The greatness of the American myth is that it is mostly real. Enough of the faux-conservatives, these woke rightists, judging America as not worth saving and smearing our heroes as tyrants or war criminals.
On December 3, 2024, James Lindsay, rightish provocateur, revealed that he had “very lightly edited” “several thousand words straight out of” the Communist Manifesto and submitted it to the on-line journal American Reformer. He considered it the primary voice of the Christian nationalist “woke right.” Mr. Lindsay, under the pseudonym “Marcus Carlson,” swapped out the term “bourgeoisie” with liberalism, liberals, or “the post-war liberal consensus,” among others. He then sent this screed to American Reformer to prove the existence of “the woke right.” He succeeded. They published it, duped by the Communist Manifesto dressed in the thin rhetorical garb of Christian nationalism.
Mr. Lindsay, and others, like Christian apologist Neil Shenvi, had been arguing that there’s a “woke right” which reasons exactly like the woke left, only with different heroes and victims. I’ve argued that the woke right uses history in exactly the same way as the left, re-inventing it to alienate us from our mythos in hopes we’ll embrace their vision for the future.
George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” If you want to take over a country, first sully its founding myths. It demoralizes the people. Revolutionary Marxists did exactly that in China, inciting a “cultural revolution.” Their first step was to plant the seeds of cultural revulsion: make people hate their own culture.
The United States least deserves to lose its glorious history—its mythos—to the ravages of left-wing historical distortions, like the 1619 project, claims of “genocide” against native peoples, the obsessions about slavery which fail to acknowledge the obvious: the United States ended slavery. Yet we’ve lived, over the last generation, through such an attempted cultural revolution. It’s so increased in ferocity over the last decade, we’ve given it a name: wokeness. It’s the last stage in disillusioning us about our history and culture in hopes we’ll be willing to opt for a new one.
For example, Ben Garrett, cohost of podcast The Haunted Cosmos, proclaimed a professor “doesn’t know much about Churchill.” The professor was lauding Winston Churchill, and Mr. Garrett claimed he knew better. Mr. Garrett has “done the reading,” or so he says. He knows that Churchill was the villain of World War II, or something like that. He’s received the gnostic insight. He’s arrived at a higher level of understanding than the rest of us simpletons indoctrinated by the “post war consensus” in service of “globohomo.”
Such rightists have assimilated reflexes of the Left while thinking they can use them to serve their agenda. They think they’ve woken to the truth about American history and now are crusading to win us over to their vision of a glorious American past, so that we’ll join them in reviving it. They tell us that
- the American revolution was an unjust war;
- the Constitution was a mistake
- “slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before [the Civil War] or since” (Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins, Southern Slavery: As It Was, p. 38)
- Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant
- the United States got conned by the “warmonger” Churchill to enter World War II (according to Darryl Cooper)
- our prosecution of that war was marked by “war crimes,” like the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima
- Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education was an error
- the “postwar consensus” was a nefarious plot to harness our power to further “globohomo”
…and so on.
Like their Leftist mirror images, the purpose of all this historical fiction is to make us hate our country so we’ll be willing to tear it down and start anew. For conservatives—pseudo, semi, or alt—that the ideal America was lost somewhere in their imaginary past, maybe at Appomattox, maybe with Woodrow Wilson or the New Deal or more recently, whereas Leftists, like Kamala Harris, who share their tactic of deconstructing our history, see it in the future. Hence, Ms. Harris beckons us, like Mao’s “four olds,” to be “unburdened by what has been.” These disaffected pseudo-conservatives feel so alienated from the United States as it now is that they’re willing to take a wrecking ball to the whole myth. They don’t realize, however, that they are the Left’s useful idiots.
The greatness of the American myth is that it is mostly real. Sure, our heroes had blemishes. But Pilgrims really did come to Plymouth to worship God, launching the 1620 Project. A decade later, John Winthrop, sailing toward America, really did declare that they were going to plant “a City Upon a Hill.” Two generations later, Increase Mather really declared, of those founders, “It was a great and high undertaking of our fathers when they ventured themselves and their little ones upon the rude waves of the vast ocean that so they might follow the Lord into his land.” America really did have a Christian founding. Washington really was great; he may not have chopped down a cherry tree and refused to tell a lie, but he really was a man of integrity who rallied his troops by riding his horse between advancing British lines and faltering American ones. He really did step aside from the presidency, creating a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power.
Lincoln really did save the country and free the slaves; he might have had to resort to some extreme measures, like suspending habeas corpus, but the Constitution specifically allowed that during “cases of rebellion”; he did it so that a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people might not perish from the earth.” The United States really did put down two fascist enemies at once, was so humane and just that both Germans armies and Japan as a nation hurried to surrender to Americans rather than fall into the hands of the alternatives; America alone held the atomic bomb, having the world for the taking and yet let peoples be free. She really did stare down the Soviets, at Berlin, at Vietnam, at Reykjavík, and created a global “Pax Americana.” Todd Beamer really did say “Let’s roll” and, with the other heroes of United 93, thwarted the terrorists. Meanwhile, we really did ensure justice at home for the descendants of slaves, and now we can do so for the pre-born.
Enough of the faux-conservatives judging America as not worth saving, smearing our heroes as tyrants or war criminals. Enough of the woke rightists who justify slavery so they can decry the United States for abolishing it. They’ve been discipled in the Left’s cultural revolutionary tactics and are now its dupes. And they’re wrong.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is “Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences” (1792) by Samuel Jennings, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
For a fuller elaboration of this article, see:
“The Woke Right and America’s Cultural Revulsion” (The Vital Center)
https://thevitalcenter.com/fall-2024
Thank you for taking the time to write this. “Woke Right” is a perplexing term. What you wrote greatly helped me better understand what “Woke Right” means.
Good article!
They aren’t on the right. Right and left are logical opposites. The woke “right” has more in common with the left than with libertarians, the true right. These “woke” right are actually a variation on the fascist form of socialism
Right and left are quite ridiculous terms, politically speaking. I would describe myself as left-wing but probably have a lot more in common with most libertarians than any totalitarian socialists (or rather, state capitalists). Also ‘wokeism’ and ‘political correctness’ are neither right nor left wing things- they’re simply dogma, and I think political dogma should be resisted in all forms. (In the interest of nuance, it’s important to note that there is a fair bit of ironic dogma in this article itself)
I don’t know that the Right was ever just libertarians. I think it also included people who were more traditional than that.
Right-wing “political correctness” made some sense to me because political correctness was at least somewhat about censoring language or facts that might offend a minority group. So “Right-wing political correctness” could be censoring language or facts that might offend the majority group.
Woke I think of as being about the notion of “structural inequalities” and dismantling anything that they deem to cause them. I guess maybe someone on the Right could think the Constitution has “structural repressions” (for the libertarian) or “Structural Hostility to Tradition” (for the Traditionalist Right.) And I’ve seen people who thought the Constitution was repressive compared to the Articles of Confederacy and highjacked it. Or who think the Constitution advocated classical liberty in a way that devalues faith so favor a Christian monarchy. But I kind of feel like people like that are pretty rare.
With you with everything, except Lincoln. He was a tyrant. It was all self-serving, he did not want to be the President that presided over the dissolution of the volunteer union of states
Lincoln was not a tyrant. He won a free and fair election, guarded the constitution, stood for re-election during the middle of a war, and won. He literally freed the slaves and saved the country and lost his life because of it.
Over the years, I have observed the Right becoming a mirror image of the Left, and more so the further apart they grew. Once upon a time, conservatives like Barry Goldwater and liberals like Jack Kennedy could disagree and still be friends. But the Moderns would likely claim that Goldwater wasn’t a “true conservative”, nor Kennedy a “true liberal”.
In the Sixties, the Left began to adopt Identity and Grievance politics, tossing aside their previous commitment to “working class issues” for the favor of the lumpenproletariat. Thirty years later, the Right followed suit. Now both sides only serve an increasingly shrinking constituency.
Those people who loudly and belligerently tout their “Conservatism”, while seeking to conserve nothing and destroy everything, are merely Right-Nihilists. Their object seems to be to blow up society, burn down the ruins, and hose away tee ashes, without offering any viable proposal for building anew.
It is likely long past time to examine Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, and Peter Viereck, and toss aside the ideological “conservative agenda” in favor of a “conservative disposition”.
Hear, hear! A great comment.
These people aren’t on the right, they are on the left but they’ve repackaged it. Neocons are the same as the left save that they want business to run the economy rather than government, a sure sign that at least some of them think. But MORALLY and ETHICALLY, these are no more “on the right” (if you mean that as it USED to mean) than Josef Stalin!
All who want power are against the vision that founded this country. Now, a lot of people at the time of the founding were also against that vision and, as do these people, sought power rather than the nation George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson envisioned. We almost had a book that would have told us exactly what happened in the Congress during the revolution, but the man who wrote it, didn’t publish for fear that Americans would lose their respect for those “Founders” in Congress. Too bad he didn’t publish because we would have had a much better understanding that even those who had the vision didn’t always have the strength of their convictions! As it is, the “myth” of many Founders doesn’t help in this day and age when people tend to reject what they believe to be fiction (and, in many instances, they’re right!).
The right has always suffered from a mindset that demands perfection from those on its own side! We look with less condemnation upon our enemies than our friends who disappoint us by being imperfect. It is a very bad way of looking at the world because you hand your enemies victory! Already they are starting to find big problems with Donald Trump, for God’s sake instead of thanking Almighty God for his victory!
The article itself is right wing hyperbole with a gloss of jingoistic rhetoric. By the way, not a single slave was freed as the result of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Revolution was not a technical “just war,” and the author’s infatuation with war suggests his real concern, making the article a model of what he decries.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed approximately 3.5 million enslaved people.
The Revolution was a just war. It was called by legitimate authority, for the right purpose, etc.
1. To the extent the American Revolution was a revolution it was unjust. To the extent it was a war of independence it was (at least arguably) justified. If unpopular government agendas, ill advised laws, and implementing new burdensome taxes are an excuse for usurping power from a legitimate authority, then any country could justly rebellion at almost any time. If, however, King George III was actually a tyrant (A dubious assumption though certainly part of the American “myth” of which Carpenter breathlessly writes) then sure, it was a just war. I, like Dr. Johnson, remain skeptical of the “Yelps for liberty” that came from “among the drivers of the Negro”.
2. The Constitution was not a “mistake” if the goal was the utopian dream of a “more perfect Union” via a constitutional, republican, democracy. Republicanism was the politically correct idea of the day in the late 18th century. Once the founders embarked on the progressive course of doing a republic only doing it better (because they were more “enlightened” than previous nation builders, you understand), the constitution became a very good idea indeed. I am thankful that it exists compared to the alternative of a quasi democracy without a written constitution.
3. Slavery did not produce “genuine affection” between the races. Genuine affection existed on a case by case basis in the antebellum South but where it did exist it was organic. There was more affection and less animosity between the races before the cotton gin industrialized Southern agriculture and commoditized slave labor, and there was more of it after the Civil War and before post-Lincoln reconstruction when Republicans began to persecute (former Confederate) Democrats.
4. Lincoln was not a tyrant per se. Except during war time, when exceptions must be made and extraordinary measures must be taken, he voluntarily remained within Constitutional limits. He wasn’t a tyrant but he had a flawed vision of what the country should be and he doggedly pursued that vision. The U.S., when first established, was a union of independent states. Lincoln wanted less independence for states and more power, planning and control from the centralized federal government. He did impose his vision on the South as a condition of victory and he never acknowledged even the possibility that the Southern states had a right to succeed (his vision was for an large expansive country not a small one that bordered the Confederate States). He was not a classical tyrant but he did give us a federal government that is at least as tyrannical as King George III was…He was a great man, in the sense that he (like Hitler 75 years later) would have won Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, but it’s a counterfactual to claim he “saved the country”. The Union would have still existed if a settlement rather than a war ensued after Lincoln’s election, but it would have existed in a different form. Abe Lincoln changed the country to suit his ideals for it, he didn’t “save” it in the sense of “conserving” (as in conservative) it.
5. The Churchill bashing is bunk. Churchill’s pestering of the U.S. to join the battle was a matter of the survival of his nation. He was a man of his time who did what was necessary and, all things considered, right. He was not an angle but he was not a barbarian, which Hitler certainly was. The world remains in his debt.
6. War crimes were, of course, committed by the Allies during WWII but it is unfair and untrue to say the war was “marked” by war crimes.
7. Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education was not in error. If a secular nation is going to have public education it is within its rights to define who can receive the benefits of such an education. It is reasonable to disallow discrimination based on race even if some of the remedies for discrimination upset the sensibilities of those who want to discriminate. This is very much separate from the question of whether a central, federal government should be involved in education at all. It decidedly should not. Education is the business of parents and like minded, voluntary communities of parents. Education should not be in the prevue of the federal government or any good government.
8. There is such a thing as the “post war consensus” and it is generally a very bad, very destructive consensus indeed. It entails a strong strain of paganism and a progressive, utopian quasi religions motivation. It is the logical consequence of the so called Enlightenment but it blossomed after the world wars when our secular leaders began to promote the lies of religious and cultural neutrality and pluralism. WWI and WWII were not the precise point where the consensus was arrived at but those wars were something of a tipping point that acted as a catalyst to the global adopting of the cancerous ideas that are and will continue to destroy our country.
Perhaps I am the only person to have written for both The Imaginative Conservative and American Reformer. (I haven’t looked to see–just a guess.) I know a few of the people referenced in this article and I come away from this thinking that there are some associations made that are misleading. Knowing some of the people behind TIC and AmRef I can say that there is a broad range of agreement between them on many points–particularly the value and trustworthiness of our founding documents and the legitimacy of the Revolution. Knowing this raises questions in my mind about other judgments made here.
I had several articles rejected by American Reformer. I guess they weren’t Marxist enough.
Cline took part in the ad hominem against Gavin Ortlund, going along with covering for Basham’s book.
I would love to donate to this learned enterprise. Unfortunately, your chosen donation collector, PayPal, once permanently banned me for misusing their service and has never offered a reprieve. I will at least try to leave this comment using an email that they might not know.
Thank you for your readership and desire to support us! To make a donation by mail please contact us at aline.roach@thefreeenterpriseinstitute.org.