Evaluating We Have Never Been Woke Part 2: Bootleggers and Baptists
Evaluating Musa al-Gharbi’s Arguments on Elite Overproduction and “Awokenings”
Having delved into Musa al-Gharbi’s arguments in his book We Have Never Been Woke, it’s now time to assess and evaluate these arguments. In my previous discussions, I focused on al-Gharbi’s assertion that elite overproduction plays a crucial role in the emergence of “Awokenings.” Today, I aim to explore how an analysis of incentives and political coalitions can shed light on the validity of al-Gharbi’s explanations.
Bootleggers and Baptists
One of the key points in al-Gharbi’s argument is that woke activists, under the guise of social justice activism, advocate for policies that serve their own interests while potentially harming the less privileged. He highlights how many progressive policies, such as welfare programs, education requirements, and regulatory frameworks, were initially introduced during the first Great Awokening with the intention of maintaining the social status quo and pursuing eugenicist objectives.
While the motivations of modern progressives differ significantly from those of early 20th-century progressives, the policies they advocate for today often align with the same set of measures. This paradox raises questions about the true intentions behind progressive policies and the underlying motivations driving their advocacy.
Al-Gharbi proposes a unique perspective by suggesting that the woke individuals embody both the bootlegger and the Baptist. They aspire to climb the social ladder and safeguard their status (the bootlegger) while simultaneously striving for egalitarian goals (the Baptist). When faced with a conflict between these dual identities, the woke tend to prioritize their self-interest while cloaking their actions in altruistic narratives.
While this analysis offers valuable insights, it may not fully account for the complexity of modern progressive support for certain policies. The notion that progressives unconsciously align themselves with policies associated with their ideology rather than fully understanding the historical context or implications of these policies presents an alternative explanation.
Consider the example of the minimum wage, originally championed by progressives as a barrier to entry to exclude marginalized groups from the workforce. While the adverse effects of the minimum wage on vulnerable individuals are now recognized, progressives continue to advocate for its increase. This discrepancy raises questions about the underlying motivations driving modern progressive support for policies that contradict their initial intent.
It is essential to differentiate between ideological alignment and genuine understanding of policy implications when evaluating progressive stances. The evolution of policy positions to become synonymous with progressive values may influence individuals to support these policies based on their ideological affiliation rather than a comprehensive grasp of the policy’s consequences.
While al-Gharbi’s framework offers valuable insights into the dual nature of progressive motivations, the broader context of ideological alignment and policy association must also be considered in assessing the rationale behind progressive advocacy.
As we delve deeper into al-Gharbi’s analysis of economics and economic policy in the next post, we will continue to explore the intricate interplay between incentives, political ideologies, and policy advocacy.
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
