The left will fail if it sees a Biden victory as a success. Woke ideology, embraced not by Biden but by his party, is not a winning electoral strategy.
70 million Americans voted for Trump. Of that group, "Trump underperformed with white men, but made gains with every other demographic. Some 26 percent of his votes came from nonwhite Americans, the highest percentage for a Republican since 1960*."
To understand the woke movement, expanding somewhat on Kaveh's classification of it as unfalsifiable above, is to understand that it is based on a different epistemology than modern liberalism. Kaveh's article suggests that Democratic leaders take the data provided by this election and use it to develop new hypotheses about how to best attract voters in the future. This is the hypothetico-deductive model upon which modern liberal inquiry is based.
Wokism is fundamentally opposed to this, arguing that reality is unknowable and that any accumulated "knowledge" is just power-knowledge used to perpetuate pre-existing systemic inequalities, thereby making the process described above categorically inadmissible. This is the enfant terrible of critical social theory and postmodernism.
Nikole Hannah-Jones and Charles Blow are in damage-control mode as two founding persons of the woke movement: Any white people who are committed to "doing the work" need to redouble their efforts. Millions of BIPOCs ignoring or rejecting the woke narrative is clearly a sign of the severity of the problem rather than the non-existence of it. Everyone, please, play your part: The financial and psychological stability of these two (as well as the Systemic Discrimination Industrial Complex) depends on it.
*From Matt Taibbi's Substack article, "Which is the Real 'Working Class Party' Now?"
That being said, I'm at a loss to understand what Kaveh Shahrooz is suggesting the Democratic Party and Democrats, more generally, do in terms of policy and messaging to mend their woke ways in order to appease those who are antagonistic to the principles of 'woke.'
So we understand what we're talking about, Merriam-Webster defines 'woke' as "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."
So, Kaveh Shahrooz, if woke ideology is not a winning electoral strategy, as you suggest, how should 'woke' political parties address "important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)?" Ignore them? Deny them? Oppose and obstruct them as do right wing parties?
A final note, Joe Biden, who raises 'woke' issues, appears to be winning the popular vote in the US by over 4 million.
I'm curious, Kaveh Shahrooz, what aspect of "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" do you reject or disagree with? What important facts and issues should we not be 'aware of and actively attentive to?'
To quote Yasha Mounk: When America becomes majority minority, the Democratic Party is much more likely to sound like Andrew Yang than like AOC. (https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1324763545452556290)
70 million Americans voted for Trump. Of that group, "Trump underperformed with white men, but made gains with every other demographic. Some 26 percent of his votes came from nonwhite Americans, the highest percentage for a Republican since 1960*."
To understand the woke movement, expanding somewhat on Kaveh's classification of it as unfalsifiable above, is to understand that it is based on a different epistemology than modern liberalism. Kaveh's article suggests that Democratic leaders take the data provided by this election and use it to develop new hypotheses about how to best attract voters in the future. This is the hypothetico-deductive model upon which modern liberal inquiry is based.
Wokism is fundamentally opposed to this, arguing that reality is unknowable and that any accumulated "knowledge" is just power-knowledge used to perpetuate pre-existing systemic inequalities, thereby making the process described above categorically inadmissible. This is the enfant terrible of critical social theory and postmodernism.
Nikole Hannah-Jones and Charles Blow are in damage-control mode as two founding persons of the woke movement: Any white people who are committed to "doing the work" need to redouble their efforts. Millions of BIPOCs ignoring or rejecting the woke narrative is clearly a sign of the severity of the problem rather than the non-existence of it. Everyone, please, play your part: The financial and psychological stability of these two (as well as the Systemic Discrimination Industrial Complex) depends on it.
*From Matt Taibbi's Substack article, "Which is the Real 'Working Class Party' Now?"
The notion of 'woke left' is, of course a recent, right wing pejorative intended to deviantize a group of people. See https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2020/jan/21/how-the-word-woke-was-weaponised-by-the-right.
That being said, I'm at a loss to understand what Kaveh Shahrooz is suggesting the Democratic Party and Democrats, more generally, do in terms of policy and messaging to mend their woke ways in order to appease those who are antagonistic to the principles of 'woke.'
So we understand what we're talking about, Merriam-Webster defines 'woke' as "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."
So, Kaveh Shahrooz, if woke ideology is not a winning electoral strategy, as you suggest, how should 'woke' political parties address "important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)?" Ignore them? Deny them? Oppose and obstruct them as do right wing parties?
A final note, Joe Biden, who raises 'woke' issues, appears to be winning the popular vote in the US by over 4 million.
I'm curious, Kaveh Shahrooz, what aspect of "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" do you reject or disagree with? What important facts and issues should we not be 'aware of and actively attentive to?'