Why We Need a Robust Center-Left Critique of Wokeness
Democrats Can't Respond to Wokeness with a Bill Clinton-Sister Souljah moment
Since the re-election of Donald Trump as US President, the Democrats have been increasingly focused on wokeness as a likely reason of Kamala Harris's underperformance in the election. While this discourse is probably happening eight years too late, it's at least finally happening. In particular, there is now a realization that the oppressor vs. oppressed model of identity politics is perhaps toxic for the Democratic brand, particularly for demographics like young men, and that the suppression of free speech has led to widespread frustration. After all, you can't say that all men are responsible for the patriarchy and still expect them to support you in large numbers. Even more encouraging is that there finally appears to be a collective will to change course, in time for the 2026 midterms. Given this timetable, I expect the next year to be an exciting time for those of us who really want to have a conversation about the problem of wokeness.
The increased questioning of wokeness in Democratic circles is definitely something to welcome. However, I'm worried that what is being offered are essentially cosmetic changes. Worse, they appear to be politically calculated changes. The attitude many Democrats seem to have is that this 'woke' thing is basically similar to what happened in the 1980s to 2000s, when the Democrats were seen as 'too liberal' on certain issues, and hence out of touch with the general public. The solution, then, would be to do a Bill Clinton-style turn, complete with a 'Sister Souljah' moment, to show that they are willing to push back against the cultural far-left. While this might work to some extent, there are three problems with this approach. Firstly, such a cosmetic, piecemeal approach is not going to convince many people who have serious concerns about wokeness and free speech. Secondly, given that it was arguably Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign that introduced wokeness into the Democratic mainstream, I don't think anyone should be taking advice from Clinton-associated figures on how to de-woke the Democratic Party. Finally, this unprincipled, politically calculated approach is likely to worry many progressives, who might start questioning whether the Democrats truly have the will to stand up for what they believe in. This, in turn, could trigger them to go further left, and bring us back to peak wokeness. Ultimately, in today's political landscape, where inauthenticity is a bigger sin than extremism, what worked for Clinton in 1992 is likely to leave both sides unsatisfied, and would just compound the perception problems that caused the Harris-Walz campaign to hemorrhage voters from both ends.
The first major problem with this superficial approach is that wokeness isn't really similar to being 'too liberal' in the 1980s at all. Wokeness is not just being too progressive on certain issues for the current electorate, like opposing the death penalty in the 1980s or supporting gay marriage in the 2000s. Rather, wokeness is a whole worldview, a whole ideology, rooted in postmodern critical theory, which is not only totally incompatible with old-school liberal values, but actually seeks to actively subvert those values wherever it can. Republicans have been able to effectively message on the threats that wokeness poses to long-standing classical liberal values, because they (or at least their strategists) have been seriously studying the ideas of postmodern critical theory. You can't deny that there has been serious discussion on the right, on the ideas of thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault and others, in the past few years. A robust anti-woke narrative, from the perspective of the right, developed from these efforts. On the other hand, most mainstream Democrats appear to remain clueless at best, and welcoming at worst, to this attempt to undermine traditional liberal values. It is because of this that the majority of voters who prioritize free speech appear to have voted for Trump, despite both him and his party having quite an authoritarian record here. The majority of free speech voters rightly understand that wokeness is an ideology that needs to be fundamentally rejected in order to save free speech, and they feel like they are only going to get this from the right. If the Democrats want to reclaim the 'freedom' mantle, they really need to understand where these people are coming from.
The second problem with the aforementioned approach is that it looks very politically calculated, and people don't like, and don't trust, calculating politicians for good reason. For example, in 2004, the Kerry campaign said that they did not support gay marriage, despite the fact that everyone could see that the Democrats were naturally sympathetic to that cause. This insincere stance, taken out of political convenience, did not convince many people. 'Values voters', mostly white Evangelicals, voted overwhelmingly for Bush, alongside voting to constitutionally ban gay marriage in their own state in many cases. Meanwhile, young people and libertarians formed the impression that the Democrats could not be trusted to uphold civil rights and individual liberty, which ultimately led many of them to embrace either the far-left or the Tea Party during the Obama era. The thing is, to win the respect and trust of people, you've got to sincerely believe in what you say. Many people might not agree with what Trump says, but nevertheless respect him and vote for him, because he's clearly unafraid to say what he thinks. Agree with him or not, at least you know where Trump stands. Meanwhile, the Democrats are sorely lacking in this kind of authenticity. Therefore, if the Democrats want to distance themselves from wokeness, they need to do it for real, rather than as a cosmetic, politically calculated thing. They need to have a real change of heart, rather than just the appearance of one.
To have an answer to the effectiveness of the right-wing anti-woke narrative, the Democrats need to have an equally robust center-left anti-woke narrative readily available. One that they, and their supporters, can truly, deeply believe in. Like the right, they would need to actually go through the ideas of postmodern critical theory, and intellectually reject them, but from the point of view of old-school liberalism rather than reactionary populism. Hence, what they need is not a Sister Souljah moment, but rather a John Stuart Mill moment. I'm referring to the need to revive discourse and debate about classical liberal ideas and values. Because what the center-left needs now is not another politically calculated show, but rather, some serious intellectual work.
The aforementioned intellectual work should start with the basics: what the postmodern critical theory worldview actually says, and why it is incompatible with genuine liberal philosophy. Postmodern critical theory sees society as made up of intersecting systems of oppression, with individuals no more than pieces that make up these systems. Liberalism sees society as made up of freely interacting individuals, who are free to think for themselves, and improve their own lives and their communities through their own efforts. Postmodern critical theory sees speech as a manifestation of power dynamics, and often both oppressive (in the social justice sense) and repressive (in the Freudian sense). Liberalism sees free speech as the way to debate and refine ideas, and get closer to the objective truth. Liberals also believe in understanding the objective truth being conducive to social justice by definition, which means for the liberal more free speech is always good for social justice. As you can see, postmodern critical theory and liberalism are diametrically opposed ideologies. Both claim to be 'progressive', but they clearly lead to very different forms of 'progress', with very different destinations. This is why you can't have some of one and some of the other. You need to choose one and abandon the other, if you are to remain philosophically honest and consistent. And this is what the Democrats have consistently refused to do as a party, in the past ten years. The result is that they are being perceived as avoidant, as if having something to hide, when it comes to their worldview and values. Liberalism has long been the ideology of the Democratic Party, and it must not be afraid to choose liberalism, and abandon postmodern critical theory, once and for all.
Supporters of postmodern critical theory will say that theirs is the only true progressive way. They might even resort to labeling genuine liberalism as some kind of right-wing thought. However, this is objectively untrue. Liberal values led to universal suffrage, civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights and more. Liberalism is able to do that because it is committed to being constructive, to work with what we have and try to improve on it. On the other hand, postmodern critical theory is obsessed with deconstructing everything, because everything is 'inherently' and/or 'systemically' oppressive. Deconstruction is ultimately a form of destruction, and when you destroy everything, nothing is left. This is why liberalism is the real progressive movement, and postmodern critical theory deserves to go into the dustbin of history.
There's also another reason we need a robust center-left critique of wokeness more than ever before. The anti-woke right has jumped the shark, and perhaps outlived its usefulness, to put it bluntly. In the past two to three years, the right-leaning anti-woke narrative has been severely contaminated by Republican culture war priorities and biases. It's come to some anti-woke influencers saying stuff like trans people in women's sports is the real women's rights issue of our time, rather than abortion and reproductive rights. I understand and respect that fairness in sports is an important issue for many people, but this claim not only flies in the face of objective reality, like the polls that show abortion being a much bigger concern for voters than trans issues, it also disrespects and alienates the many women who are very concerned about their own reproductive rights. The many draconian abortion bans that have popped up in red states after Dobbs are a reality that actually affects people's lives, they are not fodder for culture warriors to argue over and lightly dismiss as they like. An anti-woke narrative that is so out of touch with reality is not going to go much further than preaching to the converted, and fanning the flames of polarization in the process.
What I'm also worried about is that the right-leaning anti-woke narrative will be too forgiving of the Trump administration's excesses over the next four years, because they are audience captured by a mainly pro-MAGA crowd. This audience capture is the natural result of many years of pandering to Republican culture war priorities, refusing to criticize the populist right on equal terms, and a palpable lack of sympathy to center-left concerns about freedom like reproductive rights, as seen in the aforementioned take. The fact is, Trump, Elon Musk and the Republican Party more generally don't exactly have the best track records on free speech and other aspects of individual liberty. A cursory glance of Project 2025 and other similar policy proposals from right-wing think tanks provides plenty of proof that the authoritarian religious right remains alive and well. The policies of Republican politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is also far from respectful of free speech. Given this context, I think it is not unlikely that the Trump administration will infringe on individual freedom, and perhaps free speech, at some point in the next four years. If the anti-woke movement glosses over this, or worse, gives it justification or cover, its credibility in terms of defending freedom and free speech will be forever tarnished. The actual point of opposing wokeness would get really muddled, no, it would actually be completely lost. If the anti-woke movement doesn't consistently stand for freedom and free speech, it becomes nothing but a silly cult.
Moreover, as I often say, the case against wokeness can only win if we get reasonable, moderate progressives on board. And right now, in an environment where more and more people are realizing that wokeness is hurting the Democrats and the center-left generally, we have an unprecedented opportunity here. It would be a shame if the case against wokeness was too tied to Republican politics, reactionary culture war positions and 'anti-anti-Trumpism' to take advantage of this opportunity. As I often like to say, the true anti-woke position is not reactionary, but rather, a practical progressive position based on liberal values, that rejects the straitjacket imposed by unsound philosophical theories and their associated dogma. I believe a new center-left aligned critique of wokeness can be useful in supporting this argument.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).