Columnist and political commentator Sohrab Ahmari has penned a critique of what he calls Anti-Woke liberals. The article is largely a response to John McWhorter’s (excellent) new best-selling book Woke Racism.
Ahmari is a part of the “trad-con” Right, which is a segment of conservatives who consider themselves as “post-liberal neo-traditionalists” (borderline theocrats). Trad-cons see the need to differentiate themselves from other mainline conservatives because they feel that The Left poses a unique threat that mainline conservatives have failed to match. A much discussed debate between Sohrab Ahmari and David French on this topic can be viewed here.
I was struck by how unsurprising Ahmari’s newest article was.
We live in a time where the most radical (of every political strand) tend to get bent out of shape, not by their ideological opponents, but by political moderates. Ahmari, it occurs to me, represents a radical who is upset at both types of moderates.
Moderates on his own side like David French represent the like-minded who won’t join the crusade against the Evil Other. Then center-left moderates like John McWhorter represent the existence of sensible ideological opponents — the non-Evil Other, if you will.
Sohrab has repeatedly singled out French, and now he singles out McWhorter, as defenders of the status quo. That they are sideline handwringers who are at best, extremely unsuccessful at social change. At worst, they lulling those who should be crusading into passivism.
This is the type of hate people like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan receive from The Left these days because they are moderate Liberals who will punch Left instead of only at the Evil.
I’m reminded of Thomas Chatterton Williams’ 2017 NYT op-ed, How Ta-Nehisi Coates Gives Whiteness Power. In comparing Coates’ ideology to explicit white supremacist he had interviewed Chatterton-Williams writes, “Both sides eagerly reduce people to abstract color categories, all the while feeding off of and legitimizing each other, while those of us searching for gray areas and common ground get devoured twice.”
Devoured twice.
Nuance is always the first thing to go when its time crusade against the Evil Other. Sohrab definitely feeds off the the far left. This is evidenced by his article being mostly about his radicalization by Teach For America & Drag Queen Story hour.
Ahmari writes:
Rolling back wokeness, then, requires paying attention to the intersection of ideology and class conflict in liberal society. Anti-woke liberals aren’t prepared to do so, because finally they’re loyal to our current material order, however annoying or discomfiting they might find its cultural symptoms. Their critique doesn’t give rise to any political response. You rarely find them at the forefront of legislative efforts to limit race-and-gender theory in classrooms. Indeed, they often oppose such efforts, lest they threaten higher liberal idols, such as the “marketplace of ideas”.
My last post was about how the particulars always matter. Again I ask, what political responses can ‘roll-back’ wokeness?
Sohrab Ahmari has spent so much of his time upset at the David French’s and John McWhorter’s of the world, but what exactly has he won? Why should anyone follow him?
Ahmari, and those like him, are positioning themselves as the only ones who ‘get it’. That they offer a new way to delivering the victories that their side has long been promised and denied. As the increasingly frustrated masses look for answers Ahmari will see an increase in clicks & views. But notice that those clicks & views would be even higher if people like John McWhorter didn’t exist. Ahmari and all holier-than-thou (progressivism-er… libertarianism-er… conservatism-er… etc.) extremists want an monopoly on their cause du jour.
But when pressed, all they do is lash out at the like-minded and attack liberalism. Color me skeptical of ‘post-liberalism’.