What makes these claims of harassment and sexual misconduct so difficult is the stakes that we attach to them. We're asked to choose between two scenarios: helpless woman remorselessly violated by cruel, lecherous monster, or decent, innocent man vindictively destroyed by manipulative witch.
As with most things, I suspect that there is often a more resonable middle ground. The counterclaim describes what sounds like a completely different person relative to the picture painted by colleagues interviewed by Suzy Weiss. It would seem there's no way to reconcile the two.
Yet it's entirely possible that this man has certain personality traits which rub some people the wrong way and yet which other's barely notice or even like and make him seem fun and relatable. It's possible he acts very differently under the influence of alcohol. For that matter, it's possible that his accuser does also, so that she legitimately doesn't appreciate in her more sober moments the things she is capable of doing and fully consenting to when inebriated. Even removing alcohol from the picture, modern science is learning some disturbing things about the fallibility of human memory, and the ways in which we often unconsciously retrofit the past to suit the present, that should give us all a bit of humility about the value of individual people's testimonials to past events - especially when the complex emotions surrounding sexual relationships are involved. (For those interested, Malcolm Gladwell did a fantastic 3-part series on memory in his podcast "Revisionist History" - the most memorable episode being the final one titled, "Free Brian Williams".)
The question is, is there a place where we can perhaps be sympathetic to this woman's perspective without exiling the accused from polite society? Where we can imagine that things might legitimately seem one way from her perspective and her recollection than from his? Can we embrace the "Rashomon" of life where it seems we have irreconcilable accounts of reality, and actually learn to withhold public judgement and allow people's private disputes to remain private? Because what we have right now is the kangaroo court of public opinion, and I doubt any of us would want to have our future depend on that jury.
Charlie's stunned reaction a year ago to learning of the Tulsa massacre bespeaks the worth of a little wokeness. I learned of the atrocity quite late, in 1987. . .Excessive wokeness is pernicious. Excessive anything is pernicious, or likely to be. Ms. Young, wow yet again, I think the Ayn Rand piece was marvelously evenhanded. Theresienstadt, (sic) Katyn Wood, The Holodomor. We can all learn. Public relations in wartime. . . . Good God. Thanks.
Thanks Cathy for penning such a thoughtful Sunday morning shot. Uncle Joe is far from perfect but I am proud to have him as my president.
I used to be a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but I am now very suspicious of her ideology. She and her husband are both deeply against the illiberal left, but seem to be okay with the extremists from the right, at least I am not seeing enough criticism from them.
Perhaps it is time to admit that "we" don't really understand the presidency. They campaign as if they can pass laws, but they really can't. On the other hand, when in office, their real value shows up when "shit happens." Ronald Reagan had many weaknesses, but he handled the USSR very well. Bush II failed his test when he let himself be pushed into the Iraq War.
Obama showed his courage by letting the bank bailout go forward. Ideologically, he should have prosecuted the bankers, but he did not - knowing that prosecution would simply have collapsed our financial system.
Trump failed his test with COVID. If you need the details - well you are behind the curve here.
So we have Biden. Decent to a fault, but also able to understand what COVID required, even if the idiocracy remains wedded to a narrative that has freedom on one side and safety precautions on the other.
Biden also had that balls to get out of Afghanistan - despite the advice of careerists all around.
Then we have the Ukraine. Biden handled this as a master. Restoring NATO after the predations of Trumps toxic presidency.
And yes, Biden can't pass legislation. Should we continue the falsehood that presidents are responsible for the legislative branch?
The idiocracy, and alas some of their though-leaders, decided that Covid safety precautions have all been nothing but a way for "elites" to oppress ordinary Americans, and that the average person, or at least the average all-purpose conservative pundit, can make wiser decisions than any expert recommendations -- except for whatever pseudo-expert, i.e. someone with some kind of medical background but not in epidemiology or infection disease, will loudly say "The establishment is all wrong! They're lying to you!"
Trump was a magnet for people inclined to believe that "the establishment" is filled with corrupt people who intend ill to average Americans, or at least to conservative Americans. Then, anyone in government who has criticized Trump, including people handpicked by him, became tagged as a corrupt traitor from the Deep State. This attitude makes it impossible to discuss facts and issues in a rational way.
Excellent piece on Biden - is it too much to ask of an American President to be compassionate and truthful without being political. Clearly not as Joe shows. Don’t know who the last President was who could do this - but sure wasn’t Orange Man. Sometimes there are more important things than the price of gas.
I’ve read the Weiss piece and other sides arguments - if you’re 80% right and the other is 20% right then I’ll go with the 80. Thanks to Bari for exposing the Hitler youth of academia.
Cathy, it takes a special kind of talent to write an article about Biden's speech at Buffalo where 10 people were murdered for being black because the gunman was full Great Replacement rhetoric being spewn by Conservatism, Inc and Republican leaders and turn it into a screed against Democrats.
Posting positively about Bari Weiss was just the cherry on top.
To be fair, we are playing on their field. The Bulwark was created to fight tRumpism… not to fight Conservatism. The founders of The Bulwark are still pretty hard to the Right. If we want more folks who agree w us (assuming youre a Leftie like me) we should go elsewhere.
None of us on here will be persuaded to switch our values, but I think we’re here to reach out to the other side and learn how to work together to save our Democracy, and stop the tRump crime family.
The enemy of my enemy?
Idk. But that is why Im here… maybe Im just projecting?
DeeDee, you're spot on. Bulwark isn't Daily Kos. I agree with the reaching out part, but personally, always want to challenge my values and views. Because many of the Bulwark writers try to be fair and honest in their assessments (yeah, yeah, no one is perfect), I find it a good place to get some perspective. In contrast, to say, NR, which tries to maintain a serious air, but most of the writing there is polemics and propaganda; there is a narrative to maintain and straws will be grasped, inconvenient facts ignored.
And definitely some enemy of my enemy at work.
It is odd, though, that there are some far left types here that seem surprised and baffled that the Bulwark writers can't see that, e.g., free college is super awesome. (And, no, I'm not suggesting that either you or Kevin is necessarily one of 'em.)
I read the Unherd article and have for a long time agreed with some of her points. That said, not sure republicans would be too thrilled with democratic support of her ideas. Read comments section for the usual republican rhetoric and inability to think outside the maga box. Lots of false equivalencies. I do think Dems should drop race as a culture war and political campaign agenda. My guess doing so will bite them in the butt for a minute, but better in the long run. It’s clear they really are not helping advance black Americans, so why keep using a poor strategy. Adding: Biden’s speech was good. I know I am in the minority, but I usually love Biden speeches. Short and to the point without self-indulgent monologues.
I only read the intro to the counter claim, but this read to me like a standard employer sexual harassment claim of creating a hostile workplace, at a minimum. Yes, all of those institutions will fire someone for creating a hostile workplace.
Two excellent columns, Cathy. Thank you for giving us a heads up re Biden’s speech. We all can use more compassion. Even though a Democrat and fiercely Anti-Trump, I am a confirmed Centrist and hope I speak for the Silent Middle. Last summer my son thought I had become too wound up in a Democratic Political Bubble and got me to read Bari Weiss. The columns in Common Sense are thought provoking. In my opinion, the Left-Wing Democrats are alienating Independents. Manchin was correct putting the brakes on last year’s BBB. It was too large and poorly written. Last night we had dinner with three solidly old line Republicans. Interestingly we were united in desires to address methane from factories, concerns about how much energy windmills supply, where they are placed and the effects of plastics on/in our oceans and ourselves. However bring up a name of a Democrat and they turned off. Why don’t we just Try not to constantly publicize the rabid ends of our political spectrum? Plenty of good ideas can be agreed upon and written into bi-partisan Bills that could be passed. This is why I enjoy both your writing, Cathy, and also read Bari Weiss.
I know nothing about the specifics of the Sabatini case. But professors sleeping with students, or postdocs, or even junior faculty whose careers they could impact, has been common for a long time.
It has been common, and is soundly (and correctly) disapproved of. Bosses shouldn't sleep with employees, and professors shouldn't sleep with students, and shrinks (and other docs) shouldn't sleep with patients. And those rules hold true (for good reason) no matter the genders... female, male, gay, straight, etc etc. It introduces powerful and unproductive emotions into a work environment, muddies the waters, and makes other employees uncomfortable
Reaction and over-reaction to claims of sexual misconduct, police brutality, and so many other things, obviates the need to not rush to judgment. The "truth" is rarely at the extremes, but rather, lies somewhere in the middle. Lives are often ruined over things that are reported without context.
Thanks Cathy, for the piece on Biden's speech. It was indeed magnificent. And true.
I do have one question, which I have asked several times without any response from anyone at the Bulwark. I only hear the term "woke" from right wingers. And it isn't used the way it originally was used by Black Americans, back in the day. I really would like to know what those on the Right believe it means. And why are they the only ones using it? I guess it's been co-opted by the Right as a way to insult the Left? How is it an insult? Isn't it preferable to be awakened spiritually and socially than to be spiritually warped and stunted (like the Maga crowd)? Thanks.
Thanks for your question. I have idea what it means either. I'm an Independent and tend to avoid partisan journalism, but I see "woke" used by Republicans to describe anything they don't like. It's really lazyiness on their part.
As Charlie Sykes pointed out when Trump called Mo Brooks (Mo Brooks!) "woke," the word has become a fangless, all-purpose insult flung by MAGA at anyone who doesn't subscribe 100% to their ideology.
But these are not maga-heads... they are intellectuals... who despise progress? IDK.
You should read the article Cathy thoughtfully provided in her kind response to me. It's fascinating. She is articulate and I believe she sincerely believes what she says. And we sincerely believe what we say. And THAT is why we're here... to attempt to bridge the gulf between well-meaning Americans of all points of view.
JVL did a really great thing when he started the Comments section. It has become an important part of my day. (Plus, like any good dad, he reminds us to keep things civil... I disagree with him on so many things, and yet I love him and would adopt him happily.)
Really appreciated the link to your arc digital article which helped clarify some of the "murky" terms floating around in my mind. Also, thanks for the link to George Orwell's "The Prevention of Literature." Both essays are helpful to understanding the current political extremes and their potentially dangerous, totalitarian results.
Thank you so much, Cathy. I took the time to read your article defining what Wokeness means to you.
I chuckled when you equated it to the term Social Justice. I first heard about Social Justice when I became a Catholic after I kept running into Mother Teresa, and then worked w her Sisters for two years. My first Catholic church was in California and they had a Social Justice division and I found that awesome and worked w them as a spiritual discipline.
Im much older than you, and I know language can change among diff generations. But with your permission I will continue to use M Teresa’s understanding of Social Justice.
As for the term Woke, apparently the Right can take good things and use them as a cudgel against anything progresssive. Yet I have always seen Progress as a great good for everyone. Its so much better than going backwards. I do wish this SCOTUS was at least a little awakened. But alas. Religious zealotry is so much worse than wokeness. IMHO only!! I now understand what you mean by it, and accept that you fervently hold a differing perspective. And Im pleased we have a forum here where we can try to save our country ... Together!
i am honored, Cathy that you took the time to respond here. Honored and appreciative.
BTW, I recommend everyone read your linked article. The Right will love it, and the Left will understand you better when they read your works going forward.
I wish you everything good and true and beautiful Cathy. And I wish us all Peace and comity. From the heart.
Cathy was generous enough to actually reply, and Im grateful to her for that. Shes def brilliant and a good writer. But yeah, she pretty much despises everything Ive spent 73 years working for. And that makes me inconsolably sad.
Yet here we all are, desperately hoping we can find some way for us all to learn how to talk to each other, and God willing, find some common ground. Idk if its possible, but I assume everyone who subscribes to The Bulwark hopes the same.
I'd be surprised if she really does "despise" the object of your life's work. The mere fact that you're willing to engage indicates that you are of a different ilk than many of those she opposes, who often employ abusive bullying and intimidation tactics to silence their opponents. Cathy likely holds similarly progressive ideals to you; what she rejects is the reductionist lack of nuance with which people often approach such topics. The overgeneralizing way in which we tend to identify and root out "bad" ideas, practices, and people very often lends itself to the same cruel, unfair, and malign treatment of individuals that our progressive ideals supposedly exist to prevent.
Hmmmm. I havent witnessed “abusive bullying and intimidation to silence their opponents” coming from the left toward the right — but I do see terrible bullying from the right toward well, everyone they dislike. MTG hounding David Hogg walking down the street and telling him she was armed, springs to mind. And thats just one. Countless examples… Jan 6 was a festival of violent bullies. Anyway. Thanks for being friendly. And if Cathy is a closet liberal, I’ll be thrilled but very very surprised.
I liked your point about nuance. And I like how you write. (I should have led with that.)
I think that "woke" and "wokeism" has become a catchall phrase by anyone (right, left, middle) to describe the politically correct policies of the far left run amok. I can only speak to my own understanding, but it just seems that the progressive left has gone so far to the extreme that they are totally ignoring the average person and what their needs are. The result will be a mid-term in which a Trump run GOP actually wins (HOW is that possible???) because people in the middle just don't understand what happened to the Democrats. Just my take...
True. But the likes of Corui Bush and Chuck Schumer (what a ridiculous vote!) play right into the hands of the Right. If the left keeps messing with terms like "Birthing Person", I hope they enjoy Trumps 2nds term. And his third...
I can not, for the life of me, understand why the Democrats have not hired people like Charlie Sykes, Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller and Amanda Carpenter to rejig their strategy. If they really do see trump (as we all should) as an existential threat to democracy (and the world), then pander to the factions of your party that appeal to 1% of the population LATER!
Oh! Really? I think it's because Charlie, Sarah, Tim, and Amanda appear to be against the Democratic agenda (much like yourself)... If they were all working toward the same goals it would make sense. But at this point, I think your question answers itself.
Words matter. They truly do. And writers know that better than anyone. I actually do not know what they mean when they use the word. It's important we're all using language to mean the same things, imho.
Thanks for the succinct definition. Is it connected, then, to "cancel culture," which I also do not know how to define?
PS: Merriam Webster defines "woke" this way (as an adjective): Woke is now defined in this dictionary as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” and identified as U.S. slang. It originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. By the end of that same decade it was also being applied by some as a general pejorative for anyone who is or appears to be politically left-leaning. It is increasingly used as a byword for social awareness.
I'm Old School, so "woke" is NOT an adjective or a noun. You can be awake and awakened but you cannot be woke in my house. I awoke this morning but I am still not woke. Sorry. It grates on every language cell in me.
Thanks for the further edification. I'd suggest "white America" hasn't been interested in its own history or anyone else's since the GOP started taking over school boards and dumbing down the curricula. I'd also suggest that while it's fine for African Americans to use slang like "woke" if they choose, it's unseemly for white Americans to co-opt it imho. It certainly muddies the waters. But we are all better informed thanks to Bulwark commenters!
I really appreciate your response. I am hoping someone from The Bulwark would answer because they're the ones who use it all the time. I'm a liberal and have never heard it lately anywhere except from the Right. I used to hear it from my Black friends... but that was about a decade ago, and it meant something very good and positive when they used it. I confess my feelings are really hurt that I've asked three or four times, and they just ghost me. I guess I don't deserve an answer, in their opinion? idk. But thanks again for engaging...
Perhaps they have no good answer to your question because the descriptor “woke” has turned into a word without a real meaning. It is something to throw at a person or group who you hope to disparage.
Don't take it personally DeeDee...some of them don't answer anyone, and especially when threads are really long, they just don't have time to read all the comments, you could try emailing one of them directly ( edited to remove wrong name) and maybe they would answer...they get so much stuff it is hard to keep up
Thank you Angie. I appreciate what you said. Yes, I suspect they have an enormous number of subscribers, so perhaps you're right. IDK... but I love that you're so thoughtful and helpful. really. Thanks 🙏🏽
This is an excellent article. I read both the Unheard and Common Sense pieces and your take is spot on. Thanks
What makes these claims of harassment and sexual misconduct so difficult is the stakes that we attach to them. We're asked to choose between two scenarios: helpless woman remorselessly violated by cruel, lecherous monster, or decent, innocent man vindictively destroyed by manipulative witch.
As with most things, I suspect that there is often a more resonable middle ground. The counterclaim describes what sounds like a completely different person relative to the picture painted by colleagues interviewed by Suzy Weiss. It would seem there's no way to reconcile the two.
Yet it's entirely possible that this man has certain personality traits which rub some people the wrong way and yet which other's barely notice or even like and make him seem fun and relatable. It's possible he acts very differently under the influence of alcohol. For that matter, it's possible that his accuser does also, so that she legitimately doesn't appreciate in her more sober moments the things she is capable of doing and fully consenting to when inebriated. Even removing alcohol from the picture, modern science is learning some disturbing things about the fallibility of human memory, and the ways in which we often unconsciously retrofit the past to suit the present, that should give us all a bit of humility about the value of individual people's testimonials to past events - especially when the complex emotions surrounding sexual relationships are involved. (For those interested, Malcolm Gladwell did a fantastic 3-part series on memory in his podcast "Revisionist History" - the most memorable episode being the final one titled, "Free Brian Williams".)
The question is, is there a place where we can perhaps be sympathetic to this woman's perspective without exiling the accused from polite society? Where we can imagine that things might legitimately seem one way from her perspective and her recollection than from his? Can we embrace the "Rashomon" of life where it seems we have irreconcilable accounts of reality, and actually learn to withhold public judgement and allow people's private disputes to remain private? Because what we have right now is the kangaroo court of public opinion, and I doubt any of us would want to have our future depend on that jury.
Charlie's stunned reaction a year ago to learning of the Tulsa massacre bespeaks the worth of a little wokeness. I learned of the atrocity quite late, in 1987. . .Excessive wokeness is pernicious. Excessive anything is pernicious, or likely to be. Ms. Young, wow yet again, I think the Ayn Rand piece was marvelously evenhanded. Theresienstadt, (sic) Katyn Wood, The Holodomor. We can all learn. Public relations in wartime. . . . Good God. Thanks.
Thanks Cathy for penning such a thoughtful Sunday morning shot. Uncle Joe is far from perfect but I am proud to have him as my president.
I used to be a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but I am now very suspicious of her ideology. She and her husband are both deeply against the illiberal left, but seem to be okay with the extremists from the right, at least I am not seeing enough criticism from them.
Perhaps it is time to admit that "we" don't really understand the presidency. They campaign as if they can pass laws, but they really can't. On the other hand, when in office, their real value shows up when "shit happens." Ronald Reagan had many weaknesses, but he handled the USSR very well. Bush II failed his test when he let himself be pushed into the Iraq War.
Obama showed his courage by letting the bank bailout go forward. Ideologically, he should have prosecuted the bankers, but he did not - knowing that prosecution would simply have collapsed our financial system.
Trump failed his test with COVID. If you need the details - well you are behind the curve here.
So we have Biden. Decent to a fault, but also able to understand what COVID required, even if the idiocracy remains wedded to a narrative that has freedom on one side and safety precautions on the other.
Biden also had that balls to get out of Afghanistan - despite the advice of careerists all around.
Then we have the Ukraine. Biden handled this as a master. Restoring NATO after the predations of Trumps toxic presidency.
And yes, Biden can't pass legislation. Should we continue the falsehood that presidents are responsible for the legislative branch?
The idiocracy, and alas some of their though-leaders, decided that Covid safety precautions have all been nothing but a way for "elites" to oppress ordinary Americans, and that the average person, or at least the average all-purpose conservative pundit, can make wiser decisions than any expert recommendations -- except for whatever pseudo-expert, i.e. someone with some kind of medical background but not in epidemiology or infection disease, will loudly say "The establishment is all wrong! They're lying to you!"
Trump was a magnet for people inclined to believe that "the establishment" is filled with corrupt people who intend ill to average Americans, or at least to conservative Americans. Then, anyone in government who has criticized Trump, including people handpicked by him, became tagged as a corrupt traitor from the Deep State. This attitude makes it impossible to discuss facts and issues in a rational way.
Excellent piece on Biden - is it too much to ask of an American President to be compassionate and truthful without being political. Clearly not as Joe shows. Don’t know who the last President was who could do this - but sure wasn’t Orange Man. Sometimes there are more important things than the price of gas.
I’ve read the Weiss piece and other sides arguments - if you’re 80% right and the other is 20% right then I’ll go with the 80. Thanks to Bari for exposing the Hitler youth of academia.
Cathy, it takes a special kind of talent to write an article about Biden's speech at Buffalo where 10 people were murdered for being black because the gunman was full Great Replacement rhetoric being spewn by Conservatism, Inc and Republican leaders and turn it into a screed against Democrats.
Posting positively about Bari Weiss was just the cherry on top.
A special talent indeed.
To be fair, we are playing on their field. The Bulwark was created to fight tRumpism… not to fight Conservatism. The founders of The Bulwark are still pretty hard to the Right. If we want more folks who agree w us (assuming youre a Leftie like me) we should go elsewhere.
None of us on here will be persuaded to switch our values, but I think we’re here to reach out to the other side and learn how to work together to save our Democracy, and stop the tRump crime family.
The enemy of my enemy?
Idk. But that is why Im here… maybe Im just projecting?
DeeDee, you're spot on. Bulwark isn't Daily Kos. I agree with the reaching out part, but personally, always want to challenge my values and views. Because many of the Bulwark writers try to be fair and honest in their assessments (yeah, yeah, no one is perfect), I find it a good place to get some perspective. In contrast, to say, NR, which tries to maintain a serious air, but most of the writing there is polemics and propaganda; there is a narrative to maintain and straws will be grasped, inconvenient facts ignored.
And definitely some enemy of my enemy at work.
It is odd, though, that there are some far left types here that seem surprised and baffled that the Bulwark writers can't see that, e.g., free college is super awesome. (And, no, I'm not suggesting that either you or Kevin is necessarily one of 'em.)
I read the Unherd article and have for a long time agreed with some of her points. That said, not sure republicans would be too thrilled with democratic support of her ideas. Read comments section for the usual republican rhetoric and inability to think outside the maga box. Lots of false equivalencies. I do think Dems should drop race as a culture war and political campaign agenda. My guess doing so will bite them in the butt for a minute, but better in the long run. It’s clear they really are not helping advance black Americans, so why keep using a poor strategy. Adding: Biden’s speech was good. I know I am in the minority, but I usually love Biden speeches. Short and to the point without self-indulgent monologues.
Dems should drop race as a culture war issue as soon as Republicans stop running as racists.
There’s that and can’t completely disagree, but still think Dems could better address this issue then how they are.
Its so annoying that Biden isnt perfect!!! 😉
"the annals of MeToo overreach"?! What does that mean? Too bad Cathy Young wasn't available to help out Al Franken, eh?
I only read the intro to the counter claim, but this read to me like a standard employer sexual harassment claim of creating a hostile workplace, at a minimum. Yes, all of those institutions will fire someone for creating a hostile workplace.
Cathy...think you 'hit the right note' about what Biden had to say. Props.
Two excellent columns, Cathy. Thank you for giving us a heads up re Biden’s speech. We all can use more compassion. Even though a Democrat and fiercely Anti-Trump, I am a confirmed Centrist and hope I speak for the Silent Middle. Last summer my son thought I had become too wound up in a Democratic Political Bubble and got me to read Bari Weiss. The columns in Common Sense are thought provoking. In my opinion, the Left-Wing Democrats are alienating Independents. Manchin was correct putting the brakes on last year’s BBB. It was too large and poorly written. Last night we had dinner with three solidly old line Republicans. Interestingly we were united in desires to address methane from factories, concerns about how much energy windmills supply, where they are placed and the effects of plastics on/in our oceans and ourselves. However bring up a name of a Democrat and they turned off. Why don’t we just Try not to constantly publicize the rabid ends of our political spectrum? Plenty of good ideas can be agreed upon and written into bi-partisan Bills that could be passed. This is why I enjoy both your writing, Cathy, and also read Bari Weiss.
SallyJones
I know nothing about the specifics of the Sabatini case. But professors sleeping with students, or postdocs, or even junior faculty whose careers they could impact, has been common for a long time.
It has been common, and is soundly (and correctly) disapproved of. Bosses shouldn't sleep with employees, and professors shouldn't sleep with students, and shrinks (and other docs) shouldn't sleep with patients. And those rules hold true (for good reason) no matter the genders... female, male, gay, straight, etc etc. It introduces powerful and unproductive emotions into a work environment, muddies the waters, and makes other employees uncomfortable
I completely agree, but university administrators are rarely willing to discipline faculty for, well, much of anything.
I'm chortling ironically here... yes, that is very true.
Biden doing what Biden does best. We need more Bidens in politics. :)
oh Charlie, you are so correct!
Reaction and over-reaction to claims of sexual misconduct, police brutality, and so many other things, obviates the need to not rush to judgment. The "truth" is rarely at the extremes, but rather, lies somewhere in the middle. Lives are often ruined over things that are reported without context.
Thanks Cathy, for the piece on Biden's speech. It was indeed magnificent. And true.
I do have one question, which I have asked several times without any response from anyone at the Bulwark. I only hear the term "woke" from right wingers. And it isn't used the way it originally was used by Black Americans, back in the day. I really would like to know what those on the Right believe it means. And why are they the only ones using it? I guess it's been co-opted by the Right as a way to insult the Left? How is it an insult? Isn't it preferable to be awakened spiritually and socially than to be spiritually warped and stunted (like the Maga crowd)? Thanks.
I've often thought this myself -- that and "virtue signaling."
Thanks for your question. I have idea what it means either. I'm an Independent and tend to avoid partisan journalism, but I see "woke" used by Republicans to describe anything they don't like. It's really lazyiness on their part.
As Charlie Sykes pointed out when Trump called Mo Brooks (Mo Brooks!) "woke," the word has become a fangless, all-purpose insult flung by MAGA at anyone who doesn't subscribe 100% to their ideology.
Does feel like that around here once in awhile...
But these are not maga-heads... they are intellectuals... who despise progress? IDK.
You should read the article Cathy thoughtfully provided in her kind response to me. It's fascinating. She is articulate and I believe she sincerely believes what she says. And we sincerely believe what we say. And THAT is why we're here... to attempt to bridge the gulf between well-meaning Americans of all points of view.
JVL did a really great thing when he started the Comments section. It has become an important part of my day. (Plus, like any good dad, he reminds us to keep things civil... I disagree with him on so many things, and yet I love him and would adopt him happily.)
Lunchtime's over! Back to work here...
I'm with you DeeDee. I enjoy the comments at least as much as the newsletters.
Well I have a bumper sticker that reads: If it ain't woke, wake it!
The Buddhists spend infinite lifetimes to Awaken. But apparently thats now a bad thing! 🤣
Whered u get your sticker? I want one!
LOL. Can't remember 🙄
Ah... just as well... but just know, I have sticker envy here. 🤓
I don't think it's only used by right-wingers unless, for instance, you consider John McWhorter one! E.g. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052650979/mcwhorters-new-book-woke-racism-attacks-leading-thinkers-on-race Anyway, don't forget that people who think they are "spiritually awakened" may be a cult; it's a little similar to right-wingers claiming to be "red-pilled" as in the Matrix - having taken the pill that lets you see the *true* reality. Anyway, I think "woke" has often become shorthand for a particular type of ideology -- I wrote about it here. https://www.arcdigital.media/p/defining-wokeness?s=r
Really appreciated the link to your arc digital article which helped clarify some of the "murky" terms floating around in my mind. Also, thanks for the link to George Orwell's "The Prevention of Literature." Both essays are helpful to understanding the current political extremes and their potentially dangerous, totalitarian results.
Thank you so much, Cathy. I took the time to read your article defining what Wokeness means to you.
I chuckled when you equated it to the term Social Justice. I first heard about Social Justice when I became a Catholic after I kept running into Mother Teresa, and then worked w her Sisters for two years. My first Catholic church was in California and they had a Social Justice division and I found that awesome and worked w them as a spiritual discipline.
Im much older than you, and I know language can change among diff generations. But with your permission I will continue to use M Teresa’s understanding of Social Justice.
As for the term Woke, apparently the Right can take good things and use them as a cudgel against anything progresssive. Yet I have always seen Progress as a great good for everyone. Its so much better than going backwards. I do wish this SCOTUS was at least a little awakened. But alas. Religious zealotry is so much worse than wokeness. IMHO only!! I now understand what you mean by it, and accept that you fervently hold a differing perspective. And Im pleased we have a forum here where we can try to save our country ... Together!
i am honored, Cathy that you took the time to respond here. Honored and appreciative.
BTW, I recommend everyone read your linked article. The Right will love it, and the Left will understand you better when they read your works going forward.
I wish you everything good and true and beautiful Cathy. And I wish us all Peace and comity. From the heart.
Thank you again.
Cathy was generous enough to actually reply, and Im grateful to her for that. Shes def brilliant and a good writer. But yeah, she pretty much despises everything Ive spent 73 years working for. And that makes me inconsolably sad.
Yet here we all are, desperately hoping we can find some way for us all to learn how to talk to each other, and God willing, find some common ground. Idk if its possible, but I assume everyone who subscribes to The Bulwark hopes the same.
I'd be surprised if she really does "despise" the object of your life's work. The mere fact that you're willing to engage indicates that you are of a different ilk than many of those she opposes, who often employ abusive bullying and intimidation tactics to silence their opponents. Cathy likely holds similarly progressive ideals to you; what she rejects is the reductionist lack of nuance with which people often approach such topics. The overgeneralizing way in which we tend to identify and root out "bad" ideas, practices, and people very often lends itself to the same cruel, unfair, and malign treatment of individuals that our progressive ideals supposedly exist to prevent.
Hmmmm. I havent witnessed “abusive bullying and intimidation to silence their opponents” coming from the left toward the right — but I do see terrible bullying from the right toward well, everyone they dislike. MTG hounding David Hogg walking down the street and telling him she was armed, springs to mind. And thats just one. Countless examples… Jan 6 was a festival of violent bullies. Anyway. Thanks for being friendly. And if Cathy is a closet liberal, I’ll be thrilled but very very surprised.
I liked your point about nuance. And I like how you write. (I should have led with that.)
I think that "woke" and "wokeism" has become a catchall phrase by anyone (right, left, middle) to describe the politically correct policies of the far left run amok. I can only speak to my own understanding, but it just seems that the progressive left has gone so far to the extreme that they are totally ignoring the average person and what their needs are. The result will be a mid-term in which a Trump run GOP actually wins (HOW is that possible???) because people in the middle just don't understand what happened to the Democrats. Just my take...
Cheers
True. But the likes of Corui Bush and Chuck Schumer (what a ridiculous vote!) play right into the hands of the Right. If the left keeps messing with terms like "Birthing Person", I hope they enjoy Trumps 2nds term. And his third...
I can not, for the life of me, understand why the Democrats have not hired people like Charlie Sykes, Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller and Amanda Carpenter to rejig their strategy. If they really do see trump (as we all should) as an existential threat to democracy (and the world), then pander to the factions of your party that appeal to 1% of the population LATER!
Oh! Really? I think it's because Charlie, Sarah, Tim, and Amanda appear to be against the Democratic agenda (much like yourself)... If they were all working toward the same goals it would make sense. But at this point, I think your question answers itself.
good question DeeDee, even what seems undeniably positive, has become controversial...
Words matter. They truly do. And writers know that better than anyone. I actually do not know what they mean when they use the word. It's important we're all using language to mean the same things, imho.
Thanks for the succinct definition. Is it connected, then, to "cancel culture," which I also do not know how to define?
PS: Merriam Webster defines "woke" this way (as an adjective): Woke is now defined in this dictionary as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” and identified as U.S. slang. It originated in African American English and gained more widespread use beginning in 2014 as part of the Black Lives Matter movement. By the end of that same decade it was also being applied by some as a general pejorative for anyone who is or appears to be politically left-leaning. It is increasingly used as a byword for social awareness.
I'm Old School, so "woke" is NOT an adjective or a noun. You can be awake and awakened but you cannot be woke in my house. I awoke this morning but I am still not woke. Sorry. It grates on every language cell in me.
Thanks for the further edification. I'd suggest "white America" hasn't been interested in its own history or anyone else's since the GOP started taking over school boards and dumbing down the curricula. I'd also suggest that while it's fine for African Americans to use slang like "woke" if they choose, it's unseemly for white Americans to co-opt it imho. It certainly muddies the waters. But we are all better informed thanks to Bulwark commenters!
We all feel that way, these days, about something...
But I never hear it from the Left.
me either!! 🤷🏽♀️
🤣😂
I really appreciate your response. I am hoping someone from The Bulwark would answer because they're the ones who use it all the time. I'm a liberal and have never heard it lately anywhere except from the Right. I used to hear it from my Black friends... but that was about a decade ago, and it meant something very good and positive when they used it. I confess my feelings are really hurt that I've asked three or four times, and they just ghost me. I guess I don't deserve an answer, in their opinion? idk. But thanks again for engaging...
Perhaps they have no good answer to your question because the descriptor “woke” has turned into a word without a real meaning. It is something to throw at a person or group who you hope to disparage.
It's the Right's version of what they think the term "racist" is.
Yeah I can HEAR the eye rolls....
Don't take it personally DeeDee...some of them don't answer anyone, and especially when threads are really long, they just don't have time to read all the comments, you could try emailing one of them directly ( edited to remove wrong name) and maybe they would answer...they get so much stuff it is hard to keep up
Thank you Angie. I appreciate what you said. Yes, I suspect they have an enormous number of subscribers, so perhaps you're right. IDK... but I love that you're so thoughtful and helpful. really. Thanks 🙏🏽
You are welcome, and thank you