The recent U.S. presidential election, with Donald Trump’s decisive win over Kamala Harris, has sparked fresh conversations about the state of “wokeism” in North American politics and society. This ideology, once riding a wave of momentum after the watershed moments of 2020, now appears to be facing a critical decline. As the dust settles on this election cycle, it is clear that the cultural and political grip of wokeism is slipping, but we would be wise to remain vigilant about its enduring influence.
The shift is most visible in the behaviour of Democratic leaders. During her campaign, Harris attempted to distance herself from previously popular progressive stances such as calls to defund the police and decriminalize border crossings – positions that were met with significant backlash from mainstream American society. Her pivot signals that even within progressive ranks, there is recognition of the disconnect between ideological rhetoric and voter sentiment.
What’s more, pollsters, commentators, and analysts misread the political temperature once again. The failure to gauge Trump’s support underscores a significant gap in understanding the concerns of many Americans who felt alienated by progressive orthodoxy. Polling inaccuracies, highlighted by significant missteps from even the most reputable sources, demonstrate a persistent cultural chasm between the architects of policy – the so-called “elites” – and the electorate.
The decline of wokeism isn’t just confined to politics. Across North America, universities and corporations are quietly scaling back on aggressive diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Terms like “Latinx,” once fervently promoted by activists in the U.S, have been largely rejected by the very communities they were supposed to represent. The pendulum appears to be swinging back toward a more measured, if not outright skeptical, approach to identity politics.
However, it would be naive to declare wokeism “dead” or believe its influence will disappear overnight. Ideological movements often adapt and re-emerge in subtler, more pernicious forms. Canadians, particularly in policy-making and public discourse, must remain alert to the ways in which these influences may evolve. With its roots in addressing legitimate social issues, wokeism can still find footing in new narratives that resonate more palatably with the public.
While the U.S. election provides lessons for Canada, we should be wary of simply assuming that shifts south of the border will fully translate to our own political landscape. Canadian institutions, policies, and public attitudes have been shaped by their own history and context. Yet, we must be cautious of the ways in which imported ideologies could continue to impact our social and political dialogue.
The Trudeau government has been notably aligned with coercive progressive ideals, positioning itself as a champion of social equity and identity politics. Trudeau’s embrace of woke rhetoric, from gender inclusivity to Indigenous reconciliation and climate justice, has defined much of his leadership. However, as cracks appear in the public appetite for these ideologies, Canada may face a moment of reassessment. If the Trudeau government continues to push these narratives without acknowledging shifting sentiments, it risks the same disconnect that plagued the Harris campaign and led to her defeat.
The recent American election marks a significant moment of reckoning for coercive progressive movements, but it’s not an endpoint. Canadian leaders and citizens must remain observant, critical, and ready to engage with and challenge the influence of such movements, ensuring that public discourse is not hijacked by narrow ideologies that alienate rather than unite. The lessons are clear: vigilance is key, and balance is vital.
The Trudeau government, in particular, should take note – continued alignment with coercive progressive orthodoxy will only widen the gap between government policy and public will.
©
The commentaries offered on Â鶹´«Ã½ are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any Â鶹´«Ã½ staff.
