"If the cause is civil rights, then it’s likely that it will come back because civil rights are extremely popular and unlikely to be overturned, despite years of high quality legal and political criticism of the law."
No, the Trump administration has done a lot to change civil rights law, which used to always move in a left-wing direction under both administrations. If wokeness is civil rights law, then it is a problem that is in the process of being solved.
Also, the "cycle" theory here is discussed in my book too.
No. This stuff is unpopular and it's harder to restart than keep going. Many leftists are secretly happy that Republicans got rid of this headache for them. And even if it's in a ping-pong situation, that would be a major change from the status quo when institutions only worried about pressure from the left. Plus state governments are doing a lot of new things.
Three episodes does not make a cycle. Outbursts of wokism in recent times seem to be a manifestation of the fifty-year cycle of creedal passion periods which can be tracked back in the US to the early 18th century and further back in Europe.
How is 1980-1995 more woke than 1968 -1980? The Vietnam protests, hippies and Lennonism, all that far-left terrorism of the 70's, the legislation on affirmative action, the entranching of feminism, environmentalism and race studies in universities etc are less woke than the Thatcher-Reagan era and the global collapse of marxism?
The woke are proudly, loudly and openly racists and take delight in hurting their enemies and their fellow travellers who don't move in lockstep with the herd.
Wokeness ended because of October 7 2023 attacks on Israel and American students siding with Palestine. All the Jewish donors removed their money form left-wing institutions. This is just a fact.
The Pallasen panels from the GSS are misleading. It's only race. Woke is much more than that. I argued in that thread for the need for a much more robust composite indicator. I don't think the 30 year cycle is vindicated. Mamdani win illustrates Woke is very much alive.
Excellent article Seb. I have one irrelevant question and one irrelevant comment inspired by your graph pertaining to Hispanics.
1. Has there been research into the extent to which the Hispanic life-span advantage is genetic? Hispanics are more obese than whites, and poorer, and have less access to healthcare, but they live longer. Has there been any attempt identify the genetic advantage? The reason I ask is because Bolivia has a life expectancy of 64.93, and Mexico has a life expectancy of 74.83, both of which are lower than USA whites. Are USA Hispanics being selected for by markers of health (proficiency at manual labor)?
2. This is less of a question, and more of a comment regarding Hispanic education. Since Hispanics are less educated than blacks, but earn more money, does this make Hispanics the ideal Republican constituency?
To spell this out (since this is a comment I cannot attach an image): Imagine a graph with two axes, money (x) and education (Y). People in the lower left (low education, low money) are black Democrats. People in the bottom right are Republicans (low education, high money, think tradesmen). People in the top left are Democrats (high education, low money). People in the top right are moderate (high education, high money).
Obviously the most Democratic people in the country are poor trans baristas with two PhDs in sociology and African studies (high education, low money) and the most Republican people are the "redneck rich" dudes like those bearded Pentecostals from Duck Dynasty. Given that Hispanics refuse to go to college, but they make more than blacks, it seems like they are natural Trumpists.
"If the cause is civil rights, then it’s likely that it will come back because civil rights are extremely popular and unlikely to be overturned, despite years of high quality legal and political criticism of the law."
No, the Trump administration has done a lot to change civil rights law, which used to always move in a left-wing direction under both administrations. If wokeness is civil rights law, then it is a problem that is in the process of being solved.
Also, the "cycle" theory here is discussed in my book too.
Hopefully SCOTUS acts by ruling that sec 2 of VRA. Unconstitutional and granting cert on disparate impact.
Do you not think a dem admin will reverse all trump civil rights EOs day 1?
No. This stuff is unpopular and it's harder to restart than keep going. Many leftists are secretly happy that Republicans got rid of this headache for them. And even if it's in a ping-pong situation, that would be a major change from the status quo when institutions only worried about pressure from the left. Plus state governments are doing a lot of new things.
Three episodes does not make a cycle. Outbursts of wokism in recent times seem to be a manifestation of the fifty-year cycle of creedal passion periods which can be tracked back in the US to the early 18th century and further back in Europe.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/cycles-of-radicalization
How is 1980-1995 more woke than 1968 -1980? The Vietnam protests, hippies and Lennonism, all that far-left terrorism of the 70's, the legislation on affirmative action, the entranching of feminism, environmentalism and race studies in universities etc are less woke than the Thatcher-Reagan era and the global collapse of marxism?
The woke are proudly, loudly and openly racists and take delight in hurting their enemies and their fellow travellers who don't move in lockstep with the herd.
Wokeness ended because of October 7 2023 attacks on Israel and American students siding with Palestine. All the Jewish donors removed their money form left-wing institutions. This is just a fact.
The Pallasen panels from the GSS are misleading. It's only race. Woke is much more than that. I argued in that thread for the need for a much more robust composite indicator. I don't think the 30 year cycle is vindicated. Mamdani win illustrates Woke is very much alive.
Excellent article Seb. I have one irrelevant question and one irrelevant comment inspired by your graph pertaining to Hispanics.
1. Has there been research into the extent to which the Hispanic life-span advantage is genetic? Hispanics are more obese than whites, and poorer, and have less access to healthcare, but they live longer. Has there been any attempt identify the genetic advantage? The reason I ask is because Bolivia has a life expectancy of 64.93, and Mexico has a life expectancy of 74.83, both of which are lower than USA whites. Are USA Hispanics being selected for by markers of health (proficiency at manual labor)?
2. This is less of a question, and more of a comment regarding Hispanic education. Since Hispanics are less educated than blacks, but earn more money, does this make Hispanics the ideal Republican constituency?
To spell this out (since this is a comment I cannot attach an image): Imagine a graph with two axes, money (x) and education (Y). People in the lower left (low education, low money) are black Democrats. People in the bottom right are Republicans (low education, high money, think tradesmen). People in the top left are Democrats (high education, low money). People in the top right are moderate (high education, high money).
Obviously the most Democratic people in the country are poor trans baristas with two PhDs in sociology and African studies (high education, low money) and the most Republican people are the "redneck rich" dudes like those bearded Pentecostals from Duck Dynasty. Given that Hispanics refuse to go to college, but they make more than blacks, it seems like they are natural Trumpists.