There has always been a segment of the political class that has maintained power by keeping people frightened and angry enough to vote accordingly when they are promised protection. The United States has plenty of real enemies, but when they are no longer sufficiently scary, politicians invent new ones against which they will battle on the people’s behalf. Hence, the “war on woke.” But have any of these politicians bothered to define the term in a way that even hints at the concept it was originally meant to convey?

What is woke? Basically, it means to be awakened to injustice. For over a century it applied specifically to injustices against Black people. Eventually, it evolved to address social injustice in general, such as the enormous discrepancy in income.

But there is more to woke than awakening. There is the expectation for action to correct the injustice to which we’ve awakened. The Emancipation Proclamation is the best example using the original sense of the term. Attempts to act upon the more recent meaning of woke would include the creation of what we call the social safety net — the group of government programs that folks who don’t need them love to hate.

Now, why would a person or an organization want to paint woke as an enemy? Maybe they simply don’t know what the word means. Maybe they are offended by the idea of people awakening to injustice and doing something about it, particularly if they are benefiting from that injustice. Maybe they are cynically manipulating us by repeating their falsity that something good is actually evil, counting on us to not look any deeper into it than their messaging, handing them the power generated by our fear of and anger over wokeness to act in our names to rescue us from victimhood. The irony (sad or hilarious) is that we are being victimized, not by wokeness or DEI or what-have-you, but by the very people promising to save us from these things.

The meaning of woke has recently been burdened with all kinds of verbal baggage, obscuring the root of the term: to be awakened to injustice and act to correct it. The worst of this baggage has been use of the word as a pejorative, sneeringly or hysterically delivered on the idea of being aware of and wanting to make right something wrong is the latest of invented enemies, portrayed as dangerously anti-American, anti-Christian, a threat to our children and just plain bad. It may seem ridiculous to proclaim that what is good is bad; but do it often enough and loudly enough, and people will believe. It’s a standard technique of dictatorships where the good thing — in this case woke — is a threat to the dictator and his/her regime. Solution? Declare the good thing an enemy of the people against which the dictator will wage righteous war.

One of the easiest ways to characterize people as the enemy is to dehumanize them (vermin; rapists; murderers; poison). For words and the concepts they represent, the strategy is to demonize them. By its sound alone, the word “woke” is an easy target. It is harsh and aggressive. Spoken with the right level of repugnance and self-righteousness, it can convey “evil” to the receptive or susceptible listener. If it is defined at all by those who want to discredit it, they will define it in terms of the most extreme, most threatening interpretations. But definition is not necessary. Simply repeating the word — as a pejorative, as a slur, as an insult — often does the job.

Can we have too much of a good thing? Can the quest for a more just society lead to intolerance? I’d say yes. Should we tolerate any injustice? Probably not. It might help to differentiate wokeness from political correctness, which often arises from our attempts to eliminate injustice and can become counterproductive.

Neither woke nor any other concept aimed at making ours a more just society should be confused with “political correctness” — an attempt to tailor speech or encourage behavior in support of wokeness, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts can easily become heavy-handed and absurd, leading to reactions ranging from irritation to alienation. Scolding doesn’t persuade people as much as it ticks them off. Excessive PC only serves the purposes of those who try to convince us that good is bad.

Last Nov. 19 (C-Span, 18:37-29:00), Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, spoke on the House floor against the majority’s abuse of the word “woke.” He said: “They want to blame woke this and woke that. What’s woke about thinking special interests should not be able to buy tax breaks? What’s woke about thinking Chevron and Exxon cannot dump toxic chemicals into our air and water? What’s woke about thinking it’s wrong to give tax breaks to billionaires while the rest of us get screwed?”

If woke means to awaken to injustice, those thoughts he’s having go right to the core of wokeness. The “war against woke” has been so successful that McGovern is tricked into denouncing the very concept driving his positions … while his opponents in the majority, and especially their think tank message-makers, laugh at him … and us.

Miriam-Webster defines justice as “the quality of being just, impartial, fair”(2a) and injustice as “absence of justice: violation of right or the rights of another: unfairness.”(1)

Fairness and justice, then, are broadly interchangeable.

Donald Trump has often complained of being treated “unfairly.” He is very sensitive about this. So, he rails against injustice. Wow … the newly inaugurated president is woke! Problem is, Trump’s wokeness rarely goes farther than himself. That’s not woke. That’s whining. The highest purpose of woke, by contrast, includes the individual yet is directed from the individual outward to improve the lives of others — the oppressed, the disadvantaged, the marginalized — to make a more just nation. Is that what we want to wage war against?

But don’t worry. There are of plenty other enemy words available. Diversity? Equity? Inclusion? All three together? Terrifying.

——

Phil Gallos lives in Saranac Lake