat in the ballpark (a little less) than voted for Biden, so that's probably right.
Now, we know for sure that the progressive wing of the Democrats - whether in Congress or among the voters - is a minority. I've heard 10%. But let's double that and say it's 20%. That's 14 million people.
So let's get some perspective on this:
In a country of 350 million people, among which 220 million are of voting age, about 4% of the total population and 6% of the voting population, are strongly woke.
6% of voters.
Remember, most sociologists have said in virtually any population, you can count on at least 10-15% to be the crazies, the folks who will buy virtually any Qanon nonsense, right or left wing conspiratorial nut jobs. So they generally write off that percentage.
But we're talking about 6% here.
now, i'm quite hesitant to disagree, if you say, "Well, who cares if it's a tiny number. They're in the media, in universities, and they have an overwhelming influence."
I won't disagree but I'll question you a bit.
Given that the total "influential" disgustingly, obnoxiously, horrifically woke population is about 6% of the population, considerably less than the percentage who think Jewish businessmen are using lasers to create wildfires in California, or think the Democrats are holding littlle children for Satanic rituals - does this 6% REALLY have the outsize influence so many think?
Ok, FINALLY, the precise question
Is it REMOTELY possible, despite the fact that you are no doubt a talented, very bright journalist who dedicated much of her life to getting accurate information about the world and the peoples of the world, that David Horowitz and his many colleagues in hate radio and far right think tanks, have so brilliantly manipulated the news that - ALTHOUGH YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT WOKEISM - that just possibly, some of our sense that it's taking over the world might be the result of devilishly, (satanically??) successful right wing fake news?
Don - Thanks for your very diplomatically crafted comment! I appreciate your thoughts and engagement.
Re your question: I'm not quite sure if you're saying that: 1) "right-wing fake news" essentitally created Wokeism, causing it to expand from a very small fringe on the left to something much more influential today; 2) right-wing media is exaggerating the influence of Wokeism - it's out there, but not so important in the bigger picture; or 3) both of these points. So, I'll try and respond to both regardless.
To do a bit of table setting first: I'm not sure if you caught the part of this (admittedly very long) essay that agreed with your point that most Democrats aren't Woke. There is an embedded link to a 2021 Pew Research Center analysis of the Democratic coalition there that, while it doesn't ask about "Wokeism" per se, indicates that this is the case quite clearly: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/the-democratic-coalition/
So we have no disagreement there.
We also seem to agree that a whole slew of quite powerful institutions that tend to be run by progressives have gone Woke. Putting these two facts together, the obvious conclusion (which is borne out by plenty of research) is that Wokeism is, on the whole, an elite phenomenon, driven by the college educated, professional-managerial class (PMC). So I think we agree there, too.
What I was trying to say in the essay is that there are a lot of Democrats, progressives, and left-of-center types that are going along with Wokeism for various reasons, but NOT because they actually buy it. I'm not sure whether we disagree on this point or not.
It is an important point, though. Because if a minority has succeeded in achieving such dominance that the majority are effectively silenced, then the fact that the majority doesn't agree with Wokeism doesn't mean that the ideology isn't powerful. In fact, I'd say the opposite - it is something that's helping the elite to consolidate its hold on dominant institutions and silence dissent, even among Democrats and on the left more generally.
Circling back to my rephrasing of your question above - re #1: No, I don't think that Wokeism achieved the hold that it has on the progressive left due to right-wing media. Most Blue Staters don't watch Fox News, let alone NewsMax or other even more right-wing outlets. They don't even pay attention to center-right institutions like AEI. Everything they know about right-wing media tends to come from what left-wing media tells them. Of course there are exceptions, but in my experience, this is definitely the pattern.
Moving on to question #2: Is right-wing media exaggerating the threat of Wokeism? Here, I'd say "yes" in some ways, but "no" in others.
"Yes" in the sense that some dedicated consumers of right-wing media are scared out of their minds in ways that are completely unnecessary and not at all reality-based. These are the types of people who think that Antifa is going to march into their small town, break down the door of their little ranch house, and shoot their dog. Or something.
There is a level of fear that's been generated that is way, way, WAY out of proportion - even though things are, in fact, quite bad. But it's like the conservative small-town view of Chicago: They seem to think that the second you step within city limits, you'll be dodging bullets. Yes, crime has spiked and it's a serious problem. But it's nothing like they imagine. I say this based on multiple passing conversations with such people when travelling through small town America.
Another "yes," right-wing media exaggerates: They like to paint all of Blue State America with the same Woke brush. As we agree, this is inaccurate.
Another "yes": They use this threat of Wokeism as a way to deflect attention from other problems that they are implicated in (economic inequality, for starters). The culture war is very convenient for both parties in this sense.
But that leads to a "no": In another sense, they're not exaggerating. The fact that Wokeism has taken over the elite wing of Blue State America enough to transform its institutions provides incredible momentum for the culture war to not only continue, but intensify.
And it's not like there's not a lot at stake there. Just ask parents of preteens and teens who have been swept up in various Woke trends that are clearly are very damanging to them. For those parents, nothing is more immediately urgent than the culture war, as their kids are at stake. Ditto with women athletes who are beaten in elite competitions by transwomen, anyone who's lost their job due to some unjustified cancellation, etc. (Or, in the opposite direction, women who can't access safe, legal abortion but really need it and should have that right to control their own bodies and destinies.) There is a lot at stake for a lot of people in the culture war.
But the more that we continue to ignore other problems and polarize around the culture war, the more the country goes down the tubes. So Wokeism is a serious problem. Because it's doing an enormous amount to drive the culture war forward. I agree that right-wing media misrepresents its dynamics. But I don't think that's what created it. And I don't think that the threat it poses isn't real simply because it's not a majoritarian position.
On the contrary, the fact that it's being driven by an elite minority indicates just how unrepresentative the Democratic Party truly is. Generally speaking, they don't care about representing the true views of their constituents. They only care about manipulating them and the rest of the system enough to win elections.
Hi Carol:
Well, I"m glad I put enough care into how I phrased it to understand you better. And I have to give you credit - the intensity of your previous reaction (I suppose rightly so, since I rejected your initial premise rather simplistically) inspired. me to look a lot more carefully and question my initial assumption that wokeism is MUCH less of a problem than liberals make it. Wrong, Don!
I think I could quibble a bit (I suspect if you looked more deeply into the history, you might - might! - find more subtle influence from the Right than many liberals or progressives might want to consciously admit, but if I'm wrong about that, and very well could be, there's still a majority of what you write that I think we do agree about)
I like your point, which I didn't get as thoroughly in the article but now I see more clearly, that a larger problem is folks on the left (or what "Left" there is in this country) going along with the more illiberal, intolerant aspects of wokeism even though they don't accept much or most of it)
So back to, what do we do about it?
I don't have my comment in front of me on my small iPad screen, so forgive me if I'm just repeating myself. There's a lot I could critique about Bernie Sanders proverbially "crotchety old man" act, but one thing he does so beautifully that I rarely see Democrats do is to follow George Lakoff's recommendation not to accept right wing framing.
Whether it's someone asking about guns, abortion, gay/trans rights, etc, Bernie says something like, "Look, you know that you and I may not see eye to eye on some of those issues, but look - you want to have food on the table for you and your kids, you need decent healthcare, education, a reliable decent living wage" and so on.
Well, I could see a Democrat speaking to progressives and conservatives the same way. Economic justice - how in the world can the Democrats be losing on that? How can they not get across the message that the Republicans just have nothing to offer on this?
The right wing non-news media has successfully pushed the Democrats into a corner on social issues, making them lose the working. class (and yes, a powerful influential minority of intolerant wokeists have no doubt helped alienate much of the working class - Hispanic and black as well as white) but whether it's Bernie himself (very unlikely) or someone else, somehow the Democrats better get back to a truly universal message that they once had and once reached vast majorities of the American voters, or this country may not last much longer as a democracy.
TLDR??
Sorry this is so long - last point - I don't see any solution that does not call upon all of us - not just Americans but humans across the globe - to find "That" in which we all ultimately have a common bond. Whether it's some kind of humanist "we all share the same beautiful planet" or a deeper spiritual vision, this to me seems the ultimate - if I may use the word - "salvation.". To the extent extremist wokeist language/policies are working against this overriding Unity, it absolutely needs to be transformed - in this I think we agree 100%
Don - I think I see where we disagree now more clearly. You think that the "right wing non-news media has successfully pushed the Democrats into a corner on social issues, making them lose the working. class." I think that the Democrats are dominated by elites, corporate interests, and powerful interest groups, which were united in their determination to neutralize Bernie and did so quite effectively.
I also think that the Dems are very much pushing a Woke culture war - have you checked out the Biden Admin's revamping of Title IX, super-aggressive pushing of "gender-affirming care" for children and youth, etc.? Of course, they keep a lot of this out of the MSM precisely because it is NOT popular, even with most Democrats, as we've discussed. But there are powerful players who do want it, and so it's happening. No one is "making" them do that except the powerful interests at the heart of the Dems own elite coalition.
I do agree with you on your point about needing to find common ground. I just think that the Dems have no real interest in the agenda you describe (that's why they wanted to crush Bernie). Also, the "progressive" wing of the party (AOC, etc.) is super-woke. So as currently constituted, I don't see the Dems improving anytime soon.
This is why I've turned to supporting electoral reform measures like RCV in desperation; I've given up on both parties and am just hoping that somehow their lockhold on American politics can be broken.
Looks like we agree more than I realized.
I think what I thought was our core disagreement was the extent to which wokeism has been bought into by a majority of Democrats. It looks like we basically agree on that. In fact, Dems having no interest in Bernie's agenda, and the corruption of corporate Democrats is probably something we do agree on.
RCV sounds great and is absolutely necessary. I'm going to close by going back to my most radical views, which involve a fundamental change in human nature. Whether liberal or conservative, very few agree that's possible. And I'm talking about almost the exact opposite of the transhumanists, who think humans can be transformed by machinery.
But I won't push it too much here as that doesn't seem to be a core part of your efforts, which I think, apart from that, are quite admirable, if possibly a bit Quixotic (as if mine is not equally or more so!)
You know, the Catholic social justice folks have a very interesting almost-social democratic alternative - I think it's spelled "Subsidiarism" - not sure. Right wing libertarians wrongly claim it as their own - it goes back to EF Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful" (he was almost a lone voice in the 1950s telling people we had to prepare for climate change). The idea is you always TRY to do things at a local level if possible - AND only if feasible. If the local level was not sufficient, go to state, national and international levels (they recommended national banks, for example, which makes it clear this is not right wing libertarianism)
The reason this intersects with my view that human nature must be taken into account AND transformed, is the aim of working at the local level whenever possible emphasizes natural, organic, non bureacratic, intuitive, integral relating as much as possible, in a way which can transcend corporate domination AND polarizing rhetoric.
Ok, but that takes us far afield, sorry. If you're ever up for a challenging yet inspiring read - the most inspiring social commentary I've ever seen - look at Sri Aurobindo's socio-political writings. Given he was the leader of the Indian independence movement before Gandhi came on the scene, it might seem that he has some street cred in these matters!
Thanks for the dialog, your writings have been helpful. I hope you get many more subscribers.
Thank you! I fully admit to being quixotic (one of the benefits of self-publishing if that you're free to be so) and am interested in subsidiarity. At some point I plan to research it more deeply.
Another "at some point" recommendation for you:>))
This may not be to your liking, but I think in some way - seemingly only a personal level but we write and talk elsewhere about the implications for the world - it hints at the shift in consciousness I've been writing about. Our site is NOT done yet (at the tail end of a massive revisioning) but the 2nd video on the page - it's only about 9 minutes - draws on some recent fascinating brain research to suggest a way out for us all: https://www.remembertobe.life