Woke 1 Failed Due to Guilt-Tripping Style, Not Its Underlying Values—Progressives Need a Reformed 'Woke 2'
Source: Luke Winkie. "Why “Woke 1” was so “crazy,” and what progressives should do about it.." August 17, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that 'Woke 1'—the guilt-tripping, jargon-heavy activist culture of 2020—failed not because its underlying concerns about justice were wrong, but because its style of endless self-flagellation and insider language alienated ordinary people without producing real change. He says progressives should keep caring about justice but ditch the preachy, guilt-based approach for something more practical and inviting—a 'Woke 2' that doesn't make people feel hopelessly complicit in society's sins.
Conclusion
Progressives should abandon the guilt-based, insular rhetorical style of 'Woke 1' while retaining its core commitment to social justice, replacing it with a more practical, positive, and inclusive 'Woke 2' that doesn't alienate ordinary Americans.
Premises
- Woke 1 was characterized by a codified, insular language style that punished non-fluency with ostracization and harassment (e.g., 'unceded Lenape territory,' 'folx')
- The core failure mode of Woke 1 was its telos of inflicting and experiencing guilt perpetually, without producing actionable change (acknowledging Lenape territory doesn't un-cede it)
- Francesca Hong's 2020 Thanksgiving tweet exemplified this pattern: technically correct on substance (Thanksgiving does whitewash genocide) but delivered as a demand for self-flagellation rather than persuasion
- Ordinary Americans don't want to be told they are complicit in unforgivable bigotry, and they generally already believe bigotry is bad—so guilt-tripping rhetoric fails to persuade and instead alienates
- Woke 1's most extreme positions (prison abolition, police defunding) were not adopted but were instead weaponized by the right, contributing to Trump's reelection
- AOC's dismissal of Woke 1 as 'crazy' isn't a betrayal of the underlying causes but a strategic acknowledgment that the delivery mechanism failed
- There remains significant progressive/radical energy among the Democratic electorate (support for challenging ICE, oligarchy, Israel policy), suggesting the appetite for change exists if channeled differently
Assumptions
- The underlying injustices motivating Woke 1 (racism, colonialism, police violence) are real and legitimate concerns worth continued political action
- Political persuasion is more effective when it appeals to people's existing self-image as 'good people' rather than accusing them of complicity in oppression
- A rhetorical/stylistic shift (from guilt-based to practical/positive framing) can preserve substantive political goals while improving electoral viability
- Hong's electoral loss can be reasonably attributed significantly to her association with Woke 1 rhetoric rather than other factors (money, incumbency, timing)
- There is a meaningful distinction between 'Woke 1' as a rhetorical style and the substantive left-wing policy goals it was attached to