When 'Woke' Lost Its Way: Even Conservative Pundits Are Concerned

In a surprising moment that cut through the usual partisan rhetoric, even a prominent voice on Fox News has openly admitted that the term 'woke' has been stripped of all meaning. Jason Rantz, a conservative talk radio host and regular Fox News contributor, conceded during a segment on 'Outnumbered' that the word has become nothing more than a convenient, catch-all pejorative, thrown about indiscriminately to label anything disliked by critics.

Rantz's candid observation—"And the word 'woke' has lost all meaning because people just throw it around to describe anything they don't like"—is particularly striking given the term's omnipresence on conservative media, often wielded as a primary weapon in the ongoing culture war.

This admission, however, was quickly met with pushback from co-panelist Mollie Hemingway, who insisted that 'woke' still carries significant weight, defining it vaguely as "Marxism" or "a radical departure from the American way of life." Such a broad and undefined interpretation perfectly illustrates the very problem Rantz highlighted.

The irony is palpable.

For years, "woke" has been the go-to bogeyman for conservative pundits and politicians, a nebulous concept blamed for everything from perceived corporate overreach to societal decay. It has been deployed against beer companies, candy brands like M&Ms, major financial institutions, and entertainment giants like Disney.

The sheer breadth of its application has rendered it intellectually vacuous, capable of signifying anything and, therefore, nothing at all.

Originally rooted in African American Vernacular English, "woke" meant being acutely aware and alert to social injustices, particularly racism and systemic discrimination.

It was a call to consciousness, a recognition of ongoing struggles for equality. Its co-option by the right transformed it into its antithesis—a derisive label for any progressive idea, policy, or cultural shift that challenges the status quo. This weaponization has not only diluted its initial power but has actively sabotaged meaningful dialogue about complex social issues.

When every perceived grievance, from changing a cartoon character's shoes to advocating for diversity in corporate boardrooms, is indiscriminately branded as "woke," the term ceases to be a descriptor and becomes a thought-terminating cliché.

It allows critics to dismiss valid concerns and progressive movements without engaging with their substance. This intellectual laziness not only stifles productive debate but fosters an environment where genuine issues of inequality and justice are trivialized or ignored entirely.

The concern voiced by Rantz, however fleeting, offers a rare glimpse into a potential crack in the conservative media's monolithic narrative.

It suggests that even some within the movement recognize the self-defeating nature of weaponizing language to the point of meaninglessness. For political discourse to evolve beyond mere partisan mudslinging, there must be a reclamation of precise language—or, at the very least, an acknowledgment that not every cultural shift or progressive initiative can be painted with the same broad, meaningless brushstroke of "woke." The sooner all sides recognize this linguistic degradation, the sooner we can hope for more substantive conversations.