Why the Woke Left is winning — and the Woke Right keeps losing
Disclaimer: These definitions represent my own understanding and how these terms are used in general discourse and are not meant to reflect an academic understanding of these terms.
Let's begin with a few key definitions.
Wokeness: A lens through which the world is viewed primarily in terms of power structures, dividing people into oppressors and the oppressed based on characteristics such as race, sex, and gender.
Woke Left: A worldview that sees straight, white, Christian men as the ultimate oppressor class, while racial, sexual, and religious minorities are viewed as oppressed by a system controlled by "whiteness."
Woke Right: A worldview that sees straight, white, Christian men as the ultimate oppressed group, while racial, sexual, and religious minorities are viewed as being empowered by a system controlled by Jews.
Recently, there has been a surge of “woke left" and self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist candidates winning elections, particularly in Democratic Party primaries. Beginning with Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's 2025 Democratic mayoral primary and continuing through more recent races, the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is experiencing a remarkable level of success.
Following Kamala Harris' decisive loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, Democrats were forced to take a hard look at themselves. The minority identity coalition they had spent decades building appeared to be unraveling, as evidenced by Trump's gains among black and Hispanic voters. Some political strategists argued that the party had moved too far to the left and needed to return to the political center by nominating more moderate candidates.
Others reached the opposite conclusion. They argued that Democrats lost because they failed to fully embrace democratic socialism and progressive policies. In their view, the solution was not moderation but an even stronger commitment to the Left.
It appears those voices have gained the upper hand. Increasingly, the Democratic Party seems to be moving toward positions championed by the Democratic Socialists of America.
On the Republican side, the opposite trend has emerged. The so-called "woke right" has struggled to achieve meaningful electoral success. Its leaders have attempted to position themselves as the true "America First" movement, distinct from the broader MAGA coalition. Yet in recent Republican primaries, virtually every Trump-endorsed candidate prevailed over challengers from the movement. While some figures associated with the woke right have generated significant attention online, that enthusiasm has largely failed to translate into votes.
Why is there such a stark contrast between the success of the woke left and the failure of the woke right?
Some will point to Donald Trump's unique ability to unify Republicans around himself. While that is certainly part of the explanation, I believe the difference runs much deeper. It stems from the foundational ideologies of the political Left and the political Right.
The modern Left has embraced identity politics as a central organizing principle. It has treated the LGBT movement as a civil rights cause and promoted multiculturalism, diversity initiatives, and equity policies rooted in moral relativism and an increasingly illiberal understanding of discrimination. These ideas create fertile ground for continual ideological expansion.
Once those boundaries are removed, it becomes difficult to explain where the line should be drawn. If same-sex marriage is considered a natural extension of equality, on what basis is trans ideology rejected? Who determines when progress has gone too far? How far should tolerance and inclusion extend?
The political Left is increasingly guided by its understanding of tolerance and inclusion, particularly as they relate to groups considered marginalized, including racial, sexual, and religious minorities. Those who question or oppose policies affecting these groups are often labeled racists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, or bigots and are frequently ostracized from their professional or social circles.
This dynamic discourages internal criticism. Many people become reluctant to voice concerns, allowing the boundaries of acceptable opinion to move steadily farther left. In my view, this is precisely where today's Democratic Party finds itself.
The political Right, however, operates differently. Its worldview is generally grounded in a fixed set of principles rooted in documents such as the Constitution and in the original understanding of those documents. As a result, when voices on the far Right advocate replacing the Constitution or promoting a radically authoritarian version of Christian nationalism, they often face significant resistance from conservatives themselves.
That internal resistance is one of the key differences between the two political coalitions. Extreme ideas on the right are often challenged from within. On the Left, those same kinds of internal challenges are frequently discouraged or silenced.
This helps explain why many classical liberals have found themselves aligning more closely with the political Right after spending years on the Left.
I was reminded of this while listening to an episode of Jeremy Boreing's podcast discussing the rise of neo-Nazi influences within certain evangelical circles. The conversation featured Jon Harris, Will Spencer, and Ethan Hanson, also known online as “Hitler Hated Christ.” What stood out was not simply their rejection of Nazism and white identitarianism, but the fact that they were openly willing to debate and criticize those ideas within their own movement. That openness to internal criticism stands in sharp contrast to much of what is happening on today's political Left.
By comparison, I have seen very little public criticism of Zohran Mamdani or democratic socialism from prominent Democratic politicians or major liberal publications. In fact, former President Barack Obama has publicly praised Mamdani and appeared with him at public events. One of the few notable dissenting voices has been veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who has repeatedly warned that socialism and Progressive identity politics are a losing electoral strategy.
The problem for Carville is that he represents an older Democratic Party whose influence is fading. At 81 years old, he belongs to a generation that no longer sets the party's direction. Mamdani, at 34, represents the movement's future.
Can the Democratic Party change course?
Perhaps. But doing so will require meaningful internal debate. Bad ideas must be challenged without those raising objections being canceled, marginalized, or pushed out of the coalition. Healthy political movements require internal accountability.
Otherwise, Democrats may continue to perform well in heavily Progressive strongholds such as New York City while struggling in national elections. At the same time, politically homeless liberals like Bari Weiss and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may continue finding more common ground with conservatives than with the party they once called home.
Kevin Briggins serves as the Managing Director of the Center for Biblical Unity and as a lay elder at Grace Auburn Church in Auburn, Alabama. A retired military intelligence professional, Kevin completed a distinguished 22-year career of service and holds a bachelor's degree in Middle Eastern Studies. He is passionate about equipping Christians to think biblically about issues of race, culture, and unity within the church. Kevin and his wife, Shulonda, have been married for 19 years and are the proud parents of three daughters: Karis, Kinley, and Khloe. Together, they are committed to serving their local church and advancing the Gospel through discipleship, teaching, and faithful engagement with the culture.
