This was deemed off topic in the other thread, so moving to a new one.
I don’t see any shred of connection. Wokeness only lacks “introspection, humility, and self-awareness” if you listen to right wing infotainers and similar grifters. This seems like an assertion without any evidence.
If you don’t believe a problematic “woke” mentality exists, then of course you won’t see a connection. This is an unworkable debate if you start from this premise.
If you are willing to consider the remote possibility that progressives are less strategic than they should be because their energies are spent on ineffective “woke” activism rather than the shit that makes a real difference, then the connection is more obvious.
I really am not in the mood to debate abortion rights on this particular board, so I will leave others to it.
Seems to me that wokeness is specifically about the need to have “introspection, humility, and self-awareness”.
And I have never heard anybody claiming that the Democrats did everything right.
Sure, we made some mistakes, but blaming it on wokeness without providing any details at all isn’t helpful.
ISTM that the example has precious little to do with “woke”. If anything it is a complaint that liberals/progressives/feminists did not do something to take Roe away from court control. But consider, making this a fixed statutory federal legal protection would have required a combination of lib POTUS, lib House and filibuster-proofed lib Senate, all not caring about losing the next election, to pass (and never mind textually constitutionalizing the Right to Privacy). So resting on Roe even as it was being obviously chipped at by a thousand cuts was the default setting.
Any smart progressive knew that to count on the irreversibility of the Court saying “this is a right” was weak ground to stand on. They just were unable to effectively make the sale for those other steps. This was not a phenomenon of “woke” it was a phenomenon of establishment politics and being able to count votes. The people in elective politics who could have done something about it were NOT SJW activists wasting time on manifestos, they had governing to do. But while that went on, lines only hardened and, guess what, the strategists on the Right kept their eyes on the prize and were able to move forward.
The endless debate over manners in a globalized world continues. My God.
Again, you don’t even believe it’s possible for “wokeness” to be a problem. So why should it be surprising that you don’t get what I’m saying?
I’m putting the term in quotes for a reason. It’s a term that means different things to different people. When people complain about it, they are not referring to the same concept that people who embrace it are using (which should be obvious by now but apparently not). When it’s used as a pejorative it refers to people who take showy, often self-aggrandizing actions to prove their allyship or their status as an oppressive minority, and often times this motivation—which is unprincipled and therefore susceptible to external influence—causes them to look awfully similar to the very people they condemn.
This video is a hilarious illustration of what I’m talking about. When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything - YouTube
Those who believe problematic “wokeness” is a conservative bogeyman will probably keep thinking that, regardless of what I or anyone else says. And at this point it actually doesn’t matter whether you believe it exists or not. The perception that it exists is real and it will have an effect on the Dems’ future electability. Hopefully Party strategists aren’t sitting on their asses having the conversation we are right now. I should hope they are talking about how to combat the perception that the Dems are the party of ineffectual “wokeness” because this is the type of strategic thinking I’m not seeing a whole lot of.
And again, in turn, though, you are not telling us how this phenomenon of “performative wokeness” for lack of a better term, is responsible for the loss of reproductive rights. All I have seen on the ground is the defenders of reproductive freedom fighting the good fight hard, often at risk (or cost) of life, and opponents doing the slow-and-steady of undermining it by pretending that they are principled people who at least don’t shoot doctors.
The votes weren’t there when we could have used them, dammit. Mr and Mrs Mainstream America felt Roe was good enough and that they’d vote for whoever addressed immediate issues of terrorists, or economic bubbles, or gas prices, or satanic panics.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not retire during the Obama administration. That’s on her, though she wouldn’t be the first justice to keep working to the bitter end. Mitch McConnell refused to allow Obama to appoint a replacement for Scalia. That’s on him. Had these events gone the other way, Roe would have been re-affirmed. The democrats could have fought harder to codify Roe, so that the right to abortion wouldn’t depend on the whims of an unelected council of elders, but they didn’t. (I used to call the Democrats the Cleveland Browns of American politics, but I understand the Browns have been OK the last few seasons. )
What this has to do with “Woke,” whatever that undefined nebulous concept means, is beyond me.
Which makes it meaningless for a discussion like this. If you remove the concept of “woke” from the thesis in the OP, you can have a discussion about how Roe got overturned. Decades long effort by those against it. Insufficient response by those in favor. It hardly seems controversial.
Yup. When people believe lies, this can indeed affect elections. That’s exactly why people wanting to affect elections spread such lies.
Joining them in doing so is not useful. Saying that it doesn’t matter whether something is a lie or not is very much not useful.
Difficult, because most of the people believing those lies don’t pay any attention to what the Democrats actually say. The only people they’re listening to, and the only people they’re actually getting information from, are the liars.
Figuring out how to stop that is an entirely different issue from attempting to deal with any specific lie. And blaming it on the people being lied about is absurd.
What is hard to understand about the very simple point I’m making? We have become less strategic as a party in the last 15 years. Period. Our collective energies have moved away from strategies that build lasting policy change (like grassroots campaigning) and has become more reactionary and showy in the “woke” manner I have already described.
I would understand being incredulous if abortion bans were the only development of note, but the GOP is passing bills all over the place that conflict with the Dems. None of this shocks me given what I’m talking about.
Sadly, it’s not all lies. Colleges and universities are populated with young adults who think “die-ins” for David Chappelle shows is what moves the needle on issues, simply because that’s what gets covered in the news and thousands of likes on Twitter feeds. They don’t see that these performative displays do nothing but turn them into fodder for future Chappelle jokes.
Meanwhile, the other side—the side who has the income to donate money to lobbying groups and time to write letters to their Senators—is getting legislation passed.
“It’s lies, all lies” denialism is part of the problem. There is more than a grain of truth to the idea that “wokeness” is a problem.
I would bet that had she retired on Day One of Obama’s presidency, McConnell would have come up with some excuse to deny her replacement until after 2012, then gotten an extension until 2016 when Obama got reelected.
And ‘woke’ is the new Commie, Socialist, or Nazi – “They advocate or believe in something I don’t like.”
The Democrats forgot to build the back bench, and forgot to pay enough attention to the judiciary. That was a miscalculation. They’re working on it.
The Democrats are also working against a system that gives considerably more leverage, both in the Electoral College and in the Senate, to people from small-population states than to people from large-population states. This one can’t be worked on; at least, not without gaining huge supermajorities, which can’t be done exactly because of the problem that needs to be fixed.
None of those things have anything to do with being or not being “woke”. At least, unless you think the Democrats can simultaneously woo significant numbers of racists by deliberately encouraging them, while also somehow continuing to get votes from those currently voting for them but who won’t vote for anyone they think is deliberately encouraging racists – and, of course, also somehow convincing people who are only listening to far-right news sources not to believe the lies being spread about Democrats by those sources. Because even if every actual Democrat proceeded to shut up entirely about any form of racism, those sources would keep right on saying 'the problem is that the Democrats are all going on about ‘wokism!’
ETA: and no, I am not convinced by the fact that college students behave like college students, or that apparently you think college students shouldn’t protest anything. Or, for that matter, that apparently you think the protests of college students are always entirely useless. I haven’t been following David Chappelle, and so won’t comment on that specifically.
Why didn’t he interfere when Souter and Stevens retired then? Also, the Dems had a Senate majority on day one of Obama’s presidency.
Oops, forgot that part.
Yeah. The founding fathers were so afraid of the Tyranny of the majority we got Tyranny of the minority instead.
On the one side, we have literal teenagers. On the other side, we have billionaires. And you’re blaming the teenagers?
This isn’t a recent problem. Old folks have been "kids these days"ing it up for decades, if not centuries. When you’re complaining about college kids having die-ins, and not complaining about billionaires buying elections, you’re part of a very long political tradition.
Yes, this was a huge mistake on our parts. While the GOP kept their eyes on this ball, we did not not. We even talked ourselves out of even prioritizing it.
More broadly, had Al Gore won in 2000, or Hillary Clinton in 2016, Roe would still be the law of the land. The question then becomes whether either of those two losses can be attributed to “wokeness.” Al Gore’s loss in 2000 predates the current concept of the term, so I don’t see how his loss could be blamed on wokeness. So then it comes down to whether or not we can say that Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 was due to wokeness.
Probably not. I doubt he would have done so until after the 2014 midterms, especially since he wasn’t majority leader during Obama’s first two years. My guess is he wouldn’t have even blocked Garland had Scalia died during the first two years of Obama’s second term.
ETA. And had Clinton won in 2016, whatever craziness started gripping the world around 2014 may have slowed down significantly, meaning Garland or whoever Clinton had nominated would likely have been brought to a vote by McConnell.