Is Left-Wing Wokeism to Blame for Right-Wing Wokeism?

Or was the latter an inevitability?

Photo by Adi Goldstein on Unsplash

(Audio version for paying subscribers here)

This was the question asked by the science writer, Benjamin Ryan, on X. It is a commonly asked and argued over question. (I set out what I am referring to as the illiberal and/or identitarian and/or ‘woke’ right here).

Many people (not Benjamin) engage with it in reductionist and narrow ways as a simple incident of cause and effect or as if there is no element of cause and effect at all. These two positions sound like this:

The responsibility-avoidant right-wing anti-woke:

Wokeism just arose autonomously out of the ether and became authoritarian and extreme, and harmed and pissed off a load of good people on the right who did not hold any of the bigoted beliefs they were accused of, giving them no choice but to respond in authoritarian and extreme ways. (A more moderate version of this concedes that the identitarian, grievance-mongering elements on the right are a problem rather than a solution but that it’s still the fault of the woke for normalising that and imposing it on the right. What did they expect?)

The responsibility-avoidant left-wing woke:

Wokeness had nothing to do the rise of an authoritarian, identity-politicking, grievance-mongering right. That’s what the right has always been like - white supremacist, patriarchal, homophobic, transphobic, imperialistic, ableist etc. Social norms pushed it into hiding so it manifested in less overt and often unconscious ways. We have been trying to make people see that and dig it out of themselves to address this problem. Do you see now? We need to redouble efforts at that, not reduce them to fix this.

I think both of these positions are clearly wrong but each has a kernel of truth which are:

• Woke authoritarianism and identity politics did inspire counter-authoritarianism and identity politics in traditional conservatives who are not, by nature, inclined to be authoritarian or identitarian but can become so when experiencing a sense of existential threat. (Discussion of this, citing the work of Karen Stenner here).

• Wokeness did not create right-wing authoritarianism, racist, sexist, homophobic etc. views or identity politics pertaining to them. These really have always existed on the illiberal right and “wokeness” was a bad but genuine attempt to oppose things like white identity politics and homophobia that existed but were becoming increasingly morally untenable to people due to the influence of liberal individualism and universalism.

Therefore, I think we do best to think not in terms of “either/or” but “both/and”. It is perhaps most helpful to think of this as analogous to a nature/nurture debate wherein an individual may have a tendency towards something but whether or not this is realised is heavily influenced by their nurture. A person may be born with an innate tendency towards something undesirable - alcoholism, high aggression, personality disorder, obesity - but whether these manifest or the degree to which they manifest can be strongly influenced by nurture. Someone who has a supportive family which is aware of or spots the potential problem and acts in healthy ways to help the individual mitigate it is likely to have a better outcome than someone raised in an abusive household which activates their least healthy coping strategies.

This can even more simply be understood as environmental or cultural factors bringing out the best or worst in someone.

Political sides are not a someone but many someones and these someones range from having the most radical and extreme authoritarian views to the most thoughtful and moderate freedom-orientated ones. They have authoritarian and extreme elements within them but it would be unjust to assume an individual to be either because of what side of something as broad as ‘left vs right’ they fall on. Nevertheless, collectively, they contain a tendency to certain forms of authoritarianism and extremism. and environmental and cultural factors play a significant part on the numbers of people on that side who are drawn to authoritarian and extreme positions and policies. That is, whether the best or the worst of each side is being brought out, usually by each other.

In his book, The Third Awokening, political scientist, Eric Kaufmann, argues that the tendency on the left that can manifest in illiberal identity politics can be defined most simply as “Minorities good, Majorities bad.” I would suggest that this is mirrored in a tendency on the right to engage in “Majorities good. Minorities bad” thinking. When we get to any thinking that makes some part of the population bad due to their identity, we are into thoroughly illiberal territory. The liberal versions of these impulses which can operate ethically and also function as good checks and balances for each other are, I would suggest:

Conservatives: I am particularly concerned to conserve the culture, history and traditions of my country (which were established by the majority).

Leftists: I am particularly concerned for the most vulnerable in society - the poorest people and members of minority groups.

In these cases, the conservative has remained fully liberal because his or her ‘majorities good’ position does not indicate a ‘minorities bad’ corollary. It simply thinks a society does best when there are policies and expectations that people will respect the established culture, history and traditions. The leftist has remained liberal because his or her “minorities good” position does not indicate a “majorities bad” position. It simply believes that a society does best when there are policies and expectations that prioritise those in greatest need. These two drives (which nearly everybody has both of to some degree causing no clear cut off line between ‘left’ and ‘right’) can work well together when there is respectful disagreement rather than hostile polarisation. This is because the conservative will ensure that due consideration is given to existing systems and conventions and why they were established in the first place when it comes to discussions of reform. Meanwhile, the leftist will ensure that reforms do happen when they need to and that they consider impacts on the most vulnerable.

Somebody on X expressed this to me in a way I thought summed it up beautifully.

Progressives have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Conservatives have a tendency to keep both the baby and the dirty bathwater.

In principle, the productive conflict between these two drives can result in a clean baby and no dirty bathwater hanging around, although this is, realistically, always likely to be a positive aim we should keep striving for rather than a fully-actualised reality. In order to keep striving for this, we need to engage in ways that bring out the best in each other, but we have, in fact, been behaving in ways liable to bring out the worst.

In this sense, the woke left has definitely been responsible for bringing out the worst of the right. By not holding, in a principled way, to a particular concern for the most vulnerable people but moving to a ‘majority bad’ position, it is bound to alienate a majority of people, but particularly conservatives. You cannot engage in demonising and discriminatory identity politics among a species of tribalistic and territorial apes and not expect at least some proportion of those disparaged to respond with countering demonising and discriminatory identity politics By focusing intently on a few minority identity groups (many members of which did not want them to) and paying only lip-service support to two overlapping groups who are not minorities at all but are typically the concern of left-wing parties - the working class and women - it was bound to push significant numbers of people towards the right. Further, it will push them towards an increasingly illiberal right that is reacting to precisely the beliefs and attitudes that alienated them from the left.

The woke left does need to take responsibility for their role in alienating so many people and bringing out the worst in the right. Using the rise of the illiberal right to say, “See! We told you these views were commonplace. Do you see it now?” with absolutely no self-awareness about their role in this and doubling down on the wokeness will only further entrench the problem. As it is unlikely that the most zealous believers will take responsibility for this, it falls to the rest of us on the left to continue and redouble efforts to marginalise the woke and present a dominant left-wing voice that is consistently liberal, rooted in material reality and focused on material (class-based) concerns. I beg those of you commenting to me that the rise of the illiberal right is so alarming that you feel more sympathy for the woke and a responsibility to join in solidarity with them against a bigger threat not to do that. This will not make the left more ethical and effective nor restore its credibility with the general public and will only intensify the surge to the right (or hinder a surge back if the illiberal anti-woke alarm significant numbers of people),

This does not exonerate the anti-woke right from having any responsibility for how they behave and how they use their rising influence (especially in the US and parts of Europe where an anti-woke right has political power). They are not simply reactive puppets now programmed to act upon their sense of grievance and vengeance with a childish “They started it!” mentality. They are individuals with the agency to choose to lean into their philosophical conservative underpinnings that prize personal responsibility, seriousness, careful consideration and consistent principles over reactive revolution or emotionally-driven reactionism. Conservatives are well-aware that they have always had a radical and authoritarian identitarian element among them. They have typically pointed out that their extremist loons are generally recognised as such by the majority of conservatives and don’t have institutional power while too much of the left has been sympathetic or, at least, condoning of the extremists on their side and they also have prestige in government and institutions. If we are now seeing a shift in both mainstream conservative discourse causing it to become more sympathetic to extreme and authoritarian ideas and a shift in governmental and institutional power, we will be heavily reliant on ethical conservatives to be attentive to it and act against it. If they are not, there is the potential for much harm to be done to individual liberties and the evidence-based pursuit of truth and they will inspire a surge back to the woke left which is likely to be more pissed off, vengeful and extreme.

This is how the pendulum swings with illiberal elements of each faction bringing out the worst in each other in a pattern of increasing escalation and polarisation. I am frequently accused of taking a wishy-washy “centrist” position and forever ‘both-sidesing’ everything and idealistically urging dialogue, moderation, reason and concern for the truth in the middle of an active war-zone. But what if I am actually not being wishy-washy at all but strongly and consistently liberal? What if being consistently liberal requires addressing problems of illiberalism consistently; which is to say on both sides? What if dialogue, moderation, reason and concern for the truth are not actually abstract, “ivory-tower” style luxury beliefs but a more effective way to address problems and resolve conflicts than leaning into increasingly extreme and polarised partisan narratives? What if, in order to stop the pendulum swinging wildly all over the place and taking out innocent bystanders, we need to stop shoving it and instead find a way to still it. What if that way is by consistently principled people who care about freedom and what is true on both the left and right to prioritise getting their own house in order and opposing authoritarianism and ideologically-driven bullshit consistently?

Can we, at least, consider that possibility?