The term “woke” accompanied the Black Lives Matter movement as a way to describe a heightened awareness of social disparities and the revolutionary spirit required to remove and replace the structures supposedly responsible for them. Like other analytical tools inspired by cultural Marxism, such as “identity politics” and “critical theory,” “wokeness” targeted the cultural foundations of Western civilization, aiming to replace them with a new order that promised a future form of social equality yet to be realized.

Because of its rigid ideology, its negative consequences, and the extent to which it blamed innocuous and fundamental social features for reinforcing oppression, the woke movement became discredited in the minds of many and the term became a pejorative. Calling someone “woke” today conveys the idea that he is a radical activist, bent on destruction, and out of touch with reality. Popular podcaster Tim Pool recently described “woke” as “cult-like adherence to liberal social orthodoxy.”

Although the term originated with the revolutionary left, some today use it to discredit certain elements on the right that are less liberal and more aligned with older conservative views. While it is unlikely that applying the term to right-wing movements will gain widespread traction, it does highlight two competing political approaches vying for dominance against the hard left. One seeks to conserve religion, hierarchy, and tradition against the forces of pluralism, egalitarianism, and ideology while the other sees itself as the champion of individual rights, freedom, and equality against collectivism, totalitarianism, and bigotry. In short, it really is a battle between conservatives and liberals happening on the right.

Applying the term “woke” to conservatives seems to have gained steam in 2022 when Kevin DeYoung wrote a review of Stephen Wolfe’s book The Case for Christian Nationalism entitled The Rise of Right-Wing Wokeism. DeYoung, a council member at The Gospel Coalition and pastor in North Carolina, described Wolfe’s views as “woke” because they conveyed the idea that “oppression is everywhere, extreme measures are necessary, and the regime must be overthrown.” Ultimately, Wolfe’s alleged error seems to be the extent to which he critically examinedpositive assumptions concerning capitalism, secularism, and pluralism.Wolfee thought these conditions of modern life made men weak, undermined ethnic bonds, and threatened Christianity.

Since DeYoung raised the alarm about Christian Nationalism, others have started insisting that a “woke right” exists within Christian circles. Yet, the parallels they draw to prove their point are not very substantive. They also overlook major differences between social justice ideology and the deeply conservative political thought that animates the Christian Right.

James Lindsay, an atheist and libertarian, claimed he demonstrated the existence of the “woke right” when American Reformer, a Christian conservative publication, republished a “modified” portion of the Communist Manifesto. Lindsay had rearranged the text as a spoof aimed at the advocates of big government and submitted it under a pseudonym. A closer examination of Lindsay’s decoy article reveals that it was not much of a summary nor a rewrite.

Instead, it was a hollowed-out, fragmented section with mostly new language that actually made the opposite point of the original selection from Marx. Instead of arguing against conserving religion and hierarchy, as Marx does, Lindsay argued for a conservative return to these things. Lindsay also stripped away Marx’s ideological framework, which reduced every human impulse in history to “class struggles,” and did not replace it with anything as universal, abstract, or binary. Instead, he wrote about a threatening liberal order that he confined to the period beginning with World War II.

Despite the significant chasm between Marx’s framework and purpose and those presented in the article from American Reformer, Lindsay argued that what made the former representative of the “woke right” was the belief that they were dominated by a liberal order that needed to be overthrown. This was supposedlysimilar to Marx’s view that the proletariat must gain power to defeat the bourgeoisie. All the other popular critiques of the “woke right” seem to make the same point. If someone on the right thinks in terms of group interest, believes a powerful hegemony threatens their group, and pursues a strategy to meet the threat, he risks being categorized as woke.

Seth Dillon, the CEO of the comedy website The Babylon Bee, called “the woke right . . . a mirror image of the woke left” since “they use the same rhetoric, the same methods, the same grievance and identity framework.” Neil Shenvi, a chemist who runs a Christian apologetics blog, made similar points and added that “the woke right is embracing the ideas and methods of critical theory,” namely an oversimplification of social dynamics. Political commentator Konstantin Kisin accurately identified some of the civilizational threats conservatives are concerned about, such as the World Economic Forum, mass immigration policies, and anti-family rhetoric. Yet, he compared these threats to the left’s discredited obsession with systemic racism and suggested that the right might turn to an authoritarian figure if their concerns were not addressed through democratic means. Kisin argued that Tucker Carlson was already laying the groundwork for this shift and was therefore “woke.” .

In each case, a false equivalence is drawn between Christian Right thinking and social justice ideology. If acknowledging that powerful forces target certain social groups is seen as appealing to shared rhetoric, then this similarity is irrelevant. The real question is whether the rhetoric is true or is driven by a false ideology. Every political approach seeks to protect preferred groups from perceived threats. Even liberals view themselves as collectively opposing groups that threaten their agenda. Ironically, much of the critique of the “woke right” is written in this defensive spirit.

If engaging in political analysis that identifies general threats from powerful institutions and seeks to preserve the social order equals  leftist critical theory, which aims to deconstruct the social order through an ideological framework, then there is a serious conflation at play. Max Horkheimer, the director of the Institute for Social Research responsible for “critical theory,” thought “progress toward utopia [was] blocked” by the “technocracy.” He stated that critical theory was designed to emancipate man from this situation. All political approaches must necessarily analyze threats and provide remedies to them, even liberalism. But, this is not the same as seeking creative ways to destabilize and remake society along egalitarian lines.

If seeking power to defeat power is “woke,” then so is politics itself. It is curious that conservatives are blamed for a strong centralized government they played the least role in creating. While they aim to preserve local and federal arrangements, conservatives must also build institutions strong enough to counter globalist threats or risk losing everything. Ironically, liberalism’s focus on individual autonomy at the expense of society has eroded local ties, fostering decadence that weakens democracy and accelerates centralization. Conservatives, more committed to transcendent principles than to mechanisms like democracy—which only work under certain conditions—understand that other forms of government may be necessary to confront greater threats. However, their prudence does not mean they neglect efforts to preserve the conditions that make democracy possible, as recent concerns over compromised elections demonstrate.

The main issue with “woke right” rhetoric is the fact that liberals, whether they go by that name or not, are deceiving themselves into thinking they can transcend the political. Liberals view themselves as advocates for human rights, grounded in the ideals of individual autonomy, democracy, and pluralism. They typically position themselves as the antithesis of fascism, Communism, and other totalitarian schemes. However, what they frequently fail to grasp is how their political philosophy undermines the traditional societies that provide the necessary stability for political debate.