{"id":2191,"date":"2018-12-13T18:45:21","date_gmt":"2018-12-13T18:45:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=2191"},"modified":"2019-01-02T23:24:48","modified_gmt":"2019-01-02T23:24:48","slug":"political-correctness-brexit-trump-and-campaigns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=2191","title":{"rendered":"Political Correctness, Brexit, Trump and Campaigns"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rejection of \u2018Political Correctness\u2019 played a role in the vote for Brexit and Trump in 2016 but what does it mean for campaigners and \u2018progressives\u2019 who are often perceived as standard-bearers for \u2018PC\u2019?<\/h3>\n

Commentators argue over what Political Correctness is but academic research shows it comes in several different forms, including \u2018authoritarian\u2019 and \u2018egalitarian\u2019 (see below).\u00a0 As mentioned in The Values Story of the Brexit Split Part 1<\/a> it seems to me that in values terms, \u2018political correctness\u2019 occurs when one values group projects<\/em> it\u2019s own values at others who do not share them, along with exhortation or censure in a do \/say this \u2013 don\u2019t do \/ say that \u2013 think this\/ don\u2019t think that way.<\/h3>\n

Any such projection is designed to be, and if it\u2019s not designed to be it will be anyway taken as, intrusive and controlling at best, and at worst, intrusive, controlling and critical of the target \u2018as a person\u2019.\u00a0 \u00a0In grand terms you could call it an attempt at \u2018values hegemony\u2019, and likely to cause rejection and resentment which can generate a backlash escalating into a \u2018culture war\u2019.<\/h3>\n

Whether that becomes visible as a focused public debate or just smoulders as a resentment depends on the opportunity for it to become organised (as elections and referenda can do). Who \u2018wins\u2019 depends on numbers, activation and who controls \u2018levers of power\u2019 and influence.\u00a0 But as a rule, I\u2019d advise against them as a campaign strategy: NGOs would do well to find alternatives to \u2018PC\u2019 as a route to change.<\/p>\n

In the backwash from the Trump election and the continuing agonies of \u2018Brexit\u2019, the dynamics of \u2018culture clashes\u2019 have been much discussed. Recent books include National Populism<\/a><\/em> by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin (2018, about the UK), and Cultural Evolution<\/a><\/em> (2018 with a global perspective and a US slant), the latest values magnum opus by Ron Inglehart of the World Values Survey (his book Cultural Backlash<\/em> with Pippa Norris is out next year).\u00a0 Both are worth reading and I\u2019ll return to the wider values issues raised by Brexit in particular in a subsequent blog but in this post shares my personal perspective on \u2018political correctness\u2019.\u00a0 I\u2019m no expert and would welcome comments (see end of post or contact me here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

[long post: download pdf here<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Politically Incorrect Trump \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Shortly before Donald Trump was elected, Aaron Blake wrote in the Washington Post<\/a>:<\/p>\n

If there is one uniting principle the defines Donald Trump’s campaign for president — besides, perhaps, winning and being classy — it is that political correctness is bad.<\/em><\/p>\n

After Trump got elected, Spencer Greenberg a US political-social analyst at Clearer Thinking<\/a><\/u> correlated 138 variables with voting for Trump, and found that<\/a> rejection of \u2018Political Correctness\u2019 (PC) came second after political affiliation in explaining how likely someone was to vote for him\u00a0 (study here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

EU FU – PC ? Depends who you were at the time (June 2016, Wells next the Sea – ironically the shellfish facility was largely EU funded)<\/em><\/p>\n

Copied by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks in Leave.EU, Trump gamed political correctness to signal values- and interest-alignment with an audience. It sucked media attention away from topics he didn\u2019t want to debate, and onto his ground.\u00a0 Overtly flouting or attacking PC-ness helped Trump frame and control the debate, aided and abetted by the outraged response of ethically-minded \u2018progressive\u2019 media, politicians and supporters.\u00a0 It focussed attention in a similar way to Lynton Crosby\u2019s shock \u2018dead dog\u2019<\/a> tactic.\u00a0 It appeared to validate the populist proposition that he was \u2018on the side of the people\u2019 against an \u2018elite\u2019 because those who denounced him most strongly could be relied upon to turn out to be well-educated, and with better job prospects than most of his base.<\/p>\n

Getting people to agree with you by revealing that a problem is caused by an already-unpopular opponent is a tactic that many issue campaigns have used.\u00a0 It eventually turned around McDonalds on health and environmental campaigns on otherwise esoteric and easily ignored issues such as the fate of rainforests and factory farming.\u00a0 But for Trump and Leave.EU it worked as a magical simplifier, relegating to the side-lines the \u2018serious issues agenda\u2019 which would face any President when elected to run the US as a country, and drowning out the details of the UK\u2019s EU relationships in a chorus of values-dog whistles on immigration and \u2018control\u2019.<\/p>\n

No Longer Insurgents<\/strong><\/p>\n

Normally these are insurgent tactics of guerilla underdog groups, and one reason the \u2018progressives\u2019 reacted so naievely to them may be that for reasons of history, they still think of themselves as the insurgents.\u00a0 It may seem axiomatic for example that any cause group on the side of \u2018minorities\u2019 fits this bill.\u00a0 Yet by 2016 the Pioneer values group, which skewed to not voting for Brexit<\/a> or Trump, was now the largest (eclipsing Settlers and Prospectors and loosely equivalent to Inglehart\u2019s \u2018post materailists\u2019) in both countries.<\/p>\n

A strategic dilemma that Pioneer-dominated cause groups now face is how to adapt their strategies to reflect the fact that although they are still often dwarfed by opponents (eg Greenpeace v oil companies) their ideas have become mainstream, particularly among many political and highly educated \u2018elites\u2019 doing well in the information or knowledge economy. \u00a0In short, Trump and Brexit turned \u2018inter-sectionality<\/a>\u2019 on its head.\u00a0 More of that in a subsequent blog.<\/p>\n

PC Was Unpopular<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whether by accident or design, the brilliance of the attack by on political correctness by Trump and the pro-Brexit camp was that it was already<\/em> unpopular, and that dislike even reached across into the enemy camp.<\/p>\n

In the US, from the right, a 2017 Cato Institute survey found<\/a> 71% of Americans agreed that \u2018political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have\u2019 as opposed to \u2018political correctness does more to help people avoid offending others\u2019 (28%).\u00a0 But a 2016 study<\/a> by the liberal-leaning Pew Foundation found a similar result.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Most Americans (59%) said \u201ctoo many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use\u201d but only 39% agreed \u201cpeople need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cato showed 58% of Americans agreed that \u2018The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 Some advocates of political correctness might have seen that as a success but 70% agreed, as Donald Trump said, that America has a \u2018big problem\u2019 with Political Correctness. \u00a0(Find the full very detailed survey which also covers symbolic actions like flag-burning, here<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Cato survey and others show that Americans are divided over \u2018PC\u2019 attempts to restrict speech by their views of its motivation,\u00a0 their perception of the effects it has on themselves and others, and what any legal restrictions on \u2018hate speech\u2019 might achieve.\u00a0 On most measures Democrats take a more positive view of PCness than Republicans, as do blacks as opposed to whites, with Latinos sometimes closer to Republicans but it is a fine-grained response across many measures.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Pew also reported \u2018substantial partisan, racial and gender differences\u2019: 78% of Republicans said too many people were easily offended, and only 21% that \u2018people should be more careful to avoid offending others\u2019. 61% of Democrats, thought people should be more careful while just 37% thought \u2018people these days are too easily offended\u2019. \u00a083% of Trump supporters but only 13% of Clinton supporters felt too many people are easily offended.\u00a0 Black people and women erred towards not giving offence more than Whites or males, with Hispanics in between, older people more concerned about offence than younger ones, and college graduates more concerned than non-graduates.<\/p>\n

The UK<\/em><\/p>\n

PC is not quite such a hot issue in the UK.\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018Hate speech\u2019<\/a> is arguably<\/a> more curtailed in the UK than in the US and it is not such a political divider.\u00a0 At any event there are fewer UK surveys.<\/p>\n

A 2007 Ipsos<\/a> survey asked if \u2018Political correctness has gone too far ?\u2019, and found 85% agreed, and only 8% disagreed.\u00a0 In 2018 Prospect<\/em> and YouGov commissioned a bigger study<\/a>, which used a similar statement to Pew.\u00a0 It found 67% of Britons believed \u2018too many people are too easily offended these days over the language that others use,\u2019 while only 33% took the view that care with language is needed \u2018to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.\u2019<\/p>\n

Prospect<\/em> reported that British Conservatives \u2018look a lot like Republicans\u2019: \u201879 per cent of Tories take the \u201ctoo easily offended\u201d line, as do 79 per cent of \u201cLeavers\u201d\u2019.\u00a0 But \u2018unlike in the US, majorities of generally more liberal groups are also on the \u201ctoo easily offended\u201d side\u2014Labour voters (57 per cent) and \u201cRemainers\u201d (58 per cent)\u2019.<\/p>\n

As in the Cato study, Prospect<\/em> found younger people were less worried about offence than older ones.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It also noted a Manchester University study which found that \u2018primed\u2019 with the thought \u2018being positive about diversity was a \u201cpolitically correct\u201d attitude\u2019, people became \u2018somewhat less likely to be warm about [London\u2019s] multiculturalism\u2019, suggesting \u2018that \u201cPC\u201d has some charge as an anti-liberal message\u2019.\u00a0 It also reported that:<\/p>\n

\u2018Focus groups for the think tank Demos found that talk of PC reliably \u201cincensed participants.\u201d They talked of the country being run by too many \u201cdo-gooders,\u201d of feeling unable to \u201cstand up\u201d and state their views plainly for fear of being judged, and of feeling like \u201cthey are standing on eggshells.\u201d\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

But these were white males over 55: a demographic skewed towards Settlers and Golden Dreamer Prospectors.<\/p>\n

Leaders<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Prospect<\/em> – YouGov survey also asked about leadership style.\u00a0 Given a choice of a politician who \u201cspoke bluntly, without worrying about who they offend\u201d and one who \u201cspoke carefully\u201d to avoid \u201cunnecessarily offending people\u201d, 45% expressed a preference for the former, and 38% the latter.\u00a0 EU Remainers split 53% to 33% for the plain speaker but among Leavers it was 62% to 24%.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

There are multiple reasons why this might be the case but it has strikingly similar echoes to findings from the US on differences among Trump and Clinton voters<\/a> on \u2018fake news<\/a>\u2019 and \u2018alternative facts\u2019.\u00a0 Elizabeth Segran found<\/a> \u2018Clinton supporters generally value truth and accuracy, while Trump supporters care about authenticity\u2019.<\/p>\n

Compared to Pioneers and to an extent Prospector Now People, Settlers and Golden Dreamer Prospectors have a much stronger inclination to seek certainty rather than complexity, and less appetite for novelty and experiment.\u00a0 In times of stress and perceived rapid cultural change, Settlers in particular will also seek a strong leader (Karen Stenner\u2019s \u2018authoritarian response\u2019<\/a> or reflex \u2013 see The Values Story of the Brexit Split (Part 1)<\/a> slides 44-60).\u00a0 These reflexes may add to the more widely shared weariness with political \u2018spin\u2019 and obsfucation as an additional reason to seek \u2018more authentic\u2019 political leaders.<\/p>\n

PC Splits Pioneers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pioneers are themselves split over elements of \u2018PCness\u2019, particularly over freedom of speech (ie the Values Modes within Pioneers differ in their \u2018instinctive\u2019 priorities).<\/p>\n

After the Referendum and the Trump election, Harvard researcher Moira Weigel wrote a great account of the development of political correctness \u2018Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy<\/a>\u2019 in The Guardian<\/em>.\u00a0 She explained that an early example of the current \u2018rightwing\u2019 critique of political correctness at US Universities was Richard Bernstein\u2019s 1990 \u201cThe Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct<\/a><\/u>\u201d in the New York Times. \u00a0At this point it was clearly about attitudes and not just language.<\/p>\n

\u201cBiodegradable garbage bags get the PC seal of approval\u201d wrote Bernstein, \u201cExxon does not.\u201d\u00a0 Such critiques posed a dilemma for \u2018progressives\u2019 pitting their Pioneer or \u2018post material\u2019 causes such as environmentalism, against their strong reflex in favour of freedom of speech.<\/p>\n

Different Forms of Political Correctness<\/strong><\/p>\n