The Rise of the Woke Right
One of the defining features of the social-justice orthodoxy that swept through American culture between roughly the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 to Hamas's assault on Israel in 2023 was the policing of language. Many advocates became obsessed with enforcing syntactical etiquette and banishing certain words.
'Wokeness,' as it's known, introduced the asymmetrical capitalization of the letter b in Black but not the w in white. It forced Romance languages like Spanish to submit to gender-neutral constructions such as Latinx. It called for the display of pronouns in email signatures and social-media bios. It replaced a slew of traditional words and phrases: People were told to stop saying master bedroom, breastfeeding, manpower, and brown-bag lunch, and to start saying primary bedroom, chestfeeding, workforce, and sack lunch. At the extreme, it designated certain words—such as brave—beyond redemption.
This was often a nuisance and sometimes a trap, causing the perpetual sense that one might inadvertently offend and consequently self-destruct. In certain industries and professions, wrongspeak had tangible consequences. In 2018, Twitter introduced a policy against 'dehumanizing language' and posts that 'deadnamed' transgender users (or referred to them by their pre-transition names). Those who were judged to have violated the rules could be banned or suspended.
Donald Trump promised that his election would free Americans from ever having to worry about saying the wrong thing again. He even signed an executive order titled 'Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.' But a few weeks into his administration, we hardly find ourselves enjoying a culture of free speech and tolerance for opposing views. Almost immediately, the president did the opposite of what he'd promised and put together his own linguistic proscriptions. Most of the banned words related to gender and diversity, and this time the rules had the force of the government behind them.
'Fear that other words could run afoul of the new edicts led anxious agency officials to come up with lists of potentially problematic words on their own,' wrote Shawn McCreesh in The New York Times. These included: 'Equity. Gender. Transgender. Nonbinary. Pregnant people. Assigned male at birth. Antiracist. Trauma. Hate speech. Intersectional. Multicultural. Oppression. Such words were scrubbed from federal websites.'
Plus ça change. The government itself determining the limits of acceptable speech is undeniably far more chilling and pernicious—and potentially unconstitutional—than private actors attempting to do so. But what is most striking about this dismal back-and-forth is how well it demonstrates that the illiberal impulse to dictate what can and cannot be said is always fundamentally the same, whether it appears on the right or the left.
An extraordinary number of conservatives have ignored and even delighted in their side's astonishing hypocrisy. But a few consistent defenders of free speech have not gone along with what they see as the new 'woke right.'
The pervasive and nitpicky control of language is a crucial, but far from the sole, component of the woke-right movement. Like its antithesis on the left, the woke right places identity grievance, ethnic consciousness, and tribal striving at the center of its behavior and thought. One of the best descriptions I can find of it comes from Kevin DeYoung, a pastor and seminary professor, in a 2022 article called 'The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism.' DeYoung, reviewing a book on Christian nationalism in The Gospel Coalition, argues that the book's 'apocalyptic vision—for all of its vitriol toward the secular elites—borrows liberally from the playbook of the left.' It 'redefines the nature of oppression as psychological oppression' and tells white and male right-wing Americans that they are the country's real victims. But 'the world is out to get you, and people out there hate you,' DeYoung warns, 'is not a message that will ultimately help white men or any other group that considers themselves oppressed.'
Another hallmark of wokeness is an overriding impulse to contest and revise the historical record in service of contemporary debates. The New York Times' '1619 Project,' which reimagined this nation's founding, was emblematic of this trend from the left. But similar attempts are happening on the right. Last summer, the amateur historian Darryl Cooper caused an uproar when he made the case, on Tucker Carlson's podcast, that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II.
The compelled politesse of the left has been swapped out for the reflexive and gratuitous disrespect of the right. Representative Mary Miller of Illinois recently introduced Representative Sarah McBride, Congress's sole transgender member, as 'the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride.' The activist Christopher Rufo, one of the most belligerent voices on the right, endorsed the move: 'We are all tempted to be polite,' he wrote on X. 'But complicity in the pronoun game is the opening ante for the entire lie. Once you agree to falsify reality, you have signaled your submission to the gender cult.'
Speaking of falsifying reality: The Trump administration seems to be devoting a remarkable amount of energy toward making sure people call the Gulf of Mexico the 'Gulf of America.' In the White House press room last week, the administration went so far as to eject Associated Press reporters because the publication refused to alter its stylebook to comply with the change. 'I was very up front in my briefing on Day 1 that if we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable,' the White House press secretary said. 'And it is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America.' European exploration records have referred to El Golfo de México since the 16th century.
Trump supporters fell immediately into line. Representative Mike Collins of Georgia—in a gesture encapsulating the digital-political fusion that has come to define the woke right—tweeted trollingly, 'Stop deadnaming the Gulf of America.'
Just as corporations genuflected at the altar of wokeness during and after the summer of 2020—posting their identical black squares on Instagram and Facebook and, in the case of Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and CBS Sports, pausing their content for a symbolic eight minutes and 46 seconds—some of the country's most prominent companies have preemptively submitted to the woke right's new power play. Google and Apple have both relabeled the Gulf of Mexico on their map apps with Trump's risible neologism. And an NPR analysis of regulatory filings found that 'at least a dozen of the largest U.S. companies have deleted some, or all, references to 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' and 'DEI' from their most recent annual reports to investors.'
Some state leaders are following in Trump's footsteps. In January, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued the 'Executive Order to Respect the Latino Community by Eliminating Culturally Insensitive Words From Official Use in Government'—a loquacious way to say she ordered state agencies to stop using the word Latinx. Others, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, were woke right avant la lettre. The 2022 Individual Freedom Law, paradoxically known as the 'Stop WOKE' act—developed under Rufo's guidance—imagines the state as one enormous, humid safe space. The legislation aggressively restricts speech in workplaces, K–12 schools, and public universities, and even encourages snitching on community members who dare to advance illicit perspectives.
All of these moves are ripe for mockery—and they deserve it. The scholar and provocateur James Lindsay gained a large online following in 2018 after he and two colleagues successfully placed a number of outrageously bogus papers in peer-reviewed academic journals focused on what Lindsay called 'grievance studies,' including one text arguing that dogs engage in 'rape culture' and another that rewrote Mein Kampf from a feminist point of view. Last year, Lindsay applied the same test to the woke right, cribbing 2,000 words from Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto and submitting them as a critique of liberalism to The American Reformer, a respected platform in conservative Christian media. The gag ran under the title 'The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right.'
'What the Woke Right fundamentally don't understand as they make their bid for power now, and why they'll lose,' Lindsay wrote last week on X, 'is that none of us want more ideological crazy stuff. We don't want another freaking movement. We want to go back to our lives.' The obligation to call people aliens or unlearn the name of a body of water appears every bit as petty as the prohibition on describing boring things as 'lame.' More than that, it amounts to a politics of brute domination, a forced and demoralizing expression of subservience that only a genuine fanatic could abide.
Voters in both parties are already signaling that the right's woke antics are unattractive to them. When it comes to its edgelord in chief, Elon Musk, an Economist/YouGov found that the share of Republicans who say he should have 'a lot' of influence has dropped significantly over the past three months, to 26 percent. Seventeen percent say they want him to have no influence 'at all.' Over the past two weeks, Trump's approval rating has fallen.
The truth is that most Americans bristle at wokeness from whichever direction it arrives. As the left is learning now, no victory can ever be final. The right's illiberal zeal only creates the conditions for an equal and opposite reaction to come.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."


Axios
28 minutes ago
- Axios
Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents
Democrats in Congress have largely closed ranks around Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) — but centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) is panning what he calls their "politics as theater." Why it matters: Golden represents a district President Trump won last year and is always walking a careful line between supporting his party and maintaining his independence. On this, he is steering hard away from the party line. "I think that it's never good when a senator or member of Congress gets roughed up by law enforcement," he said in an interview with Axios at the Capitol. But, he added, "I don't think politics as theater is what our job is here." What happened: Padilla was forcibly removed by law enforcement as he tried to confront Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem during a press conference at the Los Angeles FBI Headquarters on Thursday. Officers detained Padilla, held him on the ground and handcuffed him, though the senator was later allowed to meet with Noem. The incident came after McIver was indicted for allegedly assaulting law enforcement during a scuffle with DHS officers outside an ICE facility in her home state last month, which she denies. What he's saying: "Storming into the FBI headquarters and trying to break up a press conference and rushing on a [cabinet] secretary is not really the job of an elected official," Golden said. Of McIver he said: "Where I come from, if you shove a police officer, you're probably getting arrested." Still, he added: "I am not in any way saying that means law enforcement should be slamming people around." The other side: "Everyone is entitled to their respective opinions … For me, the video I saw was clear," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios when asked about Golden's comments. "He was at his place of work. He works in that building. He went to the press conference, ... he identified himself as a U.S. senator and then they manhandle him to the ground and arrest him," Garcia said. "I think it's crystal clear that that is unacceptable and an incredible overreach and quite dangerous ... and I think the American public is as outraged as the Congress." What to watch: Some Democrats are already talking about investigating the Padilla incident. "We only saw clips of it, so I'd like to find out everything that happened and how that occurred," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. "He was very roughly handled, and it seemed like he was just trying to interject and attend the [press] conference. So, yeah, I think we need to take a good hard look at it."
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Rare Earth Trap: How China Could Cripple America's Tech and Defense in One Move
China may not have Silicon Valley, but it controls the minerals that make Silicon Valley run. From electric motors to missile systems, rare earth elements are the silent backbone of modern techand Beijing owns the playbook. In 2024, China produced 270,000 tons of rare earthsabout six times more than the it dominates global refining. When trade tensions flared again, Beijing didn't just talk tough. It added seven rare earths to its export control list, causing headaches for American manufacturers. Tesla (TSLA) flagged rare-earth magnet shortages as a bottleneck for its humanoid robot, while Ford was forced to idle a major Chicago plant due to supply disruptions. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Sign with MP. The pressure doesn't stop at consumer goods. The F-35 fighter jet alone requires over 900 pounds of rare earths. And yet, the U.S. has just one major rare-earth mineMP Materials' (NYSE:MP) Mountain Passand almost no refining capacity. Trump, aiming to break China's chokehold, invoked emergency powers in March to accelerate domestic mining and processing. He followed up with an investigation into the national security risks of mineral imports, with recommendations expected within 270 days. Still, even fast-tracked projects could take years, and in the meantime, tariffs could drive up prices for the very materials U.S. companies depend on. China's control runs deep. It can approveor delayexport licenses without explanation, leaving global supply chains exposed. The message is clear: if the U.S. wants to restrict chip exports, China can slow-roll the magnets that drive EVs and missiles. Trump has floated Greenland and Ukraine as alternative sources, but neither has proven, scalable capacity. Rare earths aren't rarebut reliable supply chains are. And as the trade war evolves, the world is learning that dominance in materials might be more powerful than dominance in manufacturing. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.