We explain political change using totally different causal models if we approve of outcome of not:
1. Change we like is organic, bottom-up genuine expression of public demand
2. Change we dislike is artificial, top-down result of manipulative elite
I’m calling this Motivated Causal Attribution
if you have tenure and nothing you have said or done has made another academic declare a seven-generation vendetta, it's probably wasted on you
Yep!
The notion of 'real' public preferences obscured by top-down manipulation recalls Isaiah Berlin's notion of positive liberty, where I can coerce a person because their 'higher self' would want it.
Great post. I think the biggest examples of this kind of motivated causal attribution on my side of the aisle is the notion that Russian disinfo changed the outcomes of the 2016 EU Ref/2016 US Presidential election.
Disinfo is v. concerning for a variety of reasons, but rarely changes vote choice.
Thanks! I also lean very heavily towards bottom-up explanations for social changes, so it was useful to think through how/why this can be a bad thing when taken too far
Good article here by @jamesbreckwoldt.bsky.social, even if I am someone who tends to lean towards bottom-up explanations for most social changes, both those I agree with and those I don't.
I'm reminded of that (probably apocryphal) quote from Alexandre Ledru-Rollin, a leader of French Revolution:
TLDR here's how it works.
If you don't care about issue, much easier to accept political outcomes are shaped by mixture of forces
Once an issue becomes politically or morally important to us, though, that balanced view tends to disappear.
Everyone should read this (esp. if you spend a lot of time on this site).
I'd add to this that the argument "Oh no, it's unfortunate, but I guess we're going to have to moderate on X in order to win elections" is code for "I don't care about X"
TLDR here's how it works.
If you don't care about issue, much easier to accept political outcomes are shaped by mixture of forces
Once an issue becomes politically or morally important to us, though, that balanced view tends to disappear.
We explain political change using totally different causal models if we approve of outcome of not:
1. Change we like is organic, bottom-up genuine expression of public demand
2. Change we dislike is artificial, top-down result of manipulative elite
I’m calling this Motivated Causal Attribution
Congrats (almost!)
NEW: After Gorton & Denton, how should we understand the threat to Labour's left?
Big new @persuasionuk.bsky.social report out with @38degrees.bsky.social on 'progressive defectors' - Lab 2024 switchers to Greens, Plaid, SNP, Lib Dems.
Who are they, who are they not & what's moving them? 🧵
I never thought I'd ever have a supervision meeting whist one of my supervisors has half way across the Hudson River in a kayak, but I can confirm that it happened haha
A decision tree guide to political analysis for the cynical
A decision tree guide to political analysis for the cynical
Great to speak with @meganekenyon.bsky.social of @newstatesman1913.bsky.social on location about the result in Gorton and Denton, including the role of party blocs!
Clipped my bit below, but you can watch the whole video here (bonus, there is a cat!):
youtu.be/dUh_1XuAg-g?...
Eluned Morgan pledges to "end homelessness in Wales by 2034".
This will seemingly replace their previous 2021 plan to "end homelessness by 2026".
I still think Con would have lost in 2024 anyway due to inflation/partygate/corruption/NHS waiting lists etc. driving away swing voters
But massive legal migration rules liberalisation + channel boats not being stopped made it existential because it meant they lost right bloc too
If anything Reform voters would have been easier for Cons to win back than Labour winning Greens back is now.
Con-Reform switchers had one salient demand (make migration go down)
Lab-Green switchers have many more / much wider policy demands + more abstract demands (eg "fairness" and "equality")
It's not clear how someone could hold both of these opinions at same time (I know you don't) and still be coherent
I was more annoyed at asymmetry between analysis offered for how to win such voters back.
I agree with second of these below... BUT I agree with it applied to both Con/Ref (when Cons were in government) and now with Lab/Green
(As long as it means actual outcome changes not just rhetorical changes)
Sorry I think my initial post was too snarky/unclear
I actually do think (in government) Tories/Labour could have / can win voters back from party on same ideological side whose values core voters like – IF they broadly deliver on what those voters want / care about (eg getting Brexit done in 2019)
Yeah but the same on delivery was true of the Conservatives. RW voters want:
- low, controlled migration
- tax burden not increased
- petty crime not going unsolved/uninvestigated
They delivered none of that 2019-24, so rhetoric and promises became meaningless to stop rise of Reform
tbf they also have themselves to blame for the sudden appearance of competition on their right.
"I can't believe a right-wing populist challenger is overtaking us after we let immigration reach almost 1 million!"
100%
A median voter strategy is always the best strategy... as long as you have an accurate picture of who the median voter is!
An apolitical (or apartisan) provisional lower-middle class voter who just wants a nice life
I'm being deliberately provocative, but it's been weird to see people who have spent the last 10 years saying "the Conservatives can't out-Reform Reform" now saying "it's imperative for Labour to move left on migration/EU/welfare/tax/Gaza to win back Green switchers"
Wasn't the Conservatives “chasing voters from party on same side ideologically whose values your core voters like” been the big Bluseky academic consensus of a bad strategy in the last 10 years?
Why would outcome be different if Labour does the same for the Greens?
