Introduction
Every political era has its keywords. In the 1960s, it was “radical.” In the 1990s, it was “politically correct.” In the 2020s, it is “woke.” Each of these began as a positive or at least neutral self-description within progressive movements, only to be twisted, mocked, and ultimately weaponized by conservative strategists. The pattern is clear: take the language of your opponent, strip it of nuance, and repeat it in ways that make it distasteful to the broader public.
This is not accidental. It is a well-honed rhetorical tactic, rooted in decades of conservative communication strategy.
What “Woke” Originally Meant
The word “woke” originated in African American Vernacular English, simply meaning to be awake to social injustice—especially racism. “Stay woke” was both a warning and a call to vigilance. By the mid-2010s, it spread into mainstream progressive language, symbolizing awareness of systemic inequality, including race, gender, sexuality, and climate justice.
For a brief moment, “woke” was a badge of honor. It captured the idea of being socially conscious, engaged, and unwilling to ignore oppression.
The Conservative Playbook: Appropriation and Reversal
Conservatives quickly saw the power of the term—and the opportunity to flip it. The tactic follows a recognizable playbook:
- Appropriation
Adopt the opponent’s term and repeat it relentlessly. At first, it seems like acknowledgment. But repetition shifts the term’s audience and meaning. - Exaggeration
Frame the term in its most extreme or absurd light. “Woke” stops meaning “aware of injustice” and instead becomes “obsessed with identity politics,” “anti-free speech,” or even “unpatriotic.” - Mockery
Turn the term into a punchline. Conservative media saturates discourse with sarcastic references—“the woke mob,” “woke capital,” “woke snowflakes.” - Contamination
The term becomes socially costly to identify with. Even moderates who once saw themselves as “woke” start distancing themselves from the word to avoid ridicule. - Replacement
Once discredited, the original concept is harder to advocate for. People stop saying “woke,” just as they stopped saying “politically correct.” The movement loses its unifying shorthand.
This strategy is effective because it does not require defeating the actual ideas—it only requires poisoning the word that represents them.
Historical Precedent: From “PC” to “Woke”
The same process destroyed the usefulness of “political correctness” in the 1990s. Initially, it was an internal progressive critique of language policing. Conservatives seized it, exaggerated it into absurdity, and turned “PC” into a national joke.
Today, the same has happened with “woke.” Polling shows that while many Americans still support the underlying values (anti-racism, equality, inclusion), fewer want to be associated with the term “woke.” The tactic works because it detaches the word from the idea, leaving advocates linguistically disarmed.
Communication Strategy Behind the Tactic
This approach isn’t random. It is grounded in decades of conservative communication strategy, particularly the idea of framing.
- Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and strategist, popularized the method in his book Words That Work (2007). He showed how altering terminology—calling “estate tax” the “death tax,” for example—shifts public opinion without changing the underlying policy.
- Lee Atwater, a Republican strategist in the 1980s, openly described the shift from overtly racist language to coded appeals—proof of how conservatives understood the power of linguistic reframing.
- Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC Memo (1990) encouraged Republicans to use emotionally charged words like “corrupt,” “sick,” and “pathetic” to describe opponents, while reserving positive words for themselves. This memo is one of the clearest guides to language weaponization in modern U.S. politics.
Together, these sources outline the philosophy: words don’t just describe reality—they shape it. By controlling the terms of debate, you control the debate itself.
Why It Works
- Simplicity – Mockery is easier to spread than nuance.
- Emotion – Words like “woke” are attached to moral outrage, making them sticky in the public imagination.
- Identity – Rejecting “wokeness” becomes part of conservative identity, while embracing it becomes costly for moderates.
- Media Ecosystem – Conservative media outlets reinforce the framing relentlessly, ensuring saturation.
Conclusion: The Lesson for Progressive Movements
The appropriation of “woke” shows that no term is safe from weaponization. As long as conservatives use this tactic, progressives must prepare for linguistic battles as seriously as policy battles.
One option is to avoid over-investing in single words as movement slogans, since they can be poisoned. Another is to fight back not by defending the term, but by calling out the tactic itself—exposing the strategy of appropriation and mocking the mockery.
The fall of “woke” was not inevitable. It was engineered. And unless we recognize the playbook, it will happen again to the next word that captures progressive energy.
References: Conservative Strategy Texts on Language and Framing
1. Frank Luntz – Words That Work (2007)
Luntz, a Republican pollster and strategist, is one of the best-known architects of conservative language strategy. His core argument is simple: it doesn’t matter what you say, it matters what people hear.
- Famous for rebranding the “estate tax” as the “death tax.”
- Promoted phrases like “climate change” instead of “global warming” to soften urgency.
- His work shows how conservatives intentionally test and craft words to shape public opinion.
2. Newt Gingrich – GOPAC Memo (“Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” 1990)
This internal training document for Republican candidates urged them to use carefully chosen words to frame opponents negatively and themselves positively.
- “Corrupt, sick, pathetic, traitors” were suggested for Democrats.
- “Courage, strength, principled, reform” were reserved for Republicans.
- Explicitly framed politics as linguistic warfare.
3. Lee Atwater – Southern Strategy & Dog Whistle Politics
Atwater, a Republican strategist in the Reagan/Bush era, gave a now-infamous interview explaining how conservative rhetoric shifted from overt racism to coded language:
- Explicit slurs gave way to abstract terms like “states’ rights” and “cutting taxes.”
- Language became less offensive on the surface but preserved racialized outcomes.
- His candor shows how word choice is deliberately used to obscure intent.
4. George Lakoff – Don’t Think of an Elephant! (2004)
Though Lakoff is a progressive linguist, his book documents how conservatives excel at framing. His analysis highlights how the right consistently outmaneuvers the left by controlling key terms in public debate.
- Conservatives talk about “tax relief” (implying taxes are a burden), never “public investment.”
- Shows how progressives lose when they adopt conservative language instead of reframing.
5. The Heritage Foundation / Conservative Think Tanks
Conservative policy shops have published numerous guides and talking-point briefs that emphasize messaging first. These don’t always read like strategy manuals, but they serve the same function: teaching operatives how to brand opponents and neutralize progressive language.
6. Right-Wing Media Echo Chambers
While not a single text, outlets like Fox News, Breitbart, and talk radio have operationalized these linguistic tactics. Once a word is flipped (“woke,” “CRT,” “cancel culture”, “DEI”), repetition across these media ensures saturation.
Key Takeaway
These documents and thinkers show that conservatives view language itself as a battleground. The appropriation of “woke” is not accidental—it follows decades of strategy rooted in deliberate framing, repetition, and contamination of opponents’ words.
Final thoughts
I believe in the end “DEI” will be the one term that conservatives cannot flip. They have reached the straw-man limit. Trying to poison this word will cost conservatives as most of society cannot get behind racism. They overreached, a “jumping of the shark” moment for conservatives.