Revisiting the Trump Divide Among the Anti-Woke
And why some see DeSantis as Trump's natural successor
Back in 2020, there was a debate within 'anti-woke' circles as to whether the re-election of Donald Trump or the election of Joe Biden as US President would be better, in terms of calming down the rising tide of far-left cultural activism. Back then, I was on the side of Biden on this question, and I think the evidence since then speaks for itself: everyone would agree that things like de-platforming speakers, cancel culture, identity politics and so on have been on the decline ever since early 2021. It turned out that Trump was fuel for the cultural far-left, and his removal, while not completely solving the problem, nevertheless calmed things down a lot. However, some anti-woke Trump supporters still insist that we were wrong to not support Trump. Given that the election of Trump clearly triggered a rise in the cultural far-left, and his removal clearly calmed things down, how could someone who is 'anti-woke' still insist that Trump is the solution?
To understand this phenomenon, I think we have to look at the three different cases for opposing 'wokeism'. Firstly, we have the (classical) liberal case. Broadly speaking, during the 2010s, both liberals and libertarians became alarmed at new developments that posed a threat to free speech and other aspects of individual liberty, like cancel culture, so-called 'safe speech', and de-platforming speakers. They were opposed to these developments, because they upheld liberty consistently. Hence they argued against these new developments in the marketplace of ideas, hoping to defeat them using the power of logic and persuasion. Secondly, we have the (genuine, Burkean) conservative case, which focused on the fact that postmodern critical theory ideology often posed a threat to long-standing values and institutions, including everything from meritocracy, to colorblindness, from individual responsibility, to family values. The conservative case was hence focused on arguing for the preservation of these values, against the onslaught of the revolutionaries. There was also quite a bit of overlap between the liberal and conservative cases here, because values like free speech are cherished by both liberals and conservatives.
However, there is a third case for opposing wokeism, that is neither liberal nor conservative in nature. It comes from the angle that wokeness is the culmination of decades (or more) of social degeneration, which in turn was due to society essentially being run by the wrong people. The solution, then, would be to fundamentally change the people who run society. And it's not limited to the government either: universities, expert bodies, journalism, the entertainment industry, even the corporate world, would all need a regime change. Those who hold this worldview also fundamentally disagree with both the liberal and conservative anti-woke solutions, because they seek to strengthen the guarantee of liberty and the existing cultural and political order, respectively. Instead, they believe that it is too much liberty, and the weakness of the existing order, that has allowed their enemies to control society. Moreover, the current order, and its relatively strong guarantees of liberty, would not allow them to change who is in control of academia, culture, and the corporate world. To take control of society, and reshape it to their liking, they couldn't just leave these important sectors of society alone, because ultimately, politics is indeed downstream from culture in our society. Trampling on both long-standing norms of liberty and long-standing institutions and arrangements would therefore be well justified in their view. This worldview is reflected in the 'emergency mode' rhetoric often coming out of the influencers and culture warriors promoting this kind of anti-wokeism. Also notable is how the 'emergency mode' rhetoric seems to have only gotten louder, even as wokeness itself has objectively subsided over the past three years.
Although it is against progressive change, the decadent-regime case against wokeism needs to be differentiated from the conservative case. It is actually nothing like conservatism, in that it doesn't seek to uphold and defend long-standing institutions, values and norms. Rather, if we look for parallels in Western history in the past two centuries, the closest parallel would indeed be fascism. (Trust me, I've tried to look for other parallels, but simply can't find anything else like it!) Twentieth century fascists based their whole politics on the worldview that society had become decadent, because the wrong people were in charge. They hated both liberals and conservatives, because both would continue the decadence, however they still tried to attract the support, or at least tolerance, of conservatives who feared the rising far-left at the time. Once in power, they tried to remake society in a highly authoritarian way, justified by what they believed was necessary to rescue the country from the decadent state it was in. All their authoritarian policies, their racism and antisemitism, and their embrace of everything from eugenics and conspiracy theories stemmed from this worldview. Hence, I would argue that this worldview, the view that society has become decadent because the wrong people are in control of it, and that authoritarian means are justified to rescue society from this situation, is by definition pre-fascist. It is pre-fascist because it is the necessary, and apparently sufficient, worldview to justify the adoption of a dangerous fascist politics, even if it is not fascism itself (yet). The decadent-regime case against wokeism is therefore a move to promote pre-fascist ideology, by capitalizing on frustration towards wokeness.
Liberals and (genuine) conservatives are generally not inclined to support Trump, because of his repeated disrespect for individual liberty, and long-standing norms and institutions. On the other hand, pre-fascist thinkers are almost universally drawn to Trump to some extent, because his populism, his rejection of long-standing institutions and norms, and his entertainment of conspiracy theories are all useful for advancing the pre-fascist worldview. Note that I have emphasized over and over again that I do not believe that Trump is a fascist (or even pre-fascist) in any way. He is simply a populist and a paleoconservative. The trope that Trump supporters are motivated by racial resentment is also both untrue and harmful, and needs to be retired. Many Trump supporters have very valid reasons, particularly economic reasons, for supporting him, even if I personally don't agree with them. The majority of Trump supporters are not far-right fascist sympathizers, period. However, this does not mean that pre-fascists cannot see him as a useful first step in their agenda. A base that is activated on populism, conspiracy theories and skepticism of traditional institutions and expertise, which unfortunately describes a significant part of Trump's base, could be very useful to the pre-fascist movement. Indeed, I believe that this phenomenon, rather than anything Trump himself has said or done, is the most worrying aspect of Trumpism.
Finally, let's talk about Ron DeSantis's decision to endorse Trump when he dropped out of the Republican Presidential primaries, an endorsement that has likely propelled Trump to win New Hampshire and robbed Nikki Haley of the best chance she could secure a win. DeSantis, once seen as the most viable alternative to Trump by many, stabbed the Stop Trump movement in the back when it mattered the most. This was actually unsurprising. While some anti-Trump moderates once saw DeSantis as their greatest hope of dethroning Trump, his most ardent and influential supporters, many of them sympathetic to the aforementioned pre-fascist faction of anti-wokeism, actually saw him as the logical next step forward from Trump, the second step in building their political movement. This view is actually based on solid evidence. DeSantis's own anti-wokeism is objectively more closely aligned with the pre-fascist model than the liberal or conservative model, whether he has been aware of it or not. His actions like the 'War on Disney' show that he is neither a freedom loving classical liberal, nor a genuine conservative who believes in things like limited government. Rather, he sees any hint of wokeness as justifying extraordinarily authoritarian actions, liberal or conservative principles be damned, just like the pre-fascists. Over the course of 2022-23, more and more anti-Trump moderates saw DeSantis as extreme, thus causing his support to collapse (and Haley's to rise). On the other hand, the pre-fascists highly approved of his extremism. They became his most influential supporters, and they ultimately pushed him in the direction of endorsing Trump when his campaign became unviable. This way, DeSantis could still become Trump's successor one day.
Let's be honest. Many liberals and conservatives in the anti-woke movement once saw the pre-fascists as allies, but now consider them 'too extreme'. I think we need to see that the pre-fascist model of anti-wokeism isn't just too extreme, it was never even our friend to begin with, because it isn't compatible with our worldview or values at all. As classical liberals, we should see that it represents a worldview that is totally alien to ours, and that we should consider dangerous based on historical precedent. We need to wake up to this, before the pre-fascist movement stabs us in the back yet again.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).