Debating the far right

The far right has been defeated. Andrew Neil’s interview with Ben Shapiro and Andrew Marr’s with Nigel Farage have exposed both men as shifty, vacuous and evasive. Their support will therefore disappear. What took the might of the Red Army in 1941-45 has today been achieved by two ageing Scotchmen.

Or not. For one thing these episodes won’t weaken the far right’s resolve. Farage is playing the victim card. “We are not just fighting the political class, but the BBC too” he says. Sure, his opponents think his interview was a disaster but his sympathizers don’t: Andrew Lilico called it his “best ever.” Such reactions demonstrate the pervasiveness of asymmetric Bayesianism – that we interpret evidence to corroborate our priors.

If we’re being honest with ourselves, many of our political views – by no means just those on the right – were formed sub-rationally. And as Jonathan Swift said, “reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired." This is especially the case if the protagonists are debating in bad faith.

Now, many of you will object to this that whilst such interviews and debates might not persuade rightists themselves, they might help turn neutrals away from the movement. I’m not convinced, and not just because Marr and Neil are only watched by a handful of politics nerds.

One issue here is that defeating rightists in debate is like playing whack-a-mole; even if you knock one down, another pops up. It’s generally agreed that Nick Griffin made a fool of himself on Question Time back in 2009, and sure enough he has since fallen into deserved obscurity (although the BNP did increase its vote in the following year’s general election). But other far-right figures have replaced him, such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

There’s an analogy here with snake-oil sellers. Even when reason and evidence did show that a particular product was inadequate, customers did not shun snake-oil generally. They simply switched to other sellers instead. As Werner Troesken showed in a fantastic paper (pdf), demand was unaffected by failure.

A second problem is that we’ve no good reason to believe that people are swayed by fact and reason alone. We know that huge numbers of voters are ignorant of basic facts, which makes them credulous about all sorts of daft ideas. We know too that they are swayed by things other than rational argument, such as looks (though in fairness these are unlikely to win Mr Farage much support). Rationality doesn’t just require intelligence. It needs immense self-discipline, which many of (not least me) just do not have – and in the case of politics, have neither the means nor incentive to acquire it.

Which means neutral observers – even assuming there to be such things – are prone to countless cognitive biases. A particularly dangerous one in this context is the mere exposure effect; the more we see or hear something, the more we like it. It’s possible (pdf) then that Andy Dawson is right: “the blanket coverage [Farage and UKIP] have been afforded has directly led to the shifting of the political landscape in Britain.”

What matters here is not just Farage’s personal appearances on TV. It’s also what gets discussed. The more time the BBC devotes to the concerns of the right – ethno-nationalism, anti-“elitism”, Brexit and so on – the more normal people think such debates should be. And conversely, in crowding out other matters, such as the decade-long stagnation in productivity and real wages, these become fringe issues. The agenda matters. And merely debating with the right shifts the agenda onto their terms.

I fear, then, that the right will not be defeated by debate. We must instead pull out the roots of its support. It is surely no accident that right-wing populism has increased around the world at a time of economic stagnation. Reducing its support therefore requires an end to that stagnation. It won’t be done by talk alone.

Comments

[TickyW]

Yep, it's Austerity wot done it

[Say No to Brexit]

We just need to keep telling people that Farage's real aim is to privatise the NHS:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/12/film-nigel-farage-insurance-based-nhs-private-companies

By driving EU doctors and nurses away from these shores he is trying to push the NHS into collapse.

[Scratch]

I think I'd sooner unsilence the (echt) left than silence the right.

Offhand I don't think there's a single significant socialist/radically egalitarian voice with a prominent platform across the entirety of the national media.

[Alex]

I don't buy the voters' ignorance argument. Their first example is the overestimation of the teenage pregnancy rate. Who on earth knows that? Is a citizen supposed to know it to vote in elections?

Also, I could prove anyone's ignorance by asking 100 questions and cherry-picking the ones where the difference between the response and the true value was greatest.

[Ralph Musgrave]

Chris's claim that far right politicians are snake oil salesmen is hilarious. So Labour and Tory politicians are sticklers for the truth or something???

Chris should be a stand up comedian.

[UserFriendly]

yes and no. you aren't going to convert hardcore followers with a debate but the only way you change anyone's mind is by taking their views seriously, acknowledging why they might feel that way and pointing to a more productive solution. see literally any contrapoints video and read the comments.

[Stephen Lindsey]

I'm not a Farage fan but I thought Marr's questioning was ridiculous to the point of embarrassment. The quote about Putin totally backfired and given the situation we're in he wanted to ask about gun control, ffs. It was so bad I was wondering if Marr doesn't secretly want Farage to win.

[George Carty]

Working-class racism is the product of cowardice and zero-sum thinking: if you believe that the oligarchs are too powerful to ever be dethroned from their position of unjust privilege, you are more likely to believe that the only way you can secure a modicum of comfort for oneself and one's family is by robbing those who are even poorer and weaker than yourself.

If you are in this position you parrot the racist bullshit spouted by your demagogue of choice, not because you actually believe that it is true, but in order to conceal your callous cynicism behind a façade of ignorance.

[Jim]

"One issue here is that defeating rightists in debate is like playing whack-a-mole; even if you knock one down, another pops up. "

Just like how socialism keeps getting tried, but when it fails turns out not to have been 'real' socialism after all.............

[Scratch]

"Working-class racism is the product of cowardice and zero-sum thinking: if you believe that the oligarchs are too powerful to ever be dethroned from their position of unjust privilege, you are more likely to believe that the only way you can secure a modicum of comfort for oneself and one's family is by robbing those who are even poorer and weaker than yourself."

Heh. I'm not sure its the working class that spend their time manoeuvring for special treats from their betters within the existing framework of social relations.*

There's a reason we don't constitute a "protected class."

*In all fairness this goes for the vast bulk of minorities too - there will be no superhero movie script gigs, routes to the "C suite" or sinecures at The Guardian for the average dusky punter either.

[georgesdelatour]

Chris

You keep sneaking in the unsupported assertion that to be anti-EU is - definitionally - to be far right.

Let’s be clear. You are implicitly asserting that Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Foot, Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, Maurice Glasman etc can all be accurately characterised as far right. Presumably you group them all alongside Nick Griffin and the regime the Red Army was fighting in 1941-45.

[Miguel Madeira]

Scratch:

«Heh. I'm not sure its the working class that spend their time manoeuvring for special treats from their betters within the existing framework of social relations.*

There's a reason we don't constitute a "protected class."»

All legislation restricting immigration can be considered "special treats from their betters within the existing framework of social relations" to the native working class; the only reason why this is not considered "affirmative action" is because we are used to it.

[Scratch]

This is true.

However the the things that make it a special treat are the things we wrested from our betters in the most thrilling and unprecedented success in world history.

These are also the reasons our betters have decided the nation state (their own creation of course) is an abomination. It's conceivable that the globalists envision a post-national utopia where all are fed, housed and granted agency - however this seems, to put it mildly, unlikely and I don't think any of us are going to willingly march into a post-democratic global Lagos for the further benefit of the bourgeoisie. Organising against and ultimately defeating that would make the victories of the last century look like a cakewalk.

[Jacques René Giguère]

The far right had been defeated. Like the South really, really lost the War of Secession and have no influence on America’ politics?

[randomworker]

Sartre wrote about discussing anti-Semitism with an anti-Semite:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Sartre

Essentially the alt rt and their ilk know they are lying to your face and watch as you powerlessly counter with facts, and their reaction is a kind of bemused sadism. The power of putting you in your place by removing the effectiveness of your reasoned reply is what they enjoy. Nothing is more essential to who we are than what we know, and they cut at that at the very essence.

They know their guys got pwnd. Making you doubt your own eyes is their game.

[Swami]

As a moderate who has no respect for either party, I fail to see anything in either video which "defeated the right." Indeed I cannot fathom how any neutral person would come to this conclusion.

Certainly the Shapiro interview revealed a degree of inconsistency between Shapiro's call for less heated debate, and some of his prior tweets from 7 years ago. I was not aware that only those on the right failed to be consistent their entire life (and according to Shapiro he presumably already self-outed himself for prior inconsistencies in writing, in which case the reporter is just being a jerk)

This post is borderline delusional. It reveals a lot more about the political blinders and biases of the author than anything about the targets.

[georgesdelatour]

@Miguel Madeira

“All legislation restricting immigration can be considered “special treats…”

You’re viewing countries as if they’re joint-stock corporations, which is contestable. But let’s run with your “UK plc” concept. This begs the question: who are the shareholders? The present national population, or some narrower group? Bear in mind that corporate boards are legally required to work only for the profit of current shareholders, not for those who might opt to become shareholders in the future (presumably by immigrating to UK plc). If you’re trying to increase the shareholder value of UK plc through immigration, you can capture almost all the gains and avoid almost all the costs through a super-selective policy. Basically, only admit the rich and the smart.

Historically, people have seen their countries not as corporations but as an intergenerational patrimony; the “ourselves and our posterity” of the U.S. Constitution. Even if you find that view old-fashioned, consider the possibility that the presence or absence of Asabiyyah might have consequences for GDP.