Badenoch and Hidden Cultural Marxism: Is She Playing a Double Game?

Badenoch has made a career out of positioning herself as the ultimate “anti-woke” warrior. As the new Conservative leader, she’s vowed to defend British values, pushing back against what she describes as “Cultural Marxism” and left-wing ideologies. Her rhetoric is filled with criticisms of identity politics, diversity quotas, and progressive agendas, which she claims are eroding the core values of Britain. But is there more to Badenoch’s approach than meets the eye? Some critics argue that her agenda might actually have its own hidden cultural Marxist undertones, even if wrapped in conservative packaging.

What is Cultural Marxism?

Before we dig into the idea of her “hidden” Cultural Marxism, let’s clarify what the term means. Cultural Marxism, as it’s often discussed today, refers to the idea that left-wing or Marxist ideologies have embedded themselves in cultural institutions, subtly shifting values in a way that prioritizes group identity over individual achievement, promotes progressive values, and allegedly undermines national unity.

For Badenoch, this supposed agenda is public enemy number one. She’s built her political platform on combating what she sees as Cultural Marxism's creeping influence, especially in education, media, and public institutions.

The Irony of Badenoch’s Own Cultural Marxist Elements

But here’s the irony: while she’s quick to attack others for pushing divisive ideologies, Badenoch’s own platform may also contain some cultural Marxist elements, just in a very different guise. She’s built her popularity on stoking cultural conflicts and tapping into group identities, effectively dividing people along ideological lines. Rather than directly addressing the economic and social challenges of everyday Britons, she focuses on symbolic battles around identity and culture.

One could argue that Badenoch’s approach borrows from the same playbook she criticizes: using cultural messaging to stir division, create a “them versus us” mentality, and position her party as the defender of “traditional” values. In a way, she’s engaged in her own brand of cultural politics, one that seeks to shape British identity just as much as any “woke” ideology.

Is She Weaponizing Group Identity?

Badenoch often critiques the left for pushing group identities, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation, over national identity. However, her approach isn’t free from identity politics either. Instead of focusing on working-class needs or cross-cutting economic issues, she often frames her arguments around “Britishness,” “traditional values,” and the perceived threat posed by progressive ideologies. By rallying people against an ill-defined “woke elite,” she creates a new form of identity politics, one that divides people based on their views about British culture and values rather than on traditional class lines.

In a way, Badenoch’s stance could be seen as her own form of “cultural Marxism”, if we take cultural Marxism to mean using culture and group identity to advance a specific political agenda. By casting herself as the protector of a “traditional” Britain under siege, she’s actively promoting an identity-based vision of Britain, just one that’s different from what she criticizes.

Keeping the Focus on Culture, Not Economics

Another hallmark of cultural Marxist tactics is to shift focus away from economic issues towards social and cultural ones. By focusing so heavily on the “woke” agenda, Badenoch diverts attention from bread-and-butter issues that affect working-class communities every day. From a traditional Marxist perspective, this could be viewed as a kind of “false consciousness”, encouraging people to fixate on cultural conflicts instead of addressing the economic systems that shape their lives.

Badenoch’s platform has a similar effect. By amplifying fears around identity politics, she diverts attention from the economic realities many British people face: low wages, unaffordable housing, rising living costs, and struggling public services. This cultural focus keeps the working class engaged in battles over values rather than pushing for policies that could improve their economic circumstances.

The Power of Ideological Flexibility

One reason Badenoch’s cultural crusade resonates is because it feels fresh and disruptive, even as it mirrors tactics commonly associated with the cultural left. She’s using the language of resistance, casting her opponents as ideologues while presenting herself as a voice of “common sense” and “British values.” But this tactic only reinforces a cultural divide, pitting one version of Britain against another. In doing so, she risks dividing rather than uniting working people who could otherwise rally around shared economic concerns.

So, while she’s quick to accuse her opponents of pushing Cultural Marxism, Badenoch’s tactics might have more in common with this concept than she would like to admit. By framing her agenda as a cultural battle and leveraging group identity, she effectively engages in her own form of cultural influence, shaping British values and identity on her terms, just as much as the agendas she claims to oppose.

A Different Kind of Culture War

If we strip away the rhetoric, what remains is a culture war that both sides are playing, albeit with different symbols and narratives. On one hand, Badenoch points to “woke” agendas as the enemy of the traditional working class. On the other, her own platform is arguably just as identity driven, aiming to influence the British cultural landscape by rallying people around a new Conservative narrative of British identity.

In the end, this “hidden” cultural Marxism in Badenoch’s politics raises a question: is she actually fighting for the working class, or is she simply offering a new form of cultural manipulation, dressed up as tradition and common sense? While she claims to be the antidote to the divisive identity politics of the left, her tactics mirror much of what she critiques. The working class dedeserve politicians who focus on real economic change, not just a different shade of ideological influence.