How Classical Liberals Can Overcome the Anti-Woke Establishment

There needs to be a path out of the shadow of the authoritarians

Welcome back to the series where we look at what went wrong with the so-called anti-woke movement. Last time, we established that the anti-woke movement is a coalition of people with different worldviews, and that authoritarian conservatives (as opposed to classical liberals and libertarian conservatives) have gained the upper hand in the anti-woke discourse, because of their dominance in anti-woke media. This, in turn, has left classical liberals very concerned. After all, we oppose 'wokeism', which I believe could be more accurately called 'cultural systemism', for the sake of individual liberty and a healthy marketplace of ideas, but ironically parts of the anti-woke movement are now attacking individual liberty and free speech. So where do we go from here, and what do we do to address this situation?

Let's start with the imbalance of voices heard in the anti-woke media, because that's where the problem begins. As I said, much of the well funded anti-woke media have been providing a disproportionately large platform for the auth-right point of view. They have been featuring an increasing number of 'postliberal' right thinkers who are openly critical of classical liberal philosophy and even Buckley-Reagan style fusionism. They are mainstreaming ever more extreme pundits who call for aggressively waging the culture wars, who advocate once unacceptable ideas like 'eradicating' transgenderism from public life, moving the Overton Window towards extreme authoritarianism with every such move. And then there is the clearly biased and moral panic-inducing reporting on all the common culture war issues, which serves to justify increasingly authoritarian policies like banning books from libraries and banning drag shows in public. Another feature of anti-woke media today is that there is very little heated debate and disagreement featured. There is effectively a culture of agreement and conformity, which effectively leads to a 'consensus' that strongly leans authoritarian in light of the aforementioned developments.

Classical liberals, many who started following anti-woke media since around the mid-late 2010s, have found the overall balance and (manufactured) 'consensus' of such media outlets an increasingly uncomfortable fit with our own values and commitments. Many of us have criticized individual anti-woke public figures, whose recent changes have disappointed us. Some of us have gone further, pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing 'woke' cancel culture but having no problem with right-wing governments banning books with racial or LGBT themes. However, we haven't been able to break through and get heard beyond certain corners of the internet. Our individual voices are simply no match against the well-funded anti-woke media establishment. (I think you can justifiably call them an establishment by now, because they dominate the anti-woke discourse, and feature the same people and the same arguments over and over again.)

The harsh reality is, when most people think of anti-wokeism, they still think of certain big name media outlets and personalities, and their perception of the movement is still overwhelmingly colored by these entities, even as these entities have taken an authoritarian turn. I've had the experience of people telling me they assumed I was right-wing or opposed to LGBT rights because I said I was anti-woke. This just shows that we are effectively living in the shadows of anti-woke inc., that not only are we not making a dent in their 'consensus', we are even having trouble defending our own reputations from that which we don't even agree with in the first place. If things don't change, it could mean that we could be ostracized by progressive-leaning parts of society for the sins of anti-woke inc. with little chance to protest. It would also mean that not many people would be willing to join our side, even if they see the merit in our arguments. Being tied to anti-woke inc. and their authoritarian policies would be a social price many would not be willing to pay. We shouldn't be afraid of being ostracized for beliefs we genuinely hold. But being ostracized for things we don't actually believe in is unfair, and we need to do all we can to fight against this happening.

In other words, our problem is one of getting heard in the first place. We, classical liberals who are opposed to wokeism on classical liberal grounds, need to be heard loud and clear. This is our most important objective going forward. And to get heard, we need to say something unique and different. This is how we can get our fair share of attention, and how we stop getting drowned out by anti-woke inc. Over the past 5-7 years I have talked a lot about cancel culture, postmodern critical theory identity politics, and other aspects of wokeism, and how they are incompatible with liberal values. I think this has now been heard loud and clear. However, if we just talk about this, we don't sound different enough from anti-woke inc. Only by actively differentiating ourselves from anti-woke inc., by taking positions in clear opposition to the 'consensus' in anti-woke inc., will we be able to move outside its shadow. In other words, there must be a particularly strong emphasis on where we disagree with anti-woke inc. going forward.

One easy way to do this would be to simply stand our classical liberal ground and oppose their increasingly authoritarian policy stances. We should be taking a strong stance against any attempt to whip up moral panics and usher in authoritarian policies. Between the draconian abortion bans, the drag show bans, and book bans, and the mountains of anti-LGBT bills that have recently been introduced, there is a lot we can work with, to differentiate ourselves from anti-woke inc.

There are also other ways to stand apart from, and against, anti-woke inc. For example, we could insist on making our anti-wokeism philosophy centered, while contrasting this with the culture war centered version of anti-wokeism from anti-woke inc. The philosophical debates we can have against cultural systemism are actually highly intellectual and interesting, a refreshing counterpoint against the culture warriors' ridiculous war on Disney and Bud Light. We can also put more effort into arguing why any 'fusionism' between classical liberals and the auth-right on particular issues where we have superficial agreement on (e.g. opposition to critical race theory) are still fundamentally impossible. If the auth-right hates 20th century fusionism so much, then we need to show them that we are just as uncomfortable with fusionism as they are. If they want to tear the band-aid off, then so be it, because we have wanted to scratch that itch for a long time too. Let's bury that fusionism for good, and not just the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan kind too. Let fusionism be dead and buried for good, so that classical liberals and the auth-right can finally face off like the philosophical rivals we actually are. If anything, it's going to be more philosophically honest than what we have now, which will make the classical liberal case against wokeism much stronger too.

Finally, I want to address the use of the word 'woke'. More and more people are advocating a move away from using that word, especially since right-wing culture warriors are using it to mean everything they don't like. I have thought about this for a long time actually. I have even advocated using 'cultural systemism' to describe general wokeism, and 'critical anarchism' to describe the more extreme manifestations, and I will continue to advocate using these terms. However, I don't think we can entirely move away from 'woke' until people can agree on a new term, because we need to use terms that are most widely understood for the sake of effective communication. If we unilaterally give up on talking about 'woke', the culture warriors will have a monopoly on 'anti-woke' discourse, with likely disastrous results.