Neither cardinal nor ordinal preferences can explain wokeness in Britain
Neither cardinal nor ordinal preferences can explain wokeness in Britain
I previously wrote about Richard Hanania’s fascinating article ‘Why is Everything Liberal?’ In that article, he sought to explain why so many large organisations (corporations, universities, the ACLU) have gone woke. His proposed explanation begins with the distinction between ordinal preferences and cardinal preferences. Elections only take into account ordinal preferences (which outcome you prefer), whereas other domains take into account cardinal preferences (how much you prefer one outcome to another).
Hanania argues that, although about 50% of Americans support the Republicans and 50% support the Democrats, the 50% who support the Democrats care a lot more about politics. So while ordinal preferences favour neither side, cardinal preferences strongly favour the left. As evidence that left-wing Americans care more about politics, Hanania points out that they’re more likely to donate to political causes, to attend political rallies, and to be active on social media, and that they’re more intolerant of their political opponents.
Last time, I said “there’s a lot of truth to Hanania’s explanation”, but now I’m not so sure. It occurred to me that there are plenty of woke organisations in Britain (including corporations, supermarkets, charities, universities, Eton College, the National Trust, the Football Association and the police). Yet neither cardinal nor ordinal preferences seem to strongly favour the left, especially if we’re talking about the woke strand of leftism.
Unlike in America, where the Republicans just lost the national election, and were out of power for 8 years before 2016, the UK’s main right-leaning party, the Conservatives, has been in power continuously since 2010. (Though it should be noted that 2010–2015 saw a coalition government.) The Conservatives won the 2019 general election with a sizeable majority of 88 seats, and they’ve been ahead in the polls pretty much ever since. In the recent local elections, they trounced Labour (the main left-leaning party) with 36% of the vote (versus Labour’s 29%). They also won the Hartlepool by-election, thus taking that seat for the first time since its creation in 1974. The Conservatives did lose the 2019 European elections, but that was only because so many voters went for the Brexit Party – an even less woke party.
What’s more, the Conservatives have enjoyed a sizeable advantage in political donations over the last decade. (This is in contrast to the situation in America, where – as Hanania points out – the Democrats now lead the Republicans.) The Conservatives have raked in more money than Labour every year since 2010, which is perhaps not surprising given that they are the “pro-business” party. For the last few years, they’ve actually raised more money than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined. Note that most donations to the Conservatives come from individuals, whereas most donations to Labour come from unions.
I’m not aware of which party’s supporters are more likely to attend political rallies, but I’d very surprised if it wasn’t Labour. However, this difference can almost certainly be explained – in large part – by the fact that Labour supporters are younger, more likely to be students, and more likely to live in cities.
There’s other evidence against the claim that cardinal preferences strongly favour the left in Britain. The media here is much more balanced than in America, and although I doubt many BBC journalists vote for the Conservatives, there are several prominent right-wing newspapers, including two of the country’s most popular: The Sun and the Daily Mail. At the 2019 general election, these two newspapers – along with The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Express (and all their Sunday equivalents) – endorsed the Conservatives. By contrast, only The Guardian, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star (and their Sunday equivalents) endorsed Labour.
In addition, several “anti-woke” organisations have been founded in recent years, such as the Free Speech Union, Counterweight, The Critic and GB News. The latter is a major new TV channel that has already hired many right-leaning journalists. The channel’s nightly news program – hosted by the conservative, ex-BBC journalist Andrew Neil – will reportedly feature a segment called ‘Wokewatch’. And the comedian Andrew Doyle (creator of Titania McGrath) is due to host a weekly show titled ‘Free Speech Nation’.
Although there are a substantial number of people who favour woke organisations in Britain, I don’t believe they are as numerous or as well-funded as their counterparts in America. Overall, I’m not convinced that Hanania’s theory explains why there are so many woke organisations in Britain. And if it can’t explain the situation in Britain, then perhaps it can’t explain the situation in America either.
Image: John Singleton Copley, The Death of the Earl of Chatham, 1781
Lockdown Sceptics
I’ve written four more short posts since last time. The first notes that lack of attention to airborne transmission led to blunders in pandemic management. The second argues that border controls, not lockdowns, explain the success of Denmark, Norway and Finland. The third summarises a paper by MIT researchers finding that “skeptics” value data literacy and scientific rigour. The fourth summaries a paper by two economists arguing that the “externality argument” for lockdown isn’t as strong as it seems.
Thanks for reading. If you found this newsletter useful, please share it with your friends. And please consider subscribing if you haven’t done so already.
I am not familiar with Britain but I am happy someone is applying this analysis outside of the United States. If there is a phenomenon as general as cardinal v. ordinal, it should be taking place in countries across the world. When people begin discussing in generalities about political or social matters, having knowledge of other countries and history is really important to avoid being narrow-minded.
I am not sure how well formed my thoughts are on the matter of why everything is left in America but I have some feeling that Hanania is partially correct. My thoughts would explain why people conform to the left.
Leftists view the world as unjust and the far left has a higher likelihood of being neurotic on average. This is where the whole "triggered" mocking of liberals come from. They are on average more likely to have what seems like a disproportionate reaction negatively to perceived transgressions. They also attribute motive because they have difficulty understanding conservative moral foundations. If you make a transgression you may upset a liberal disproprotiately and that transgression may be of something minor that you don't view as worthy of getting upset. Leftists put a high value on the moral foundation of harm avoidance. Since someone is "harmed" by your use of language and you are just telling a joke or making a remark, you are the one being selfish. You are needlessly causing harm when it would be easier to just modify your language or be more appropriate.
Liberal beliefs become about politeness and not being rude. When you call a transwoman "he" you are deeply harming them. Some would say this leads to violence. However, if you call a transracial black person like Rachel Dolezal white, you are saying something obvious and this is okay no matter how much it upsets Rachel Dolezal. Conforming to the standards of the left is about what they see as legitimate harm. Legitimate harm is politically correct offense. If your coworker saying "Oh my God!" is upsetting to you because you are a devout Catholic, well too bad. Your religious moral foundations are not worthy of consideration.
The social norms begin to evolve more towards leftist beliefs. Saying "oriental" is a really bad thing to do. Saying "negro" is a really bad thing to do. The left uses new terms to be more woke and social signal. So the new term is stripped of any negative connotation because the left doesn't ever use it in a negative connotation. The old word becomes associated with the negative meaning.
People begin to enforce these things through social stigma. If you enter into a group to discuss something unrelated to politics, the leftist who sees small interactions and normal hierarchies as unjust will begin noting that. Something like a minor comment about the representation of women. If the group is a leftist political advocacy group and everyone is leftist, you end up with bizarre customs because they are out-harm reducing each other into antics like jazz hands instead of clapping in order to not trigger autistic people or whatever.
When people like this enter organizations, they enforce their rules not with coercion but with upset. If they are in HR, they have a means to more directly enforce things. Now everyone put their pronouns in their email signature. If you don't, you are causing harm. In order to articulate your views about trans people and why you don't want to put your pronouns, you cause harm in the left leaning peoples eyes. Why don't you just conform? You don't want to lose your job and it's not that big of a deal, so you just conform. Even conservatives like Ben Shapiro will say "she" when talking to a transperson in order to not upset them. But Catholics cannot get outrageously upset about blasphemy or maybe they just don't because religious people are less neurotic.
Academia is suffering from this problem now. Noah Carl knows this well. The pursuit of truth is being undermined by leftists concerned with their specific form of harm reduction. Noah Carl just believed that investigating a certain issue was worthwhile! I believe investigation of this issue should not be suppressed. But when leftists have political control all other values are undermined. When conservatives are upset about things like sexualized media, their moral foundations loses out because the charge of leftists is harsher. A small group has disproportionate influence and others conform.
These people infiltrate institutions and move them left.