A faction on the right is adopting the language of oppression and victimhood, creating a "woke right." If mainstream conservatives fail to reject this identitarian fringe, they risk polluting their entire movement and losing the support of the moderate majority, repeating the same mistake that damaged the left.

Sam Harris reflects that the scientific differences he had with critics were quite minor but were amplified by the perceived political importance of the topic (race and IQ). In polarized fields, the line between scientific debate and political signaling blurs, with small disagreements often cast as fundamental, irreconcilable flaws.

Sam Harris posits that Ben Shapiro's political calculus is dominated by two issues: Israel/Jews and 'wokeness.' Shapiro acknowledges Trump's many flaws, but none are severe enough to outweigh the perceived danger that a Democrat would pose to his two core concerns.

After achieving significant progress in the 1960s, many Americans stopped focusing on the active defense of democracy. This created a void that the radical right filled by offering its followers a powerful sense of agency and a compelling national narrative, which liberal movements had ceased to provide.

A fringe element of the political right is beginning to mirror the 'woke left' by adopting similar tactics. This includes a focus on identity-based victimhood narratives and a preference for destroying and deplatforming opponents rather than engaging them in genuine debate.

The notion that identitarianism is exclusive to the left ("woke") is outdated. A powerful, mirrored version has solidified on the right ("Groypers"), indicating that identity-based politics has become a central, and polarizing, framework across the entire political spectrum.

By prioritizing the identity of a speaker over the substance of their message, the progressive left creates an environment that alienates potential allies and silences important conversations. Harris argues this dynamic is a self-defeating 'own goal' that ultimately fueled the rise of political opponents like Donald Trump.

Quoting David Frum, Harris argues that open societies must confront the 'paradox of tolerance'—whereby tolerance can be exploited by illiberal forces to subvert a society from within. A failure by mainstream liberals to manage immigration and assimilation responsibly creates a political vacuum that authoritarian figures will eagerly fill.

Harris contends that progressive circles are so terrified of being labeled racist or Islamophobic that they refuse to criticize even the most brutal aspects of theocratic regimes. This "moral confusion" leads them to inadvertently champion the cause of oppressors they would otherwise oppose.