Woke Debates Forever Settled
False Assumption: Progressive stances on cultural issues like affirmative action and LGBTQ rights represent irreversible victories on the right side of history.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
In the mid-2010s, during the Great Awokening, liberal elites believed they had permanently won key cultural debates. Voices like Barack Obama's insisted history bends toward justice, implying fights over abortion, affirmative action, and LGBTQ rights were settled forever. Media figures enforced this view, expecting no further dissent.
Donald Trump's re-election in 2024 revived these zombie arguments. Sportswriter Will Leitch expressed shock in the New York Times that Americans dared disagree again. Old disputes, from Pete Rose's Hall of Fame eligibility to Bruce Springsteen's politics, resurfaced, cluttering discourse.
Growing recognition now questions the permanence of these victories. Critics note Trump's relitigator role exposed the overconfidence. Dissent has returned, challenging the arc-of-history narrative without declaring it fully disproven.
People Involved
- In the years following his presidency, Barack Obama often spoke of being on the right side of history. He used phrases like 'history is on our side' to bolster the idea that progressive wins on cultural issues were permanent. [1]
- Meanwhile, Will Leitch, who founded Deadspin and wrote for New York magazine, shared his frustration in print. He wondered why debates on affirmative action and LGBTQ rights had resurfaced after seeming settled. [1] Leitch's surprise came after Trump's rise, when dissent grew louder.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“By Will Leitch Mr. Leitch, a contributing editor at New York magazine, is the founding editor of Deadspin.”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
“I do often wonder if Barack Obama’s Martin Luther King-inflected insistence that “history is on our side” and we’re on “the right side of history” (phrases he used often)”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
Organizations Involved
The New York Times ran opinion pieces that echoed this frustration. One such article by Leitch decried the return of what he saw as resolved arguments. [1] This reflected a broader elite view that progressive stances were fixed. Deadspin, started by Leitch in 2005, pushed similar cultural norms through sports commentary. [1] These outlets helped maintain the assumption among their audiences, even as challenges mounted.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“In the New York Times opinion section, a liberal sportswriter is extremely peeved”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
“When I founded Deadspin, a once popular, now quite dead sports culture website, back in 2005”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
The Foundation
The assumption took root during Obama's era, when phrases about the right side of history gained traction. They suggested that fights over abortion access, affirmative action, and LGBTQ rights had ended for good. [1] This seemed plausible amid rising progressive sentiment, known as the Great Awokening. Yet growing evidence suggests this view was flawed; dissent never fully vanished, and the idea of permanence overlooked ongoing opposition. [1] Increasingly, it's recognized that assuming no further debate was needed proved misleading, though the matter remains under discussion.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Barack Obama’s Martin Luther King-inflected insistence that “history is on our side” and we’re on “the right side of history” (phrases he used often) set us up to believe — foolishly, in retrospect — that there were historical corners that had been turned and fights that had been forever won.”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
“Name a cultural or political fight we were having 20 years ago and we’re probably still having it. Access to safe and legal abortion? The benefits of affirmative action? Whether L.G.B.T.Q. people deserve equal rights?”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
How It Spread
Obama's speeches spread the rhetoric far and wide. Media outlets picked it up, convincing many that history bent inevitably toward progressive justice. [1] Liberal publications like the New York Times reinforced this by labeling contrary views as outdated zombies. [1] Social pressure built against those who dissented, framing their arguments as clutter in the discourse. Over time, this elite consensus held sway, but emerging critiques highlight its overreach.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“The recycling of decades-old disputes increasingly feels like a constant of modern life. The zombie arguments that we once assumed were long settled keep lurching back into view — half-dead yet somehow still cluttering up the public discourse.”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
“We were told that the long arc of history bends toward justice — or at least toward the progress of finding interesting new things to bicker with one another about.”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
Downfall
Donald Trump's return to power in 2024 shifted the landscape. He revived old debates, acting as a relitigator who challenged the notion of settled victories. [1] This exposed the assumption's weakness, as post-election changes allowed open disagreement once more. Growing evidence suggests the idea of irreversible progress was flawed; the so-called Vibe Shift broke the hold of submissive acceptance. [1] Still, while increasingly seen as mistaken, the debate over woke permanence continues.
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“The main reason, of course, is that we elected Donald Trump again as relitigator in chief.”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
“since the Vibe Shift, Americans once again have the audacity to disagree with his opinions, when he thought all such impertinent dissent had been permanently eradicated during the Great Awokening”— NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!
Sources
-
[1]
NYT: How Dare People Disagree With Me!reputable_journalism