The Extremism Feedback Loop and the US Right Wing

So I’m not a psychologist or sociologist but I’m a lifelong student of human nature and have a lot of experience with extremism personally. I feel like all of our analyses of the US right wing are sometimes missing and sometimes just dancing around a key element of what has gone wrong in American politics in the last half century. We talk about social media, money in politics and so forth, all of which are relevant, but I think this feedback loop is a key insight. Here’s my layman’s view of how this works.

I’m defining “extremist beliefs” as beliefs that are contradicted by reality, by a substantial chunk of popular opinion, or both. This includes false beliefs about reality (like 2020 election denial) as well as beliefs that are either false or at least not held by a large chunk of the population (like racism, sexism, etc.) Now the thing about extreme beliefs like this is that they face pushback from reality or from the populace so in theory over time these beliefs should moderate. However, we have seen in recent decades the opposite. My theory is that there has arisen a feedback loop, a reinforcement mechanism composed of right wing media and culture, arising out of both technology as well as cultural and economic circumstances, that has reinforced these extremist beliefs.

The way I see it, in the late 60s and early 70s, the hard-right GOP and the wealthy/corporate elite worked to “get their message out” in a very ugly way: appealing to social conservatives with extremist views on race, gender, religion, etc. to then motivate these voters to vote for GOP candidates who primarily then pursued (initially) a pro-wealth economic agenda. The GOP harnessed, in stages, various media including talk radio, TV (Fox News), the internet and social media to exploit these extremist beliefs for political power. However, what may have been unintended is that this created a powerful self-cycling and ever-more-powerful feedback loop that has now driven the US right wing into extreme and dangerous territory.

(Note: I’m talking about a mass-level phenomenon here rather than individual level “cognitive dissonance” - there is overlap in these concepts but I’m talking meta, not micro.)

The way it works is this: people with extremist views normally face pushback from reality or from the populace and this upsets them. They seek reinforcement and comfort. The rise of right wing talk radio in the 70s and 80s gave them a ready source of reinforcement. People who held the same beliefs, all calling in to say they agree, is very very comforting to people with extremist beliefs. An example of this is the early Rush Limbaugh fan nickname - they called themselves “Dittoheads.” This is because callers would call in and say “I agree with you Rush!! Ditto!!!” or “I agree with the last caller!! Damn! Finally someone said what I feel!!! Ditto!!!”. That social connection was incredibly comforting to the listeners and drove addictive-style listening habits.

Now here is the thing: to keep the audience, the right wing outlets have to go as extreme as they can. The listeners’ extremism is going to face varying amounts of pushback based on their experience so there is no “one size fits all” level of extremism to make all listeners perfectly in equilibrium with their extremism. If a radio host went light on extremism, then some of their audience would not get enough feedback and would drift away. The only way to maximum audience retention was to go hard right 24/7. In fact one of the early signs of this toxic feedback loop was the conversion of “talk radio” with may different POVS (in the 70s) to exclusively right wing talk radio by the later 80s. Listeners who heard Rush Limbaugh did not want to hear a moderate or liberal after that: that was a slap in the face to the feedback loop. Instead they wanted MOAR RIGHT WING!! So talk radio gave it to them, in bucketloads.

And then the inevitable happened: the increasingly extremist feedback from talk radio pushed the audience to the right so that they needed YET MORE extremism to feel comforted. Which means the right wing media machine had to crank the extremism to 11 then to 13 and… you get the picture. We started with Nixon then got Reagan then Limbaugh then Gingrich then George W. Bush then Trump, each more extreme than the last.

And it wasn’t just media: this feedback loop includes cultural and social connections as well. People sorted themselves by wanting to be around people they were comfortable with so right wingers were hanging with right wingers more and more. And as they grew more extreme, they put moderates and left wingers off so those folks withdrew. What we ended up with is a society segregated by levels of extremist belief. That’s how we ended up where we are.

And this feedback loop is POWERFUL. People who have pushed themselves (or been pushed, it’s a philosophical question) to the extremes like Covid deniers and Big Lie election fraud believers need a damn lot of comforting reinforcement to maintain those obviously ridiculous, contradicted by reality, and unsupported by a big chunk of the populace idiocies. They NEED Fox News screaming about extremist shit all day. They NEED Twitter and Facebook and talk radio. And along the way, this feedback loop has not just grown more powerful, it has also trampled on other sources of info. One way to decrease the pushback from reality and the populace is to decry those things: to reject reality, to treat the view of the populace as biased “wokism”, etc. So you end up with something like 35-40% of the electorate being detached from reality and driven to every greater lengths of extremism. It’s a process, a powerful meta-level psychological/sociological process way beyond mere “tribalism” or “social media” or other individual factors. Culture, economics and technology all contribute to this but the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and the parts are also inextricably intertwined.

And lastly, there is also a “ratchet” effect, where once someone has gone far enough extreme it becomes very very hard for them to moderate. Once you’ve believed ugly and/or foolish things for long enough, it would be horribly psychologically hurtful to admit you were wrong. On top of that it would be vastly embarrassing and you would also face vicious counter-attacks from your former fellow extremists (b/c they fear cracks in the edifice, too, at a subconscious level). Just as the ring wing cultural reinforcement of Facebook posts, email chains and so on form a feedback loop, they also form a punishment loop for those who quit the extremism. Look at how "RINO"s get slaughtered by the right.

Basically, to understand where we are, you have to have some sense of this big powerful process that’s going on. Money in politics, social media and all the rest are PART of this process (I don’t believe this feedback loop would be fully operational without modern media technology and also social media) but the process is the big deal, IMO.

This frame of reference explains an awful lot. How can smart people appear to believe such obvious ugly and false bullshit? Are they just cynical manipulators who happen to be great actors? Or have they been processed through this feedback loop so that even smart people find it easier to believe this bullshit and act on it than to face the mental pain of admitting they believe a lot of ugly and false shit? IMO, the ratio of “true believers” (as defined by this feedback loop system) is MUCH higher on the right than many observers seem to think. There are still a few cynical manipulators out there so cold in their emotions they are unfazed by the feedback (cough Mitch McConnell cough) but I truly believe that the vast majority of MAGA folks have been sucked into this loop and believe what they are spewing. That makes them extremely dangerous. Also, they have lost the ability to trust and verify reality and other people’s emotions, so they can’t be reined in that way.

So any ideas about fixing this through education or whatever moderate milquetoast ideas the mainstream centrist media puts out there is doomed to failure. This process is way too powerful and way too self actuating for that. About the only things I can thing of to stop this are two ideas:

One, the ever-extremist loop does create vulnerabilities for elections as if we target our message correctly we can win elections by convincing the less-aligned/independent voters to vote against the GOP, and also by getting the left wing voters to turn out in high numbers. One nasty thing I’ve noticed is “low level feeder” media types like Joe Rogan and those youtube “question askers” who are sort of gilding the lily and appearing less extreme to try to create an onramp for this feedback loop. However, the vast majority of the right wing media machine is so far right, and believes its own shit so strongly that we do see them pushing independents away and also motivating the liberal voters. So that’s an opportunity.

Two, part of this feedback loop is it managed to grab power, in Congress in the 90s, at the local levels after 2010 and so. It’s much easier to crank this feedback loop hard when you control the levers of power, and can appoint Judges and write laws to facilitate the right wing push. So one way to pushback against this feedback loop is to use the opportunity in One, above, to win elections and reduce GOP power, at the national, state and local levels, in all branches of government.

And we probably also need to see if can weaken or shutdown the “feeder onramps” like youtube etc. I don’t actually think going hard at deplatforming the most extreme stuff is good bang for buck (those dudes are fuckin’ crazy) but I do think if we can “slow the flow” of newbies to this loop, it will suffer attrition over time.

Anyway, that’s my magnum opus Big Sharpe Theory.

Discuss.

I agree with the previous poster! Ditto!!

(sorry, I couldn’t resist)

Perhaps slightly more usefully, we also see this feedback loop insinuating its way into all other aspects of folks’ lives. It’s not enough for church to say “hey, be cool to one another, k?”, but it must also say, “‘one another’ is only folks like us. Those people over there? They’re the woke mob and agents of the Devil!” Businesses must not “bow to wokism” or face the petulant wrath of the extremist mob. Etc… These beliefs become less and less positions people hold and more and more central to their very self-identity.

Well said. You lay out a very good theory on how all of this happened. The why is also interesting, but even harder to grapple with I think, because it gets into the broader issues of American identity, power, and lack of perspective globally.

I agree as well!

I think the question is one of analysis vs. treatment, in a nutshell. I have beliefs that this goes back right to the beginning and the political settlement itself between states and the federal government. It also goes back to the beginning of how money ie, capital, since the 1870s, has dominated the American political, social and economic life. It also goes to how the sclerotic political system has been such a boon to traditionalism and religiosity in the United States - basically the only western country that has a substantial religiously fervent populace today (and not just on paper or identity). But the real challenge is how to confront anti-reality on the right. It could and can sometimes pop up everywhere on the left and right, but it’s particularly virulent on the right, and the internet has not been helpful.

The long term solution, that isn’t an existential crisis thing, requires the liberal / democratic / whatever wing to massively invest in rising the quality, calibre, and courage of local and state politicians to confront the rising tide of anti-reality chaos. It’s not just an American thing as well. For example the BJP in India has been filing court cases to prove that the Taj Mahal is actually an Indian / Hindu temple. That kind of insanity, the “we can BS reality to its face, make reality our own” is really at the heart of that terrible Republican / Evangelical overlap.

Yeah, lots of twisted variations on ‘faith’ and ‘freedom’.

I’ve recently come to think that there is a strain of thought that goes:

  1. Freedom of speech means that people are allowed to say horrible, despicable, unforgivable things
  2. Therefore, in order to prove that I am free, I must say horrible, despicable, unforgivable things.

This explains things like “rolling coal”. It’s clearly something only the most demented jackass would do. So why do people do it? To prove that no liberal can stop them. How can you know you have freedom if you don’t exercise it? And you must exercise it in the way that offends the most people, to prove that nobody can stop you from exercising it. Otherwise, are you really free?

This also explains things like permit-less concealed carry laws. Men’s rights activists. Alex Jones. And so on.

What’s kind of weird is how this has now turned into crusades for banning books, outlawing abortion, anti-LGBT+ and anti-CRT. Freedom, apparently, also means freedom to take away other people’s freedom. Maybe it’s just that they don’t consider those other people to be people.

Here is my offshoot to this thought, which i find very well-reasoned and sound., I would like to hear your thoughts on this…

When did belief become equal to facts, data or evidence? Why are so many not caring about these aspects, if it conflicts with their beliefs?

When and how did it become fashionable to ignore the law, science, data, facts, or even reality in the face of beliefs or someone’s personal truths? This isn’t just a right-wing issue, lots of leftist thinking beliefs outrule law or logic, but it’s certainly more dangerous at the moment in the right.

@Sharpe definitely agree with what you wrote. But my addendum thought to that which also kind of addresses the questions in the post above mine is that part of what has kept people contained within their loop and caused them to ignore facts that are contrarian to them was the change in politics to people really seeing people from the other party as evil, dumb, and THE enemy. When that becomes a fundamental fact to you then it becomes really easy to bend what you’re willing to believe about things to fit into that worldview where the other side couldn’t possibly correct.

Since your only real choice is D or R then there is no other place to go. So yeah, maybe some things Tucker is saying are kind of crazy, but I can let that slide because he’s on the right side. Fast forward as he keeps going further and maybe I’m really uncomfortable with some of the things he’s saying now, but it’s way easier to keep sliding a little further down the rabbit hole with him then it is to completely upend everything I believe and consider that other D world over there. And of course then if you were to suggest a more moderate view you risk being labeled as one of those wicked liberals.

And I agree with @David2 that this isn’t exclusive to the right. The same forces are acting on the left and many of the same ingredients are there, it just hasn’t gotten anywhere near as far along and may never go there. Certainly I think you have a wider variety of voices on the left without anyone emerging with the influence or monopoly on thought of a Trump or a Tucker or a Rush Limbaugh.

This is why I’d really love to see some way for third parties to become truly viable in the country. I think that provides people an offramp option that has less baggage associated with it. And it lets the real extreme voices split off from the main party without being able to so successfully pull everyone else with them.

I know you don’t want to hear this, but I can see the great potential for harm that is contained in the widely-held views and prescriptions espoused by Republican voters, while I can’t really see any potential for harm in the widely-held views and prescriptions of Democratic voters.

I feel like we ought to be able to talk about the very real, serious problems we are facing because a third or more of the population has essentially gone insane, without engaging in the pretense that yes, perhaps some of the rest are a bit batty too.

I guess as far as solutions go, I would start with how do we get smart people on the left interested in serving on e.g. school boards, and how do we get everybody else to the polls to vote them in?

  • set up a church based around the idea that ChatGPT output is divinely inspired when prompted by faithful Christians.
  • introduce ChatGPT-generated verses into new Bible printings suggesting that donating money to political causes is gay Jewish Marxist behavior.
  • set up another church based around the idea that ChatGPT output is generated by Satan.
  • have both churches stage a huge gathering in the same stadium at the same time, “concealed and open carry both encouraged.”
  • lock the gates and make a Satanic speech over the PA in a goofy Satanic voice.

I knew somebody would jump on it even though I tried to overwhelm the rest of the post with examples all focused on how far the right has gone. Not trying to bothsides it, not trying to equate D to R or anything along those lines. Like I said, the left hasn’t gone there and will hopefully never do so. Even the progressive wing of the Dems haven’t gone anywhere actually crazy. No radical socialist ideas or radical proposals for climate(electricity rationing, child limits, whatever you could imagine). Just pointing out that a lot of the ingredients for the feedback loop that @Sharpe identified exist across the political spectrum, and certainly my addition of seeing the other political party as evil or the enemy does too. You’d probably respond by saying the modern Republican party IS evil and an enemy to [fill in blank], which I’m inclined to agree with broadly. But that still means those lines are drawn such that if the Democratic Party began to slide out of control like the Republicans did there would be no lifeboat party for people who didn’t fully subscribe to those views to jump to. They’d likely end up being pulled along too. Then I had a couple sentences of trying to think out loud about why it could be that in an environment with broadly the same ingredients the right had spun fully out of control and the left has not. To be clear, I’m not actively worried about the Dems heading that direction anytime soon, but I also always want to be wary of the potential pitfalls in my path(and hubris is an ever present pitfall) even though I’m mostly focused on the other guy who already walked off a cliff. Or something.

I’d be happy if this thread turned into serious discussions about how to bring some chunk of the populace back. How to break the feedback loop. Honestly, I feel a little helpless when it comes to trying to figure out actions I can take or that we could take as a community to help people come back from that. I thought Trump losing in 2020 would break the spell for a lot of people and they might start to wake up. That didn’t happen.

I think demonization of the “other side” is a key component to the feedback loop that I didn’t really detail. It’s part of the extremist beliefs that are rejected by the populace but I do think a specific aspect of how the right wing went so wrong is that a big chunk of their extremist beliefs were false, negative and exaggerated attacks on the middle and left. This facilitated the extreme movement.

One other thing I didn’t detail is just how powerful and self-sustaining this feedback loop became. One thing I forgot to mention is that on the media side of the equation, this feedback loop generated vast wealth and fame. Fox News is an evil organization spreading propaganda BUT they also made a shit-ton of money doing that which enabled them to go both deeper and wider on their propaganda. And plenty of the right wing media folks just got involved as an easy way to make money without necessarily internalizing the extremism at least at first (Ann Coulter IMO).

This is part of the feedback loop in miniature and on an individual level. It also depends on the demonization of the other side I talked about above. Believing horrible things causes mental stress so one way to defuse that is to project it all onto the other side or to attack and offend the other side and then feel comforted by the “unjust” response of the other side.

The example of how to detach the public from facts begins with Cigarettes in the 60s - you younger folks may not remember just how much effort and for how long Big Tobacco fought the clearly obvious medical reality that cigarettes are bad for you. There is a great book called The Merchants of Doubt which lay out how these techniques worked. Initially driven by the greed of a single industry, these techniques morphed into the right wing “war on science” and also the right wing war on “biased” mainstream media during the 70s through 90s. These techniques were applied to pollution in the 70s, climate change in the 90s and so on.

By the 2010s, we had Rush Limbaugh saying this:

The Four Corners of Deceit are government, academia, science, and the media.

Detaching the right wing slice of the public from facts, reality, and science was an intentional act, and part of the feedback loop, sustained by the same powerful feedback that drove the whole deal.

I think that this is important.

Not just in the US but throughout the western world the benefits of science, law, and progress have been distributed unequally. And that is a huge understatement. We may argue bitterly over the rank ordering of who has gotten how bad an end of the stick, but progress has shat all over too large a percentage of the population.

Both the left and the right, in very different ways, have tried to push our institutions to adapt, however, at least to this old person, it appears that rapid change leaves successful adaptation ever further behind. Whether you are talking about courts, schools, education, climate, the political system, public health, you name it, making things work for the population is frustratingly elusive.

Furthermore, it does not seem that there exists a solution to the problem, because technology is the real engine behind this rapid change, and that cannot be slowed down – that would be suicide.

When a civilization is no longer working, it is normal for there to be a “go back to the simplest, to square one, to the fundamentals” sort of a movement. In the case of western civ, that means rejecting The Enlightment and all that that entailed. We here all believe that the nation state, our political system, technological progress, scientific inquiry, constitutional law, etc. are settled issues. But for a primitivist movement, not so much. (And I don’t mean to start a side issue, but in truth, the left has certainly rejected its share of “settled” western civ arrangements during my lifetime, and this fact is very significant to right wingers.)

For the intellectual right, such as Patrick Deneen, this desire to ditch The Enlightenment in favor of superior prior arrangements, this is explicit. But for millions of ordinary people, particularly the less educated and less cosmopolitan, it’s more an emotional state. “Your whole way of thinking, running things, determining truth has led to crap, so to hell with it all. The existing system is rigged against me and people like me.”

I mostly agree with @Sharpe . I have a nitpick here and there, like how Nixon fit in. But it’s like the invention of the printing press all over again, new communications technologies provide the means to blow things up, when systems have been falling apart for a long time. He describes the way the explosives were rigged up.

I despair over the whole thing, and it is made worse by a sense that the Bannons and company know exactly what they are doing, gleefully making things work even more poorly, which serves to dramatize that our entire system doesn’t work. Which outrages my allies to the point that they feel it necessary to insult broad brush all the followers who are susceptible to the right wing leaders, but could possibly have been won over with a combination of persuasive words and effective government.

When I was young, I swore I wouldn’t be like the old people I knew and end life all gloom and doom over where the world is headed. I have broken that promise to myself.

Also, sure there is potential for this type of feedback loop all over the ideological spectrum but the quantity and quality of this type of thing on the left is fundamentally different than the right. On the right, this has become a dominant theme, controlling at least 3/4 of the GOP voters. By contrast, idiocy on the left tends to be confined to self-limiting groups like extreme tankies, the truly paranoid, and so forth. It’s just not the same. If left wing idiocy ever gets within the ballpark of the current right wing, we can worry about it then. For now, its just false equivalency and deflection, as a practical matter.

This is a very serious and legitimate point. Part of the “fertile preconditions” for this loop was the fact that segments of the population were being challenged on their assumed dominant social status (white rage) but part of those preconditions were also the economic instability, maldistribution of opportunity, fading of working and middle alternatives (decline of unions, wealth inequality). Arguing about “racism” versus “economic insecurity” is a mug’s game - BOTH things are significant factors in the stew of discontent that made so many American vulnerable to extremist beliefs in the first place.

I disagree here. Technology by itself doesn’t have the intent that has screwed so many Americans. That intent is derived from the powerful holding onto power, the wealthy acquiring wealth, maldistribution of wealth and economic gains, increased economic insecurity due to the way our economy works which in turn depends on how are laws are written and enforced. We CHOSE to be a society that facilitated wealth inequality from the 70s to now. Or at least, enough of the citizens were not active enough to stop it when the real movers and shakers (the wealthy and powerful) made those choices. There are ways to harness technology for more widespread and more sustainable/stable benefit but we are just not doing them. And that’s a political choice, by commission or by omission.

I agree with this. Inequality, and even the extent of poverty many people live under, is a result of policy choices, not of technological advance. Our poor value-for-money health care outcomes are a policy choice, not the result of technological advance. If anything, technological advance should be producing a wealthier, healthier society. And in some sense, it is! It’s just that all the wealth and health gains are being hoarded by a few.

I wouldn’t say that technology has intent. Rather that when technology changes life rapidly, some people are in a position to get way ahead and some are not.

In part, this is “earned” – being smart, educated, and informed helps. But it helps even more to be well-heeled.

I thought your tobacco example was well-chosen. But remember how powerful an advantage visual image advertising was, particularly on then-new television. TV advertising made it vastly more difficult to rein in cigarettes. (And corporations, too, are in a sense a technology, and they largely insulated those who were getting rich from personal liability for damages to people.)

Rich and powerful interests used television very successfully in a wide variety of ways.

Also, I don’t think you can discuss this topic without discussing the paradox of tolerance – that is, you cannot tolerate intolerance. Just because you want to avoid being in a feedback loop does not mean you need to open yourself to ideas like banning books, or whether slavery was beneficial.

You can see this in any unmoderated online space, those that call themselves “free speech zones” or whatever. They are all cesspits of racism and hatred. If you tolerate intolerance, intolerance always wins.

It’s interesting that i agree with all you said, except the conclusion.

The left and right both show regular bias towards belief over facts. Feelings over logic. As you say, the current impact of the right’s narratives are eroding the foundations of our democracy at the moment, but while the left is right now miles behind the damage the right is doing, that tendency and blindspot shows our culture is at a serious risk (again see MAGA movement) as long as this mindset/behavior is left unaddressed.

If we don’t set this as a norm and a part of the social contract for any reasonable citizen, that beliefs are important BUT are personal… and should be kept behind closed doors! That for ANY discussion of public policy to be taken seriously in the marketplace of ideas… verifiable data/facts are required! Without this we will revisit this same mess, again and again (though hopefully not this severe again).

I consider you guys some of the most thoughtful people I’ve encountered, but I can recall getting chastised slightly by Tom for being logical and pointing out context and discretion in a topic where people’s emotions were running high about an event that just occurred that many were upset about. I couldn’t argue his point, but ironically that was the point of my post, Emotions were high and we should all be more diligent in seeking facts/data DESPITE our own emotions!

Some great discussion here, really. Some other things to consider might be that for Americans, we’re talking about a society that has always seen itself as the victor, the boss, the caller of shots. Other than the American South in the mid-19th century, the American nation was never really defeated, occupied, dictated too, forced to sign humiliating treaties, stripped of possessions, or the like. Even the South’s experience was mitigated by the fact that it was other Americans doing the ass-kicking.

This translates into a lot of distinctive American approaches to everything from the environment to foreign policy. I saw an article about how we are using up groundwater extremely rapidly. Not surprising; for many Americans the whole environmental movement of the past half-century or more is inexplicable, because the idea of “using up” or “running out” doesn’t even compute for a society that historically dealt with shortages or exhaustion of resources by packing up and moving west. Despite that not being possible now, nor for more than a century, the basic idea is deeply rooted in our culture.

It goes even farther back, to the Puritans and Jamestown too. The Jamestown bandits couldn’t accept that they had fucked up and tried to settle in a swamp which for some strange reason was utterly devoid of the riches of India. To do that would be to admit they were dumbasses. Not only did they keep trying a series of progressively nastier ways to recoup their losses, finally hitting on kidnapping and enslaving Africans for labor, along the way the enshrined those methods as evidence of their success. It helped make getting rid of slavery much harder–it was never just about labor, it was the idea of victory and power. Ending slavery as an institution would have driven home the fact that those southern poobahs were, in fact, about as useful as tits on a boar without their enslaved labor force.

The Puritans saw Massachusetts as a howling wilderness to be tamed for the Lord (and if they made a bit of coin on the side, 'twas God’s will!). Massacring indigenous people, spreading throughout the region, and destroying resources as they tried to reproduce the English countryside (minus the pesky English who disagreed with them) were all signs of God’s favor. They were able to do so because they were destined to. To admit, then or later, that what they were doing kind of sucked balls would be to undercut their very since of identity.

All of this stuff no doubt has its analogs elsewhere, but nowhere else have a people been able to maintain the fiction for so long, and with such fervor. Why? Because everyone else pretty much has had compromise and defeat rammed down their throats at one point or another. Eventually, they learned that you didn’t have to be the one and only to be a winner, and in fact you were never going to be the perpetual top dog, so you might as well get used to sharing a bit and recognizing your limitations. That didn’t happen for the USA.

Mind you, I’m talking about “the USA” in the sense of the power structure. Plenty of folks throughout the history of Europeans in North America have experienced defeat, loss, powerlessness, forced displacement, unfair treatment, all of that. And continue to do so today. As those people slowly began to make their voices heard, in the last century, it made the more traditional sense of identity more and more defensive. Part of the opposition to so-called wokism is exactly that–the spasmodic reaction of an identity that is being challenged on its core tenets.