The pandemic has seen unprecedented infringements in our civil liberties. Policies that would have been regarded with suspicion or even outrage if implemented by Britain’s ‘enemies’ – like confining people in their homes – have been par for the course.
Interestingly, in both Britain and the United States, support for lockdown measures has been greater on the political left, even though right-wing voters tend to be older (and hence at greater risk from Covid).
In a paper published this July, researchers found that Labour and SNP voters were much more likely than Conservatives to support closing schools and shops, and making people stay at home. Likewise, Democrat voters in the U.S. have been more supportive of lockdowns than Republicans.
There are several factors behind the left’s enthusiasm for lockdowns: skewed risk perceptions; the ideology of safetyism; a preference for prioritising health over the economy (including ‘our NHS’). However, one reason that hasn’t received much attention is the growing strain of left-wing authoritarianism.
In a paper published last December, Joseph Manson explored the influence of left and right-wing authoritarianism on people’s attitudes to lockdowns and other restrictions. ‘Right-wing authoritarianism’ is a well-known construct in psychology, but ‘left-wing authoritarianism’ is relatively new.
The latter phenomenon had not received much attention in psychology until recently, most likely because of the discipline’s left-wing skew.
Right-wing authoritarianism is measured via agreement with items such as, “What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader,” and “God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed”.
By contrast, left-wing authoritarianism is measured via agreement with items such as, “This country would work a lot better if certain groups of Christian troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s proper place in society.”
Manson found that both of these constructs were positively associated with support for lockdowns and other restrictions. Those who scored high on right-wing authoritarianism were particularly likely to say that foreigners should be banned from entering the country.
Those who scored high on left-wing authoritarianism were particularly likely to say that governments should have the power to prohibit misinformation, and that politicians should be able to introduce new restrictions without consulting legislative bodies.
There were also areas of agreement. As Manson notes, both right and left-wing authoritarians favoured “restrictions on the right to protest, punishment without the right to trial by jury, and surveillance via a mandatory tracking app”.
Regardless of one’s view on the pandemic restrictions, there can be no doubt that many of them have an authoritarian character. And even if their impact in the short run was positive (something of which I am doubtful), the possibility that they will be misused by governments in the future remains troubling.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Left wing authoritarianism is relativity new? Where have these people been living the last 100 years? Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Khmer Rouge, Venezuela, want me to go on? And those who back these governments are always happy with reigning in people’s human rights. On the right, yes, this was true through Cold War but leaving out Islamic racism, the right has been more influenced by libertarianism than fascism.
Just ask globally which localities want to control free speech? So why would they not want to control where you can go, who you can see, and what you must put on your face or pump up your arm?
anyone for whom this is news has been living in Antarctica since the millennia changed.
That was my reaction as well.
Mind you it’s explained by:
“The latter phenomenon had not received much attention in psychology until recently, most likely because of the discipline’s left-wing skew.”
Our societies have been progressively more dominated by the left over the past century and a half, with the elite assumption in modern times almost universally “left-wingers good, caring, modern, “progressive” etc, right-wingers bad, racist, bigoted, luddite, etc”, for a generation and more.
That’s why, although it’s true that authoritarianism is the underlying problem. it is still the left that is driving our biggest problems – covid panic, climate alarmism, gender bigotry, “antiracist” globalism, etc. Not particularly because the left is inherently evil and the right good, but because the left has the cultural, social and political power to drive it’s harm, whereas the right has been on the defensive for decades.
And too many people have been fooled by the manipulative untruth that the Blairite faction of the left is “not left”, but “centrist” or “liberal”. It takes some impressive ignoring of reality to really believe that, but as we’ve seen over covid, massive elite propaganda can achieve such false “knowledge”, and that is what we’ve seen over Blairism. Both factions of the left want to paint Blairism as “not really leftist” – the old left because they think that way they can regain control of the institutions of the left that they lost to the Blairites, and the Blairites themselves because they know that pretending to be “moderate” and “centrist” is the way to win and hold power.
Yes, that was precisely my response to that statement.
Happily, you beat me to the punch by a good four hours.
…have these people never heard of Stalin?
Thanks, you said it perfectly.
Can someone confirm that all this is still being done to ‘save the lives’ of people who, if they die with/of covid will have exceeded the lifespan of the average Brit?
I can find stories about average age of mortality in European countries that show the average age of death is 80 to 82.5 years old.
It’s actually hard to find any stories in America that disclose the average age of an American who has died from COVID. One suspects this information is taboo for journalists and public health officials.
Conjured from your imagination you mean.
Everyone I talk too and I mean everyone is totally fed up with all of this nonsense.
Same here – but sadly quite a few of them are ready to blame it the unvaxxed/untested.
people like being looked after they are weak and they vote in weak governments
So is the UK regime communist or fascist?
You’d have to define your terms first, before using those terms in conversation. It’s certainly not as simple as “left communist right fascist”.
I’d say fascism is more apt at the moment, despite it being driven by the left, because of the way it is administered via a fusion of private and public power rather than via communist dogmas of state (in practice) power. But the difference is mostly superficial anyway.
Yep, I’d agree with that.
The fact is that communism and fascism are actually very similar in many respects. The biggest difference seems to be the one you highlight – the involvement of private power: big businesses and exceptionally wealthy individuals who are allowed to strongly influence government policy.
They’re both authoritarian, certainly. And in the end, power is power, whether it is wielded as a private business owner or a state apparatchik.
Hey lets have an election and see how those Tory wankers get on, power is power until you havent got it anymore
Yes.
There really isn’t any such thing as right wing authoritarianism, not in practice. Left wing authoritarianism is everywhere, including this claimed tory government, all of our media, all of education, all local government, all corporations, all charities, all quangos…..
Good point. Where are these “right wing” authoritarian regimes?
The last of them perished with Pinochet, I believe. Though that squat butcher in Manila might qualify.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Israel, Sudan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Tajikistan, Yemen…
Don’t forget the Established Church. Many of its leaders are in the hierarchy of Common Purpose.
Alas this is now Centrist (aka Third Way) Neo Liberal globalist authoritarianism, and it has been firmly in place since 1997 in the UK; with no break over the intervening GEs. This construct has enabled all the BS now being seen from apartheid UK and lock downs to gender neutral Wokery, climate nonsense and social credit systems. Along the way it draws people into these supporting constructs with its sound bite terminology, the promotion of ’mental health issues’, for example, leading to a nation of self-diagnosing psycho-therapists.
The left-right paradigm has long been an unhelpful distraction, and effectively meaningless in terms of political discourse; although it suits the corporations, elites and MSM to perpetuate this diversion – but I guess Prof. Manson probably realised that already?
The left-right paradigm is useful for understanding tribal groupings. It is near useless for predicting group responses and values related to politics and social issues. A decade ago, very few people would have predicted that the left would support lockdowns that destroyed childhoods, poor countries, small business, and the working class.
..the left no longer existed as a credible political force in the UK, and hadn’t arguably since the death of John Smith in May 1994 – except, of course, for the key role the old traditional left (as individual voters) played in securing the 2016 EU referendum LEAVE vote.
By 1997 Blair’s New Labour was in power, and for all intents and purposes still is. Even Thatcher recognised the importance of Blair (and vice-versa), and excepting the smallest inconvenient last hoorah during the Corbyn era, Labour has never been bothered about the working class – other than to issue empty promises at GEs.
Both Labour and Tory Parties are concerned with the ‘Third Way’, which is the WEF world agenda. They both seek to increase the reach of big corporations (as well as taking their policy advice), and paving the way to complete, risk free, taxpayer subsidised, corporate domination of infrastructure, energy and health (ie Crony Capitalism). All the while pushing the boundaries of the Big State.
There is no longer an effective voice for traditional working class left wing politics, as no one is interested. To call Blair or Starmer or the Guardian or the Indie or any of the current crop of Labour MPs (aside from those few vaxx-aparthied rebels, including Abbot, last week) LEFT is beyond nonsensical.
“traditional working class left wing politics”
One thing none of the advocates of the old left (as opposed to Blairite) faction of politics have never done here, that I have seen, is actually define what they mean by left.
I have done so repeatedly, and used this useful discussion of some of the issues by Antonin Scalia to illustrate it (I use broadly speaking his third usage – radical versus conservative).
“Is Capitalism or Socialism More Conducive to Christian Virtue?”
This is usually because the old left faction is still obsessed with antiquated C19th/C20th ideas about state/”collective” versus private power, and simply asserts that anyone who doesn’t share their positions on those issues is “not of the left”.
But reality has moved on from those rather daft ideas and the economic moronicisms of Marx.
There was left and right long before Marx, and there will be left and right probably forever, since it most likely reflects fundamental and inherent aspects of human nature. Whether that speculation is true or not, it certainly still exists today, and it is what the “culture war” is all about.
Or as it was more accurately phrased back in the day ‘radical vs reactionary’
I don’t think these are, or indeed were, antiquated. These core concepts (as muddled as you present them) have been at the heart of many discussions since the seizure of de-facto dictatorial power by the Tory/Lab centrist alliance. The ‘collectivism’ concept, that runs through much traditional left wing thinking was always the key to balance the post-feudal wealth and power imbalance that ensured the wealthy owned the means of production (be that land or factories). That is no less true today, except the rise of multinational corporations (and their massive influence on policy, as we have seen with Big Pharma) and untouchable elites has ensured that left wing ‘socialist’ government is no longer an option. !n 2021 we see Big State politics enacted, but not for the benefit of the working individual – who has seen the post war protection of collective solidarity whittled away over the last 4 decades.
Ironically such ‘economic moronocisms’ have come from the centre-right of late, with a succession of idiot chancellors in No11 (not least Gideon) who have no idea about basic economics. Marx pinned it down, like it or not, and his analysis and understanding has been influential. Nevertheless taxpayer funded ‘state socialism’ within a mixed economy, such as we have had since WW2, has ultimately benefitted the owners of capital, or simply the wealthy. The mass bail out of failed and failing companies before WW2 is an early example, as is the BILLIONS Johnson has lavished on his inept crony pals for providing (or rather not providing) PPE at vastly extortionate prices – citing supply and demand as the excuse.
Long before? Really? Marx principally critiqued industrial age capitalism, as it threw the ownership issue into stark contrast – although it can be similarly applied to agricultural economies. Nonetheless his writings helped define a political dialectic around which it was possible to mobilise (and which gave birth to unions, friendly societies, free education and literacy for the working classes, socialist parties etc – all of which reactionary parties had deemed unnecessary) is very much a product of the late 19th century.
No it isn’t, and never has been. We have been locked into a de-facto liberal middle class hegemony in education, politics, finance, academia, journalism and the professions for decades, which has recently started to look very unstable. The co-opting of terms from the working class struggles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is the equivalent of (using woke-speak) cultural appropriation. And since you are keen on oxymorons, I’ll give you one: middle class leftie.
I see you still evade giving a clear explanation of what you mean by left and right, instead slinging empty abuse such as calling conservatives “reactionary”, as if that has any meaning.
You make some muddled references to collectivism, and about Marxism, but no simple statement of what you mean by the terms.
“Long before? Really? Marx principally critiqued industrial age capitalism“
Yes, since even the term (let alone the concept) originated with the French Revolution.
Marx;s thinking has nothing good to offer us, merely class-based hatred and economic delusion.
“And since you are keen on oxymorons, I’ll give you one: middle class leftie.”
Speaking of class hatred. Of course you don’t even begin to make any coherent case for how one’s social status determines one’s politics.
Are you serious? Reactionary is/was a long accepted academic term for right wing political thought, being the opposite of the radical left. It’s not ‘abusive’ at all – simply a school book definitions I’m afraid.
Desperation here. The determinant of social status on one’s politics needs no explanation let alone ‘coherent case’ made for it – even if this were an ‘O’ level discussion this discourse would be on exceptions to or the types of determinants involved. But of course you knew that, didn’t you?
Not hatred, simple fact. Sections of the middle class have attached themselves to a working class political ideology, partly because it was trendy and partly because by doing so they saw a chance for power. Even a worthless 3 year course can get one a BA at a Red Brick or ex-Poly, but a craft apprenticeship requires study, skill and 5 years hard work. But it will seldom be the skilled trades person that gets the nod over the dim graduate to stand as MP for the Labour Party – which has been made much worse by gender selection that now disproportionately favours middle class women candidates.
“A decade ago, very few people would have predicted that the left would support lockdowns that destroyed childhoods, poor countries, small business, and the working class.”
Very few people on the left. That was pretty much exactly what many on the right predicted.
Except coming from the Centre-R it wasn’t a prediction (so doesn’t count), rather it was probably a blue sky Tory ideas group paper that Boris and his Conservative chums have decided to enact (with the full approval of the witless Centre-L). Perhaps those still perched on the traditional left thought, naively it has to be said, there was enough common ground between even a Tory Government and the British people that such atrocities could never happen?
Unfortunately for them, however, this recent gross betrayal of trust breaks all the rules, and I’m sure even the estimable Thomas Hobbes will be turning in his grave at this PM’s reckless tearing up of the social contract.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it merely reinforces the notion that class politics are still with us, bigger and nastier than ever given the the influence of the burgeoning but wonderfully unproductive middle classes.
Let’s just remember who it was shrieking about cost benefit analysis and basic rationality being “heartless”, uncaring rightwing-ery, “eugenics”, and “putting money ahead of lives”, back when lockdown was brought in, in March 2020.
And let’s not forget that they were still shrieking about “zero covid” last winter, when there was another defeat for the resistance to covid panic:
Socialist Campaign Group Calls for Urgent New Strategy to Save Lives . #ZeroCovid #Covid19UK
Labour campaign group = middle class progressive LINOs (=leftie in name only). Cost-Benefit analysis when done diligently is an invaluable tool for policy makers of all stripes, indeed to not have all key proposed policies under constant C-B scrutiny is a dereliction of public duty – just as it would be a dereliction of professional duty to allow any private project to go ahead without one constantly at hand for reference. As I said above, a middle-class leftie is an oxymoron – and the Labour Party has been stuffed with these people on myriad pointless ‘working’ committees for decades, mainly to ensure the working class are kept firmly in their place.
“a middle-class leftie is an oxymoron“
And that’s an equivalent (at best, depending on what you mean by “leftie) statement to “a muslim non-terrorist is an oxymoron”.
There is no equivalence with your openly hateful statement. Go learn what a leftie is first, that might provide a clue. I am certainly not here to fill in the considerable gaps in your education.
…
“Never again.”
… Unless we have an airborne virus that could be deadly to older people.
oh yeah like what???
Really? Has nobody heard of Stalin and Hitler? “National Socialism”?
It’s left libertarians that are the forgotten few.
My experience, as a libertarian from nearly half a century ago, is that “left libertarianism” is mostly oxymoronic, because they always either implicitly or explicitly rely on a de facto nanny state to control the nasty things they can’t accept happening. A bit like Orwell’s summary of pacifists:
“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.“
Although educated, the left tend not to be well-educated. Those with arts and social science degrees tend to be of a left wing persuasion. The majority will have dropped maths by the age of 16 and will therefore lack the basic numeracy skills necessary to interpret data and to calculate risk.
This could just as well apply to Mr Johnson’s cabinet, as well as himself. It might also explain everything from the lack of any comprehensive ‘risk benefit’ study before the declaration of Lockdown and emergency Covid powers (March 2020) to Sajid Javid’s latest nonsensical incitements against the unvaxxed that bear no relation to actual ONS figures (including the true current hospital bed occupancy with Covid is around 5%). Problem is, most of the voters are equally innumerate – and lazy.
The continual refusal to carry out (or to publish) proper cost-benefit analyses has to be deliberate though – i.e. they know it wouldn’t go in their favour. I have asked the local MP a number of times for cost-benefit analyses on various specific measures. If he replies at all, he completely ignores the question and makes some unrelated comment – every single time.
A true cost-benefit analysis is not a binary decision making tool, but a series of nuanced possibilities to shape subsequent decision making (be it political, economic or project based). C-B analysis would have helped in all aspects of difficult decision, rather than a government blundering into blanket lockdowns or mass roll out of experimental vaxxes – whether beneficial or not.
The problem for this Tory government is it would demand careful consideration, in that along with cost-benefit comes predicted cause and effect (not just fanciful and discredited Imperial College modelling). Indeed, it might have pinpointed some of the weak links in the decision making chain including Ferguson, whose previous predictions had already cost this country so dearly during the 2001 ‘foot and mouth’ slaughter; where it was later admitted vaccines would have sufficed!
Did anyone in government understand this? And if not why not?
The emerging evidence suggests that the answer is no. As to why not, the point made above by Monty gives us a clue, as to the quality of education in that group. Probably affects the nature of Civil Service recruitment as well – a tendency to self support themselves.
I don’t think maths has much to do with it. Constructively approaching risk is largely about experience and attitude. It’s about emotions such as fear, hesitancy, confidence etc. There are plenty of irrationally risk averse scientists.
Absolutely. It seems to me that the nature of education for large groups of people has allowed many politicians to ‘get away with murder’, by telling people to do stupid things that don’t work, whereas those with proper relevant knowledge would know better and they wouldn’t try it on.
Left / Right, does it matter? We are facing destruction of humanity on a scale unimaginable. Some of the destruction will be physical, the actual murder of citizens, but some of the destruction will be the zombification of many of those remaining.
There is a dystopian hell approaching but it will not pan out the way Globocap and the Davos monkeys planned – there are far, far too many variables.
“Left / Right, does it matter? We are facing destruction of humanity on a scale unimaginable.“
It matters because it is being driven by the collectivist, radical left.
The conservative right does not believe in either collectivism or radicalism (by definition). that’s why the only significant organised mainstream political resistance in the “west” has come from the Republican Party.
It’s now very well understood that lockdowns are no solution to the pandemic and do tremendous damage to people’s health. The real solution to the pandemic is herd immunity, early treatments, fresh air, healthy living and happy socialising. If our governments cannot understand that and start to get things going in the right direction, we really do need to burn everything down and start over.
Here’s my take-away from this study: The authoritarians have won (or at least are winning big time).
They have effectively changed the language and now most accept that it is the proper role of government to “protect” people from “harm” (be it a virus or offensive speech or “disinformation.”).
“Our side” might rally and win the ultimate battle, but this would take exposing a lot of widely-accepted lies. I’m not sure how any narrative-imploding truths can actually get through the “gatekeepers of the news” (who are really the protectors of the faux narratives).
Advantage: Authoritarians.
And here are the splits on the most basic issue of authoritarianism of all – freedom of speech:
Source:
Cancel culture: what views are Britons afraid to express?
Oh !! is that because they have been proven to work or something ???
Birds of a feather flock together.
Nothing new there, the Political Compass has always had two orthogonal dimensions: left-right and authoritarian-libertarian. And only the latter dimension is really important.
There is an ivermectin panic on the big tech and MSM right now. Massive articles from MSM on Ivermectin trying to push a danger narrative and also negative press on Americans Frontline Dr’s, again, to keep the Covid narrative alive. Just go to the Goog and type ivermectin then look at all the panic news articles. We are over the target. Big-Pharma is panicking. This medicine has been widely used by humans without any problems for 40 years. It’s inventor won a Nobel Prize after 20 years of successful use and after 100 million people were cured of a broad spectrum of problems without any side effects. Get your Ivermectin while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com
As I have been saying for such a long time, there isn’t much difference between communists and nazis.