Livingstone & selection bias

Why is it that prominent left-wing politicians are such arsewipes? I don't just mean Galloway and Livingstone, but Derek Hatton before them, among others.
It's a paradox because ordinary left-wingers are (mostly) wholly decent people.
The answer, I reckon, lies in selection biases. It's in the nature of far left politics that only the worst specimens become public figures.
There are (at least) two reasons for this.
One is that if you're on the far left, the standard way for a decent hard-working but dull person to have a career in politics - think tank, special advisor, MP etc - is closed off. Instead, you make your name first in local politics. And this requires sharp elbows, "charisma", coalitions with shady characters and raw ambition; victory often goes just to whoever attends the most meetings.
The other is that there's little demand in the media for nuanced, lengthy argument. Even in the main parties, intellect is a drawback; just look how David Willetts or Ruth Kelly get treated. There's a premium instead upon soundbites and publicity gimmicks. This premium is larger for the far left, which is easily ignored when it behaves intelligently. So it's only demagogues who get attention.
These biases mean that, on the far left, it is the worst that rises to prominence. And in turn, good leftist ideas are apt to be discredited by association.
But this just shows how the status quo defends itself. Ordinary cognitive errors - selection bias and the association fallacy - combine to diminish support for alternatives. It's surprising how many sources of pro-capitalist ideology there are.

Comments

[JimJay]

I suspect this might be too charitable to many of the rank and file of the far left. Of course many of the left are lovely people - whether this is more or less than the general population it's difficult to tell and probably relies on too much subjective criteria...

I would say that there was a reason why Hatton, Galloway and Livingstone rose to the "top" and as you say it's not all down to positive attributes. Often the flaws of the grassroots activist will be different from those of the self styled leaders but flaws they do have.

For me I put a large part of this down to political culture and I like to think we could make the left a better place to be not by populating it with nicer people, but by fostering a culture that makes the current inhabitants easier to get along with.

[chrisc]

Perhaps you should cross-post this one to Liberal Conspiracy - they love Livingstone there!

[Bob B]

What of prominent, publicity-craving "right-wing" politicians?

[Paulie]

The problem is demagoguery - it's there with most outgroups. YOu don't get anywhere on the far left by saying "vote for me and I'll do the decent thing by you". Instead, you try and find a fairly detailed formula that a large number of monomaniacs will buy into.

The biggest problem that the far left have is that they don't agree with representative democracy.

You *did* say you were on the far left yourself, didn't you Chris?

;-)

[Neil Harding]

Chris, Why is Ken an arsewipe? On Nick (I supported the war but am on the left really) Cohen's say so? Who else could have introduced the congestion charge - probably the bravest thing any politician has ever done in this country (as Ken did it almost single handedly with all the media opposing him as usual). His record combating bigotry is second to none, what has Cohen ever done? The only city to move people from cars to buses anywhere in the world, the oyster card, cheap public transport, improved environment, economy, quality of life, numbers of police etc. You are having a laugh on this one. If you really want to stop a proven homophobic racist, then vote for Ken to stop Boris. Ken has denounced homophobia and racism, Boris has tried to justify it.