The Liberal Way
In this series we discuss what the liberal way for dealing with various cultural and social controversies should look like.
Critical Race Theory
I want to talk about two groups of people: those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive', and those who oppose CRT and support politicians who would use state power to shut it down. Both are clearly not the liberal way, and in examining them, I hope we can clarify what a truly liberal attitude towards CRT should look like.
First, let's examine the case of those who support CRT because it 'sounds progressive'. What we need to remember is that what 'sounds progressive' is arbitrary, and what sounded progressive in one era could be seen as regressive and misguided in the next. Therefore, going by what 'sounds progressive' is no different from following the fashion of the day, and forgoing independent thinking. Moreover, ideas that are the fashion of the day may also be illiberal. If so, embracing them would lead to a more illiberal future, and this is something that might not be easily correctable down the road.
The liberal case against CRT is clear. At the most fundamental level, CRT is incompatible with basic liberal values because it doesn't treat everyone the same regardless of immutable characteristics like race. Philosophically, CRT's prioritization of theories of power relations above commitment to objective truth is also at odds with liberalism's historical commitment to empiricism and objectivity, and inevitably puts long-standing principles like free speech and the scientific method at risk. Looking at it from a big picture perspective, CRT could be seen as a wedge to introduce a fundamentally anti-Enlightenment worldview into mainstream Western politics, with the aim of eventually supplanting liberalism and its associated values. This means that, if we don't want liberal values to be supplanted by postmodern values, we need to oppose CRT, period.
Next, let's consider the case of those who oppose CRT, and support using state power to shut it down. This is important to look at, because an increasing number of conservative politicians are now building an 'anti-woke' brand, based on policies like banning (vaguely defined) divisive discussions on race in schools, and banning textbooks that contain divisive content on race (again without clear and objective criteria). Previously, I've said that I'm particularly concerned about those who started opposing postmodern critical theory on liberal grounds, but have clearly lost sight of those liberal grounds they were defending. They have lost sight of why things like free speech are important, and why emotionally charged action is suspect. Instead of defending and rebuilding the liberal way, these people support illiberal means of 'combating wokeness', and are hence contributing to the erosion of liberalism in Western political culture.
The liberal way of combating bad ideas is by using our own free speech to expose their flaws, and ultimately win the argument against them in the marketplace of ideas. Using government power to shut down ideas we don't like is something liberals should never support, period. And we must remember that there is a very good reason for us to take this stance consistently. Free speech must be upheld in a consistent, universal and content-neutral way, or it will cease to exist within a generation. The other important point is, the marketplace of ideas is only credible if it is truly free and fair for all individuals and all ideas.
Of course, the lack of a strong, truly liberal movement against CRT (and postmodern critical theory more generally) has pushed some people towards the illiberal type of anti-wokeism in the past few years. This is why we must take a stance for the liberal way, and make the liberal position clearly heard. We must be brave enough to upset people and break alliances if this is what is needed to uphold the liberal way. We need to remember that the future of Western political culture is at stake here.
Free Speech
I want to examine the issue of free speech from a liberal perspective. At first glance, there appears to be nothing much to say: liberals support free speech, case closed. However, to defend free speech effectively, we must understand why it is an important priority in the liberal worldview. We also need to understand what conditions are necessary to maintain the promise of free speech, and a healthy marketplace of ideas.
Free speech is important because it is the only way we can get closer to the objective truth, no matter what topic we are talking about. Individual liberal thinkers often have different emphases and different priorities. For example, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe it is most important that we get to the objective truth on matters of morality. Other liberals might prioritize getting towards the objective truth on other matters. But the common ground for all liberals is the need to get towards the objective truth. Above all, liberals believe that getting to the objective truth is the fundamentally necessary condition that must be achieved before we can build a good order. An order that is not based on the objective truth would inevitably be unjust, inefficient, and potentially harmful.
The promise of free speech can only be maintained if speech will not lead to illiberal consequences. People should be allowed to freely explore ideas and viewpoints, knowing that it will not lead to actually oppressive consequences enforced by state power. If debate on abortion is used as a launching pad for punitive abortion bans, if valid criticism of drag queen story hour leads to legislation that bans drag queens from performing in public entirely, if opposition to critical race theory is used to justify limiting free speech itself, it raises the stakes of allowing free speech, and gives credence to the postmodern 'speech is power' worldview. After all, if free speech can indeed lead to illiberal consequences enforced by state power, then it becomes difficult to argue against its limitation on the grounds of maintaining social tolerance. This is why liberals must firmly oppose using state power to wage the culture wars, which inevitably includes coercing acceptance and obedience towards a particular viewpoint in contentious moral debates. There can be no compromise at all on this principle, because if we allow even the slightest bit of illiberalism, we would have set a precedent that destroys the promise of free speech, and fundamentally compromises our argument against the postmodernist 'speech is power' worldview.
On the other hand, liberals should insist on separating speech and political action. Postmodernism has over-emphasized the 'power' in speech and discourse, which has been detrimental to free speech. I think we can turn this around by telling people to focus on where the 'power' actually lies, i.e. the politicians who make the laws. For example, if you oppose abortion bans, your problem is not with those who argue against abortion on moral grounds. Your problem is with the legislators who introduce and pass bills to ban abortion, who often do so out of political, rather than moral grounds. Rather than de-platforming or otherwise disrespecting the free speech of private citizens with pro-life views, you should protest those politicians instead. However, you should still respect the free speech of pro-life individuals, because they are speaking from their conscience in good faith. If you disallow speech that is rooted in genuine belief on contentious moral matters, there is no longer free speech, practically speaking. While people might legitimately and strongly disagree on policy, free speech on matters of personal morality should be sacred, and treated as so. To achieve this goal, there must be a level of separation between politics and regular speech. This is another reason why liberals need to oppose the political culture warriors on both the Left and the Right, who seek to politicize everything. Their methods are a threat to free speech.
This brings us onto my final point: the right to privacy, and the necessity of separating the public from the private. Culture warriors on both the Left and the Right often seek to enlarge the public sphere, and diminish the private, by claiming almost everything as part of either a 'system of oppression' or 'the common good'. This would lead to forced conformity, which liberal thinkers going back to John Stuart Mill have long warned about. This is why we should, in principle, defend individual freedom against overly broad claims of the 'common good', especially where this so-called 'common good' isn't agreed to universally.
The Trans Discourse and Gender Differences
I want to examine society's current inability to have a rational and objective discussion about gender differences, the flow-on effects on the discourse around trans issues, and how we can fix all this. In the previous episode, I stated that liberals believe in seeking out the objective truth first, and then seeking to build a good order based on what we know about the objective truth. The order here is important, because we need to know the objective facts before we make any value judgements, and this requires us to be open-minded in our quest to know the world as it is. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for wider society, when it comes to sex and gender issues.
Men and women, on average, differ on not just physical properties, but also in psychology and behavior, and at least some of these differences are by nature, rather than environmental conditioning. If by sex we mean biological sex, and by gender we mean the social and behavioral aspects, then the two are certainly highly correlated, even if there is also a large range of overlap. This is true even if we take LGBT people into account, because they account for only a small fraction of the population. Indeed, the exception (LGBT people) proves the rule (non-LGBT people) here. All this should not be controversial at all.
In fact, accepting these objective facts would go a long way towards understanding trans people. It is in refusing to accept at least some of these facts (that there could be differences between men and women outside of the physically observable) that anti-trans gender critical feminism becomes possible. It is in refusing to accept even more of these facts that a postmodern approach to trans issues, that ignores the centrality of gender dysphoria in trans lives, becomes able to speak over objective evidence from clinical medicine. In turn, this has led to trans identity being seen as akin to a lifestyle choice, leading to right-wing culture warriors calling for restricting trans rights and taking away funding for transition related medical treatment. All this means the critical theory worldview, in its rejection of the objective truth on sex and gender, is at the root of the current sorry state of the trans discourse. Which is why it must be challenged as a matter of priority.
To start fixing things, we must demand that we be able to talk about the objective truth when it comes to sex and gender. For too long, the critical theory worldview has made such discussion taboo, by assuming that any talk of differences would be a tool of the patriarchy to oppress women. However, this assumption is not objectively sound at all. The view that objective facts can be a tool of the patriarchy is ultimately rooted in the worldview that ideas are primarily defined by power relations, and objective truth is less important than power relations. While this worldview had existed before postmodernism, it was arguably the work of Michel Foucault that took it to its logical conclusion: that knowledge itself is always a product of power relations. Once you embrace this worldview, there is no going back to looking at the objective facts neutrally. Hence, this worldview is completely incompatible with being committed to what the scientific facts actually say.
In accepting the basic objective facts about sex and gender, one can clearly see trans people's plight in simple terms, as long as one is not already biased by religious dogma (like many right-wing culture warriors clearly are, even if they do not say it aloud these days). To put it simply, there is a mind-body mismatch happening. Of course, this is an oversimplification. However, this at least gets the basic point across. Given the current dire situation facing trans people and trans rights, I think there is a good case for going back to the basics here. And we can only do that by putting decades of academic philosophy aside, and returning to the objective facts.
Non-Aggression and Good Order
In recent years, much has been said about the incompatibility between liberal values, and activism that is rooted in postmodern critical theory, that is sometimes called 'woke' (although I'm concerned that the w-word is now over broadly applied). As I have illustrated multiple times, for liberals, knowing the objective truth is fundamental and prior to building a good order. To know the objective truth, people must be allowed to freely explore ideas and discover things. This is why a truly free and fair marketplace of ideas is important. The postmodern critical theory worldview, where ideas are primarily seen as the product of oppressive power relations, and the activism it leads to, are fundamentally incompatible with what liberals believe in. After all, if certain ideas are seen as the product of oppressive power relations, they would need to be shut down rather than given a fair go in the marketplace of ideas. This is actually the logic behind Herbert Marcuse's famous essay Repressive Tolerance. The fact that this essay was published back in the 1960s shows that this worldview has actually been around for a while.
During this time, the influence of this worldview has led to an uneven playing field for certain ideas, which might not even be harmful. For example, there has been a particular aversion to traditional ideas as 'oppressive', which has led some to react negatively to any talk of 'family values', even when it is not used as a dog whistle against gay marriage and adoption. True liberals oppose this uneven playing field, because we believe in a healthy marketplace of ideas. Historically, we argued against the irrational negativity towards marriage that was behind the initial reluctance by some gay activists to embrace marriage equality, for example. However, in recent years, postmodern critical theory has gone mainstream, potentially leading to blatantly uneven playing fields as the new norm. This means it is now even more important to argue against this worldview as a whole.
However, there is also another reason liberals oppose postmodern critical theory, that is at least just as important. And that is non-aggression. The 'Non Aggression Principle' (NAP) at the root of classical libertarianism is actually a very specific and simplistic application of the value of non-aggression, and while classical libertarianism is under the broad liberal umbrella, most liberals probably don't believe in the NAP the way classical libertarians do. However, broadly speaking, non-aggression is actually the spirit of all kinds of liberalism. We liberals have long believed that non-aggression is essential to achieving a good order. Historically, liberalism arose as an extension of religious tolerance, that itself arose as a solution to put an end to centuries of toxic religious conflicts in Europe. As it is sometimes described, liberalism lowers the expectations of politics, and takes it away from debates about how the good life should be like, towards focusing on how we can live together peacefully despite our differences.
It turns out that this actually leads to the best life for all, comparatively speaking. Life in the West since the classical liberal consensus has undeniably been better than during the middle ages and the religious conflicts, even if it is still no utopia. The key reason why life has been better is because there is much less aggression. Life today is certainly much less violent than back in the middle ages. It is the liberal aversion towards aggression, and preference for non-aggressive means to resolve differences, that has made this possible. Besides making life less violent, non-aggression also contributes to building good order, because people can rationally work out their differences in dialogue. The stakes of speaking up and exploring new ideas are also much lower, when everyone knows that it would not lead to violent consequences, or innocent people being harmed. This, in turn, encourages the exchange of ideas, and the development of innovative solutions.
Postmodern critical theory activism is not compatible with non-aggression. De-platforming and cancel culture is aggression, by definition. Indeed, much of the theory is basically used to justify aggressive means for dealing with opponents. If words and language can be violent, then an aggressive response like de-platforming is justifiable. If ideas are actually oppressive applications of power, then aggressively shutting them down is justifiable. Taken as a whole, postmodern critical theory rejects the liberal preference for non-aggressive means to resolve our differences. This is why I believe it is essential to prevent liberalism from being contaminated with ideas from postmodern critical theory, if we want liberalism to remain committed to non-aggression.
Right now, many people are justifiably frustrated about cancel culture, and the uneven playing field for certain ideas and voices. Liberals share their frustration here. However, this does not mean that everyone agrees with us about what should be done, and hence can be seen as an ally. Given that liberals firmly believe in non-aggression, true liberals should be concerned about those who advocate using aggression to solve the current problem, or worse, use the current problem as justification for an aggressive culture war program to remake society the way they want to. Put it simply, using state power to shut down your opponents in the culture wars is aggression, and no better than cancel culture in the eyes of true liberals. Politicizing certain issues that actually affect real lives, and using state power to score points in the culture wars at the expense of those lives, is an act of extreme aggression, which true liberals need to resist with all our might. People who do these things might label themselves 'anti-woke', but their brand of anti-wokeness is certainly very different from what liberals want, and it needs to be made clear that we don't share any common ground at all. It is just as important to prevent liberalism from being contaminated by the culture war Right.
In the face of aggressive culture warriors coming from both the Left and the Right, we need to stand our ground, by arguing the case for non-aggression. Non-aggression leads to good order, because it is only when the threat of aggression is removed that people are free to explore and debate ideas, and it is only in this process that we can get closer to the objective truth, or find good solutions to problems. Non-aggression makes life much less violent, meaning that bloody tragedies are less likely to happen, and innocent people are much less likely to be harmed. Finally, non-aggression is an ongoing project, and is by definition progressive rather than reactive. When I was younger, I said I hoped to see all wars end in my lifetime, and I still truly believe in that dream. There is still a lot of work to be done in terms of moving society in the direction of non-aggression, and we must not give up hope.
Woke vs Anti-Woke
I've often been asked how a truly classical liberal movement could be built in the current climate. Specifically, with the conversation being defined as between woke vs anti-woke, where should classical liberals stand?
One version of the story goes like this: classical liberals started opposing 'wokeism' because it offends classical liberal values like free speech, freedom of conscience, and identity neutrality. Due to reasons to do with the American political landscape, the right also opposes wokeism, while the center-left often pretends that the issue doesn't exist, because they fear it might divide the base of the Democratic Party and lose them votes. Over time, the right pours a lot of money into setting up 'anti-woke' media outlets, which also attract many classical liberal followers. Such media outlets often actively call for classical liberals and the right to unite in an anti-woke movement. Their claim is that, in this climate, all anti-woke people (which would have to include classical liberals) should align with the right, because otherwise we would have to inevitably align with the 'woke' in some way. It is a claim that I have long considered dubious, but it serves their right-wing backers well. Meanwhile, center-left media outlets continue to ignore classical liberal concerns about wokeness, due to fear of giving the Republicans an advantage. Some individuals in those outlets even give occasional lip service to woke ideas (although this has apparently become less common since Trump left office, so it's likely to be just an inappropriate reaction to Trumpism). This has made the idea of a liberal-right alliance attractive to some classical liberals.
However, the problem with this is that the right is becoming, well, less and less in line with classical liberal values. A faction of the right is now openly 'postliberal', and as I have analyzed on many occasions, their method of doing politics is also essentially postmodern, in that they see speech as a means to power rather than to seek the objective truth. If classical liberals started out opposing wokeism in order to defend liberal values, only to end up siding with an increasingly illiberal right with many of the same characteristics as wokeism, that wouldn't make sense at all, right? (And if this was the only choice an anti-woke liberal could make, as some on the right claim, then liberalism would already be doomed anyway, making the whole exercise pointless, right?)
Classical liberals must not fall for the postliberal right's blatantly postmodern approach to anti-wokeism, which begins with stealthily redefining the word 'woke', and ends with the supplantation of traditional conservatism with a highly authoritarian and reactionary politics. What we must be able to see here is that the postmodern-postliberal right has tried to expand the definition of 'woke' to potentially encompass every socially progressive reform or idea they don't like, in order to paint all social progressivism as an extraordinary threat requiring an extraordinary (i.e. authoritarian) response. For example, if gay marriage were still an active issue today, they would certainly paint it as 'woke'. They have been able to do that by engaging in deliberately biased reporting, being uncommitted to objectivity, and using speech as a means to power rather than as a means to seek the objective truth. The fact that there is not much other well-funded anti-woke media, due to the twisted incentives in the American political landscape, certainly helps them. (I actually believe that the Democrats have overestimated the danger of dividing their base by allowing some prominent anti-wokeists among their public representatives, and that doing so could help them a lot electorally. But that is another issue for another article.)
The need to differentiate 'wokeism' from non-woke social progressivism is especially important, in the face of dishonest actors from the postmodern-postliberal right trying to capitalize on the current frustration with wokeism. Contrary to some opinions, there is indeed a way to define wokeness clearly and succinctly. Wokeness is a program of cultural change that is rooted in philosophical theory, rather than objectively evident need. The 'rooted in philosophical theory, rather than objectively evident need' part is what differentiates wokeness from normal progressivism. This part actually prevents dishonest actors from painting all socially progressive reform as 'woke'. The 'cultural' part is needed because almost all economic politics is based in some kind of theory. This definition would capture everything that most people mean by 'woke'. For example, the term 'Latinx' is woke, because its 'necessity' is driven by theories around identity and language rather than objective evidence, consistent with the fact that most Latino people don't like it. Gay marriage was a progressive reform, but it was not woke, because it was primarily driven by the objective fact that gay couples were missing out on important rights, rather than any theoretical concern.
So, in practice, how do we differentiate between wokeism and regular social progressivism? This is where the case for liberal values can be made. Liberalism, in its dedication to maintaining a free and fair marketplace of ideas, allows all proposals for social change to be given a fair hearing. It also requires that proponents for social change make a sound case for their change, a case that can convince their fellow citizens from diverse backgrounds, most of them who are not going to share their philosophical commitments. Marriage equality for gay couples was successful because it was able to do this. Many other proposals for change have justifiably failed, because they haven't been able to do this. Generally speaking, only proposals for change that are backed by an objectively evident need, like gay marriage, will be able to gain widespread support. Proposals for change that are rooted in philosophical theory not shared by most people will always fail to do so. Hence, liberalism, in practice, allows objectively necessary and sound reforms through, while making sure that 'woke' changes, which are inherently ideological and objectively unnecessary, will be rejected.
The reason why the woke movement rejects free speech and the marketplace of ideas is because it knows it will be defeated there. Instead, it attempts to redefine speech as power, and opposition to their unreasonable demands as oppression. This is what is at the root of cancel culture and de-platforming. These things, in turn, have led to widespread frustration. The postliberal right has capitalized on this frustration to recruit support for their agenda. However, their strategy actually requires them to go postmodern themselves, to shut down the objective truth, i.e. that not all progressivism is woke, and that a liberal, reasonable reformist alternative is still possible. Like the postmodern left, they aim to do this by damaging the fair marketplace of ideas.
While the postmodern left employs cancel culture to shut down certain opinions in the marketplace of ideas, the postmodern right's favored tactic appears to be to use a (metaphorical) megaphone to blast their biased reporting all over the place, and drown out those voices who might be telling the other side of the story, but are not as well-funded. In practice, both methods lead to a dysfunction in the marketplace of ideas, because all voices are not able to be equally heard and considered. In both cases, the dysfunction is deliberately caused, so that otherwise unsound and unpopular ideas can win. In both cases, it is basically a form of cheating. Therefore, while claiming to oppose wokeism, in practice, the postliberal right is basically doing the same thing as the woke, just in the service of another kind of politics. By insisting on defending a free and fair marketplace of ideas, liberals can expose both of them, and build a truly liberal movement from there.
Drag Queen Story Hour
I want to examine the controversy around Drag Queen Story Hour. Specifically, I want to focus on the political reaction to it, rather than the issue itself. While it is a relatively minor issue in the big picture, it has been deliberately deployed as a wedge issue in the past four years, and is effectively responsible for some changes we've seen in US Republican Party politics, and in the Republican-aligned part of the 'anti-woke' movement. These changes have brought anti-wokeism away from the classical liberal values it once proclaimed, towards what is now being called National Conservatism, which is an authoritarian movement aligned with Trumpism, that clearly doesn't value things like free speech.
The story begins with the famous Ahmari-French debate of 2019. Drag Queen Story Hour was a prominent part of that debate. Ahmari believed that the government should act to shut it down. French, on the other hand, couldn't see what the government could do about it. This was because the free speech rights that prevented government from banning Drag Queen Story Hour were also the very rights that guaranteed things like religious liberty. "So you would undermine viewpoint neutrality in First Amendment jurisprudence?" French asked. "Yeah, I would," Ahmari said. This was the difference at the heart of the debate.
Note that this is not about one's views on Drag Queen Story Hour at all. The crucial point is this: government intervention against free speech and expression, especially when it's done in a way that is clearly non-neutral, and applied to contentious moral issues where good people continue to have strong disagreements, is simply dangerous. If you allow the government to intervene against Drag Queen Story Hour, it will set a precedent that will lead to the erosion of freedom in many other, more important areas of life. Having a universal and viewpoint-neutral consensus on things like free speech is, by definition, an all or none deal, and we must fight to uphold this consensus whenever it is under threat.
Don't get me wrong. You certainly don't have to agree with Drag Queen Story Hour itself. Those who disagree with Drag Queen Story Hour can certainly speak up about their concerns. They can certainly argue against it in the marketplace of ideas. What they cannot do is to use state power to ban it. This crosses a line, similar to how Trump's denial of his 2020 election loss crossed a line. In both cases, fundamental moral principles are at stake, and we must respond by defending those principles, and clearly condemning those who want to erode them. Also note that, once a line is crossed, it is more likely to happen again, as seen in the recent movement of election denialism in Brazil, and the ongoing worry about what is going to happen in 2024 in America. This makes pushing back against those who want to cross the line even more important.
To build a strong consensus for liberal principles, we need to show that the application of such principles will be fair to everyone, and the promise of freedom will apply to everyone equally. This is why ensuring that there is free speech for all is so important, and why I have been so against cancel culture, de-platforming, and the postmodern critical theories that have supported these practices. In fact, the NatCon Right has been using the postmodern Left's violation of liberal values to argue their case for authoritarianism, and successfully inserting themselves into the mainstream of Republican politics, to the extent that multiple Republican states are now considering banning drag performances in public venues, or even taking away the parental rights of parents who expose their kids to drag. Let's face it: the postmodern Left's cancel culture has contributed to this dangerous state of affairs we now find ourselves in, and the only way this will end is by a re-embrace of liberalism, especially free speech for all.
A truly free and fair marketplace of ideas requires that all kinds of voices be heard, including those you don't like. As a Moral Libertarian, my views on social and cultural issues start from the eternally correct view that none of us are perfect, that none of us are always right on every matter, and therefore none of us have the moral right to coerce others to agree with us, either in words or action, when it comes to morally contentious matters. This is the reason I have been fighting against cancel culture from the Left. However, there is now clearly an even bigger threat to the marketplace of ideas of the West, and we must recognize it before it's too late. State-enforced book bans, legislated restriction of cultural activities, and especially intrusion into parenting rights are now being done in the name of 'fighting wokeness', and true liberals need to recognize, and speak up against, the scary implications of this kind of politics.
How Wokeism Allowed the Religious Right to Return
This is the bad news: the religious authoritarians have returned in full force, and they are smarter and more cunning than ever. The evidence of their influence is all over the news: draconian abortion bans, anti-LGBT bills, and more. Looking back, religious authoritarianism last peaked around the mid-aughts (around 2004-06), and that time we successfully pushed back on their attempt to teach unscientific intelligent design theory in schools, and defeated their moral panic campaign around gay marriage, which provided a strong foundation for winning the reform later on. Looking back, the aughts were definitely an underrated example of resistance to authoritarianism, that ultimately also led to some social progress backed by widespread support. Now that the religious authoritarians are back, I think we need to revive the coalition that defeated them last time.
Of course, we also need to be aware of the different tactics that they are using this time around. One thing that is different about the religious right this time is that they are, at least when facing mainstream audiences, less open about their religious motivations. They often resort to arguments for the 'common good', or capitalize on the widespread frustration with wokeism, as their starting point. However, the religious motivations are still clearly being articulated, if you pay attention. For example, all the prominent postliberal intellectuals are deeply religious, and many have essentially argued for religious values to have a bigger influence on law and policy. On the more technical side, 'common good constitutionalism', and other similar legal philosophies based on 'natural law', are ultimately religious political ideologies too. What is happening is clear: religious authoritarians are out to make the West less liberal, and make it OK for the government to shove their religion down your throat. And they are doing it by attempting to gain power while not being fully upfront about their religious motivations.
The rise of woke thinking is actually helping the religious right hide their religiously driven motivations. This is because postmodern critical theory has no respect for the power of ideas and free will. Instead, they believe that everything is part of interconnecting systems of oppression, and that analyzing and deconstructing those systems are the only important thing to do. The woke won't seriously engage in a debate of ideas that is not connected to their theories of systemic oppression. This means that they won't take on the ideas of religious-driven authoritarianism seriously. Instead, abortion bans are to be explained by 'patriarchy', anti-LGBT bills are to be explained by 'heteronormativity', and the solution is to 'fight these systems' by deconstructing and dismantling everything. This ultimately results in distraction from the problem at hand: that reactionary religious zealots are attempting to shove their religion down our throats, and that only a serious attempt at defeating their bad ideas by rational debate will save our freedoms.
There are also other ways wokeism has allowed the religious right to return. Firstly, it was the force that was responsible for breaking up the aughts coalition against religious authoritarianism. The divisiveness of postmodern critical theory was what caused the split, with the controversy around 'atheism plus' a good example of this. (I am not an atheist so I am not familiar with the specifics of this, but the controversy was famous enough for me to know about it.) Secondly, its weakening of the classical liberal consensus has allowed the religious right to make the case for authoritarianism much more easily. Thirdly, its attempt to impose an agenda based on religion-like philosophical commitments on the rest of society has normalized the once outrageous idea of shoving religion down other people's throats. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, frustration towards wokeism is being used by the religious right to attract support, with quite a bit of success.
All this is why the new coalition against religious authoritarianism just cannot include the woke. Instead, we need to attempt to rebuild the coalition among those who will fight the religious right like it's 2004 again. I think we should try to deradicalize as many of the woke as possible, so that they come back down to reality, and become able to join our fight against the religious right. However, we also need to be realistic that this work can only be done to a certain extent, especially if we are talking about the short to medium term. Therefore, the more important work will be in making the non-woke see that the religious right is rapidly becoming a big problem, because they want to make the West less liberal and more theocratic, by participating in the culture wars while not being upfront about their motivations. Once more people realize this, we will be able to build a strong coalition to push back, just like we did two decades ago.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Horizon books, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.