Shrier: ‘Aw shucks conservatives’ are handing America over to the woke

By Mary Margaret Olohan

Both meek “aw shucks” conservatives and “chest thumpers” conservatives are handing America over to woke activists, author Abigail Shrier claimed in a Monday Substack.

The journalist and author highlighted the successful work of anti-Critical Race Theory writer Christopher Rufo, who Shrier praised for speaking not to elites, but to Americans, by “gathering evidence and pointing out the glaring harm in clear, unapologetic (but never crass or rude) language.”

Abigail Shrier Twitter

Abigail Shrier

“Rufo is out there identifying the problem, alerting the public, and sounding all available alarms,” Shrier wrote. “If he hasn’t yet slain the beast, he has at least awakened American parents from their coma, convinced them that they cannot trust the teachers and administrators and school boards who treat children, not as students, but as recruits for their revolution.”

“In other words, Rufo has thus far sailed clear of the Scylla and Charybdis conservatives so often pinball against: hyper-polite fecklessness on one side of the boat and chest-thumping ignorance on the other,” she continued.

Most conservatives can be classified into two groups, Shrier wrote — “chest-thumpers” and “aw, shucks” conservatives — and neither side is winning. Shrier said that “aw shucks” conservatives are “polite and naïve,” afraid to offend the Left, and want to “get all the terminology right.”

“To the activist Left, they look like a meal,” Shrier said.

“They don’t understand that the chaos is the point,” Shrier wrote. “While they strain to avoid a faux pas, they don’t even feel the dagger going in…They do not fight Silicon Valley — they are confused about whether their belief in free market economics allows it. They do not fight for women — not if it means any mud splashed on their full-break trousers. They have lost every important cultural battle and — if given over to their protection — we would lose America.”

“Chest thumpers” are conservatives who lack “neither fight nor heart,” Shrier continued, describing this type of conservative as the “youthful, chest-beating, triumphalist sort” who “relies heavily on mantras.”

“Chest-Beating conservatism offends on purpose, as if offense itself were an argument,” Shrier said. “It ham hocks the Left’s grist — CRT or Gender Ideology — into an overstuffed and unappetizing conservative burrito: ‘This is all because of gay marriage!’ ‘This is all because of Roe!’ ‘Ban in vitro fertilization!’ ‘Blame Caitlyn Jenner!’ and the like.”

This type of conservative “would rather heap contempt on moderates, score points for Team Red, and sully themselves in rudeness,” Shrier said. They will not have a lasting impact on culture because they are “quick to condemn but lack the curiosity to engage,” she added.

“The Left wages war every day, in every school system in America and, no doubt, many a summer camp,” she said. “It knows the stakes are high and it comes prepared to fight. It has an uncomplicated revulsion for Judeo-Christian religion, American traditions, American symbols, our founders, and individual rights. It despises the nuclear family, like good Marxists do—which is the real reason it cannot abide the words “mother” and “father.” (It understands no one was ever moved to family formation by the dream of becoming a “gestational parent.”) It does not disguise its plan to replace all of these things.”

While “aw shucks” conservatives meet the left meekly, she said, the “chest thumpers” enable the Left by elevating people like Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Shrier offers a solution to conservatives: “Stop playing the Left’s game of victimhood, stop straining to adopt its lingo.”

She hedged that she is not encouraging disrespectful language, but instead encouraging Americans who want to resist woke ideology to “speak as plainly as you can.”

Instead of saying “transwomen in women’s sports” and tacitly agreeing that biological men are a kind of woman, Shrier suggested, say “biological males in women’s sports” — a phrase “both accurate, clear and essential to making the argument our daughters need you to win.”

“The point of the Left’s quick-changing lingo is to confuse, to make it impossible to form an argument or respond to one,” she said. “The lingo is very much a trap, and if you’re straining to master it, you’re already caught.”

“Nor should you accept that the point of public dialogue is to avoid offense,” she continued. “That has never been the point of language, though it is often the point of its opposite (silence). The goal of language in the public sphere must always be to speak truthfully and as clearly as possible. If you can avoid offense, so much the better. If you cannot, then at least you’ll have been understood.”

In early June, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford pushed Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to address the department’s use of the term “birthing people,” asking Becerra about the “language in the President’s proposed budget regarding maternal health that referred to ‘birthing people’ instead of mothers even though the science is clear that women give birth.”

“I also noticed you changed a term in your budget work. You shifted from using the term “mother” to “birthing people” rather than mother. Can you help me get a good definition of “birthing people”? Lankford asked.

Becerra responded by saying twice that he would have to check the terminology that was used.

Shrier slammed Lankford for “affably” responding to the HHS secretary, writing, “When a member of the Administration replaces the word ‘mother’ with ‘birthing people,’ you don’t Aw, Shucks, as if you’ve encountered the last native speaker of Etruscan. You’re faced with a direct assault on women and the family. And you respond in kind.”

Shrier called on Republicans to tell Becerra and “anyone else peddling progressive misogyny or progressive racism” that “reducing mothers to one of our biological functions (like reducing people to their races) is degrading, derisive, and unacceptable.”

“You call it what it is: an outrage. You say that the mothers of this country deserve better. That you will not apply to a woman any foul term invented by the ‘inclusive language’ factories. That biological men do not belong in women’s sports for reasons so obvious, only a fool would doubt them. You don’t object on the basis of victimhood—because American women, for the most part, are no one’s victims,” Shrier said. “You object on the basis of dignity.”

“And you must dislodge from your heads the misguided notion that the point of standing up for what’s right is to ‘Own the Libs,’” Shrier added. “If conservatives exploit the Left’s radicalism cynically or naively, if they approach thoughtful and courageous Americans of other political stripes with the defeatist mentality that there is no point trying to win over anyone else, they will lose. Which is a damn shame, because these fights might actually be won.”

Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, has sparked controversy and gained the attention of media pundits such as Joe Rogan since it was published in June 2020.  The book examined spikes in transgenderism among teenaged girls who formerly displayed feminine traits and tendencies.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email

Image courtesy of Abigail Shrier Twitter

16 thoughts on “Shrier: ‘Aw shucks conservatives’ are handing America over to the woke

  1. I find it interesting the volley of insults and finger-pointing between Democrats and Republicans leaves a large voting block unnoticed and uncounted – Independents. Each party tent has caused so much distrust due to dishonesty that more voters who are center or moderate declare they are independent. Particularly as the election fraud is being exposed around the country – the panic is palatable in DC and elsewhere. Obviously, both sides are trying to hide the Uniparty control, divide, and conquer platform. The Democrat Jackass party of old will be finished. The GOP has to take a long look in the mirror and decide if RINOS remain or get tossed out. Both parties are in trouble with their faithful supporters for the same reasons…misrepresentation, corruption, and in some cases, treason.

  2. Trump slammed Barr in a statement:“It’s people in authority like Bill Barr that allow the crazed Radical Left to succeed,” he wrote.“He and other RINOs in the Republican Party are being used in order to try to convince people that the election was legitimate when so many incredible facts have now come out to show conclusively that it wasn’t.”

  3. Karens come from all walks of life lol Astonishing level of arrogance and abject ignorance complete with Michael Moore-level of bigoted hate speach – Narcisstic nutjob comes to mind comes to mind. Sounds like she’d be quite comfortable in any faculty lounge which is where the type of ppl she hates so much – that is conservatives – are loathed.

      • Donald J Trump whose name you cannot utter for fear of offending Dem friends – is *not* a Karen lol Only lists I need to add him to is “real man”, “courageous” and as a former NY liberal – currently the leader of the US Republican Party much to the chagrin of the thumbsucking fake conservatives and Rinos.

  4. Hunh.
    She kind of sounds like a neo-lib in conserv/clothing.
    I wonder who is SHE talking to? It sure sounded like she could be talking about the neo-libs as much as she claims to be talking about ‘the conservatives’ – what a BROAD disingenuous brush she wields.
    Is she one of the well paid writers who can make a living writing about this stuff (because she is paid…cui bono?)
    I’m sorry – I can’t find my way through that pretzel of thinly disguised gaslighting of ‘the conservatives’ with a broad, cubed, labeling…that seems to paint their opposite as no such things.
    I’m more confused now than before I read the piece.
    What a mish mash.
    Can anyone say ‘controlled opposition’?

    • Allison,

      Respectfully, I think she is suggesting that conservatives, Republicans, be more like you! You understand what is going on. If we had a party full of Allisons, we’d have more than $3800 in our accounts, we’d have people joining up, we’d be doing things to counter, effectively the craziness being propagated onto our country.

      We have an continue to hand over our state to socialists, we’re out played on a regular basis, she is trying to outline why and how we keep losing in epic proportions.

      She’s dead on. We have to be more clever than snakes and more innocent than doves.

      She’s asking for people to be more like you….what a wonderful thought.

      • Congrats – Abby’s a champion gaslighter just like yourself no wonder you love this educated fool who hates conservatives as much as you do. And – she’s dead wrong as to what GOP, Conservatives and Patriots consist of – there may be some as described however only a hater of the right could be overjoyed listening to such trashtalk. Only a defacto Democrat – the party of atheists – would consider anything said as having enduring value.

        Additionally – party is changing as more conservatives get off of a*s, join precinct and other local committees, school boards, run for office rather then couch-potatoing selves doing nothing but pointing fingers and relishing each falter and fail of GOP and championing our enemies. Shame.

    • Allison, I think you should read her whole essay. She does get a bit spicy when she’s angry, but she’s not gaslighting anyone.

      • Project much lol Congrats! Just became textbook example of gaslighting by very remark defending the gaslighter:
        added emphasis
        ***Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person or group makes someone question their sanity, perception of reality, or memories. People experiencing gaslighting often feel confused, anxious, and unable to trust themselves.***

        The term gaslighting derives from the 1938 play and 1944 film Gaslight, in which a husband manipulates his wife into thinking she has a mental illness by dimming their gas-fueled lights and telling her she is hallucinating.

        In this article, we look at common examples, signs, and causes of gaslighting. We also discuss how a person can respond to gaslighting and when to seek help.

        Tho the lady does good work but sorry “don’t believe lying eyes” doesn’t cut muster – cannot unsee what is seen anymore than a bell can be unrung lol

    • Another day another insult to VT and all Conservatives Mr Johnson – may I kindly suggest you get a life as it’s clear ya have way too much time on hands. You of all ppl should not be critiquing Republicans, Party or Conservatives as you clearly display behavior which is none of the above and borderline hate speach topped with whipped cream and sprinkles.

      • Hi Star Dust.

        Glad to hear everyone is perfect who carries an R in office.

        Clearly everything is under their control and we have nothing to worry about. What was I thinking? Vermont is the shining example of what the world should be politically. Don’t change a thing, Vermont is perfect.

        I know I’m terribly flawed.

        I’m glad you support all that is currently going on, you are happy and content, not all of us are. Suggesting change is needed is not an insult.

        • Straw-Man #1
          “Glad to hear everyone is perfect who carries an R in office” – never said this prove it or wire it
          Straw -Man #2
          “Clearly everything is under their control and we have nothing to worry about” Who said this – kindly bring it or su
          Staw-Man #3
          “I’m glad you support all that is currently going on, you are happy and content, not all of us are. Suggesting change is needed is not an insult.” Another lie but being allergic to the truth is not your fault is it lol

          Um – no sorry you don’t “suggest” a change is needed but claim to know the problem, cause and solution all based upon onprovable numbers, additionally you and you alone have the solution bc it allows you continue to backstab and berate Republicans and Conservatives under concern-trolled guise of ‘seeking solutions’.

          If you truly believe aligning parties works – kindly do it or zip it sir -why you have several friends and supporters on TNR may I suggest you stop slamming our values and start own website – using GMP platform which is still online would be the perfect place to start.

        • Another attempt to martyr self which is default setting when unable to prove points. As fallen humans are all “terribly flawed” whether we allow selves to be ruled by flaws or rise above them and refuse is as much a choice as it is a virtue.

      • Would you mind terribly defining this ‘hate speech’ you mention? I find no mention of it in our Constitution, so it’s obviously a fabrication used by those with an intelligence deficiency in an attempt to stifle Free Speech.

        • Soo…if you were relentlessly insulted, mocked, ridiculed, defamed and attacked – would be ok and not considered hate speech?

          Where were you when Mr. Johnson routinely ‘corrected’ each and all who dared call out Dems for abject hypocrisy and rampant lying. Really don’t need to answer as you’ve already decided I am trying to silence poor Mr Johnson as he bullies and attacks my party and all postings by Republicans and Conservatives while mama-bearing MarxistDemocrats as ”American Loving” w/o proof lol and Party members as misguided and poorly educated. For refusing to verify false assertions would be booted off any other moderated comment platform.

          Constitution haha – all speech is not constitutionally protected:
          False statements of fact
          In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are statements of fact (as opposed to points of law) that are false. Such statements are not always protected by the First Amendment. This is usually due to laws against defamation, that is making statements that harm the reputation of another. In those cases, freedom of speech comes into conflict with the right to privacy.

          Hate speech in the United States
          Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.[1] While “hate speech” is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment.

          First Amendment Guarantees
          The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” While it states “Congress,” the protections are also against state government and local public officials from making any law that abridges a person’s freedom of speech. However, simply because the government cannot make a law of this nature does not mean that individuals are free to say anything that they want to.

Comments are closed.