Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The misguided woke mind

Close-up of "woke" entry in dictionary
georgeclerk/Getty Images

Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the second entry in a 10-part series on the American schism.

In describing the American schism of 2024, I often point out the challenges to civilized and rational debate when the extreme ends of the political spectrum tend to drown out the frustrated majority – the 70 percent of citizens, either center right or center left, who believe that our current political discourse is counterproductive. The paradox is that this majority of Americans feels like it is in the minority because the voices on the edges scream the loudest and receive most of the media coverage.

It is vital to stress that the destructive propensity manifests at both ends of the political spectrum. While I often write about the perils of the antidemocratic and counter-Enlightenment inclinations on the far right, I also believe that the far left, indoctrinated into its own bubble, wreaks its own havoc when it comes to rational, open debate.


As Christopher Rufo discusses in “America’s Cultural Revolution,” the left-wing activist takeover of America’s college campuses has suppressed critical thinking and stifled open dialogue. In such environments, too often any deviation from the extreme left’s rigid doctrine of identity politics is deemed “dangerous.” Further, discourse that strays from the unyielding orthodoxy of politically correctness is even stamped as “violent speech” against which our young Americans need be wrapped in their protective cocoons (as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff eloquently describe in “The Coddling of the American Mind”).

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It is truly astounding how words, especially in today’s politically charged milieu, take on a life of their own, quickly becoming partisan footballs tossed around with contempt and derision. Ten years ago, I interpreted the term “woke” to denote being aware of the history of power dynamics in our institutions. Whether related to race or gender, the richness of the woke perspective seemed helpful in uncovering other points of view. After all, as John Stuart Mill put the issue: “he who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” So “wokeness” in my eyes signified a willingness to incorporate the viewpoints of those less “privileged” into the debate.

But this connotation itself somehow got twisted around the axle over the years. Perhaps this evolution of “woke” is best described by Susan Neiman in her book “Left Is Not Woke,” when she explains how the definition began with “concern for marginalized persons, and ends by reducing each to the prism of her marginalization.” The woke mind on the extreme left today has, much like osmosis, assimilated a Marcusian philosophy, which deems that any viewpoint straying from the orthodoxy must be silenced or in today’s vernacular “canceled.”

So what specifically is problematic with this interpretation? Neiman outlines three aspects of today’s “wokeness” phenomenon that resonate with me. She argues that today’s extreme left:

  1. Is obsessed with identity, relentlessly focusing on tribal affiliation to the neglect of recognizing the common humanity we all share. The prime focus of any discussion becomes the lens of identity or the intersection of multiple identities.
  2. Views all societal relations as a power struggle between these different tribes, and denies the notion of justice as distinct from power. By trading Rawls for Foucault, adherents of the extreme left abjure any notion of absolute justice and maintain that justice is merely what those in power say it is.
  3. Rejects the possibility of progress without a millerian overthrow of the institutions of contemporary society. According to this viewpoint, America is just as racist today as it has always been despite the radical de jure shift brought by the Reconstruction amendments, and the significant de facto progress since the civil rights movement.

I would argue that the entire spirit of the Enlightenment is antithetical to all three of these features of the contemporary worldview often adopted by the extreme left. In fact, indoctrination and orthodoxy are themes on both fringes. Analogous to the vicious demonization wielded by the extreme right against its opponents, the “elite” of the extreme left are categorically dismissive of their adversaries and display nothing but disdain for their enemies. Moreover, the purported goal of such movements on the left are anchored in a philosophy of “equality of outcomes” that has proven to have a disastrous track record when it comes to implementation. By comparison, the American version of “equality of access to opportunity” is far from perfect but has readily advanced human prosperity in recent centuries.

Figuring out how to live in an inclusive society undoubtedly requires incorporating diverse viewpoints. But too many of today’s woke leaders allow historical injustices to ensnare them in the rigidity of their own tribal identities, thereby forsaking the constructive dialogue required for social cohesion. As long as such leaders appropriate the intolerance page from the extreme right playbook, the only way forward is for the frustrated majority to wrestle back the gavel from the extremes on both the left and the right who are running the American political asylum.

Read More

Couple lying in tall grass

As many as 50 million to 60 million Americans may have decided that they don’t want to have kids.

Peathegee Inc/Getty Images

Voters without kids are in the political spotlight – but they’re not all the same

Jennifer Neal is a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. Zachary Neal is an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University.

In the 2024 election cycle, voters without children are under the microscope.

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance has said that “childless cat ladies” and older adults without kids are “sociopaths” who “don’t have a direct stake in this country.”

So it was notable that when pop star Taylor Swift endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she didn’t simply express her support and leave it at that. She also called herself a “childless cat lady.”

Keep ReadingShow less
"Diversity," "Equity" and "Inclusion" on wood blocks
Nora Carol Photography/Getty Images

DEI is worth saving if programs focus on expanding advantages

Myatt is the co-founder ofThe Equity Practice and a public voices fellow alumna through The OpEd Project.

DEI backlash is prolific. Many companies inspired to begin diversity, equity and inclusion work after the racial unrest of 2020 are pausing those same efforts in response to pushback from customers and employees.

The reasons for the pushback vary, but for many, DEI represents a threat to status and access to resources. These fears are not entirely unfounded. Some DEI strategies aim to “level the playing field” by eliminating what some see as unfair advantages.

Keep ReadingShow less
Elderly woman on a train

A woman evacuating from Pokrovsk, Ukraine, in August looks out from a train car to say goodbye.

Oleksandr Magula/Suspilne Ukraine/JSC "UA:PBC"/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images

On Ageism Awareness Day, consider the impact of war on older people.

Kilaberia is an assistant professor at New York University’s Silver School of Social Work and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

We know the toll that war has on youth, but older adults are suffering displacement, too.

We have talked about age-friendly cities, age-friendly health care systems, age-friendly universities, age-friendly workplaces dementia-friendly communities. We are not talking about age-friendly or dementia-friendly humanitarian responses.

Tomorrow is Ageism Awareness Day and it offers us the opportunity to draw attention to the impact of ageism, particularly in the many war zones around the world.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump at a podium

Former President Donald Trump recently said Vice President Kamala Harris is mentally impaired.

Howard Schnapp/Newsday RM via Getty Images

We should not denigrate the mentally impaired

Schmidt is a columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Ableism, the social prejudice and discrimination of people with disabilities based on the belief that typical abilities are superior, is just plain wrong and it is also un-American.

At a recent campaign rally in Prairie du Chien, Wis., former President Donald Trump disparaged Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting she was mentally disabled and called her “a very dumb person.”

Keep ReadingShow less
"Danger PFAS" Caution Warning Barrier Tap

Heavily Hispanic areas near Chicago are home to environmental racism.

filo/Getty Images

Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago suffer unequal exposure to chemicals

Sharp is chief financial officer at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm based in Birmingham, Ala., that assists individuals and communities injured by toxic exposure.

The predominantly Hispanic populations in Rosemont, Schiller Park and Bensenville, near Chicago, have long been exposed to toxic chemicals known as PFAS originating from the neighboring O'Hare Air Reserve Station, which was closed in 1999. The phenomenon of environmental racism is not new to Chicago. Sites and facilities hazardous to the environment and human health have been placed near communities predominantly populated by Hispanic and Black people in the city for years.

Keep ReadingShow less