Woke vs Anti-Woke: The Liberal Way by TaraElla

How classical liberalism can provide a new way forward

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.