The Left Wing, Populism and Cancel Culture: How the Silent Majority Shaped a Political Decade
The past decade in politics has seen unprecedented shocks and some would say cataclysmic changes to political systems across the world, particularly in the UK and US. As Donald Trump was elected in the US and the UK left the European Union after 43 years of membership, a new political age had dawned across the western world, one that almost 50% of citizens could not believe, one they simply could not fathom or understand. These “shock” results were caused by the growth over several decades of prejudice, discontent and the heavy influencing of political decisions via social and technological pressures. Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have indirectly played key roles in the shaping of this decade’s politics, as well as how they shape the electorate and opinion polls opposed to the true election results, highlighting the true decider of such decisions, the silent majority, a factor that is all too often ignored.
The phenomenon of the silent majority, originally dubbed the “Shy Tory factor”, was first uncovered in the 1990s as John Major was elected, after the opinion polls had suggested the parliament would consist of a roughly equal number of Conservative and Labour politicians. The result, however, was a semi-convincing Conservative win of over 7% on the Labour Party, tarnishing the reputation and validity of the polls. It was at this point in time that psephologists first suggested that members of the public were voting Conservative after previously telling pollers that they would not. This happened on such a wide scale that there was an 8% swing between the polling figures and true election results. But why? Why would such a large proportion of the electorate lie about their vote? What was their reasoning behind hiding it? Privacy? Fear? This decade the answer may have been found.
As the UK readied itself for its EU Referendum in June 2016, there was a quiet confidence amongst the Remain group as well as the polls that there would be a shift towards Remain in the final decision of many across the country. Therefore, many polls highlighted a minor Remain majority. To their shock, as the country awoke on the 24 June 2016, the UK had left the EU by a margin of 52-48. This, once again, could be evaluated as a representation of the silent majority, with large swathes of England favouring Leave as opposed to Remain. London stood out as a Remain stronghold, averaging a 70-30 split. In recent elections, much of London had voted for a left-wing, Labour parliamentarian, and therefore would likely side with remaining in the European Union. However, much of the rest of England voted to leave, representing a great disconnect between the mainly liberal London and the remainder of the country. This was not a shy Tory vote, but a sign of something more. This was a different kind of silent majority.
For years, large portions of England had faced dilapidation and poverty when compared to the ever-growing, ever-improving capital. The presence of the North-South divide and neglect of whole swathes of northern and central England led to the Red Labour Wall in the north voting en masse to leave the EU, as a symbol of discontent and anger over income inequality and growing poverty.
Throughout large segments of the EU campaign, the BBC was criticised for its alleged lack of impartiality, particularly favouring remaining in the EU. This, as well as the group’s large social media presence helped to create internet pockets of judgement between sides as the UK became more divided, with hostilities mainly pointed towards the Leave campaign, with Remainers failing to understand how immigration and sovereignty could provide reasonable rationale for voting to leave. As is all too common in the modern era, these arguments commonly spill onto social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, where, sadly, abuse and prejudice are commonplace. This specific instance of cancel culture (or online shaming) was most common among the left-wing groups and individuals that decided to remain, (in line with much of the leftist party policy).
Even today, the UK battles over the EU decision and referendum, but, if anything, it underlines a key problem in UK politics. Before, during and even after the vote occurred, it was all too common for leave voters to be labelled as racists, idiots and fools. How could someone be so bigoted to believe that immigration is a problem in the UK? Or sovereignty? Who on Earth thinks we still need that? Well, 52% of the voting population do. 52% are concerned with immigration rates and sovereignty, enough to persuade them to leave. A small minority of the left has used social media to promote political warfare against the average leave voter and their ballot, isolating leavers further from the remain concept and the Conservative political establishment they voted against.
The left “alienating their essential base of working-class support” does not win elections
As seen in the 2019 election, as Labour (eventually) and the Liberal Democrats fought pro EU campaigns to reverse democracy and reinstate the UK as part of the EU, they saw a complete collapse in their working-class support. Hundreds of thousands of steadfast, lifelong Labour voters crossed the political spectrum to support a Conservative government, providing Boris Johnson with an 80 seat majority and condemning Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party to its worst election defeat since the Second World War. Surely the left must now accept that fighting the leave vote in this manner and alienating their essential base of working-class support does not work. This form of simplistic politics backed up by online cancel culture and social censorship is not effective. Surely the left must learn lessons from the referendum, to fight the leave vote with facts and reasoning, discussion and persuasive debate, not with condescending rhetoric and not by alienating opposing voters.
As previously seen in the 1992 election, the polls were deceiving, with the silent majority having the deciding say over the UK’s referendum decision. This time however, it was not the “Shy Tories” but the angry and frustrated working-class that held the UK’s destiny in their hands, despite the best efforts of liberal media and protestors.
Similarly to the UK’s referendum, the US presidential election race of the same year caused widespread horror as Donald Trump was elected in November. Running up to the deciding day, polls had suggested that Hillary Clinton would walk away with the win and the keys to the White House. In fact, a collection of 113 polls from the final month before election day, including polls sourced from NBC and Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, suggested that Clinton would win in 88.5% of circumstances (100 of those polls) and with a 5% margin win in 50% of those cases. Trump on the other hand won just 7 (6.2%) of those polls. So how exactly did Trump find himself in the White House? This is where the populist movement, psychology of voting and the effect of social censorship arises.
“Large swathes of the electorate became frustrated” with the “elitist establishment that ran America.”
In the mid-2010s, America faced a troublesome period of job loss and economic stagnation. Despite Barak Obama’s achievements and progress the US was beginning to see a downturn in job production, with an April 2016 US study (by American employer analysts) highlighting that jobs cuts were higher than any time since 2009, with around 60,000 people losing their jobs in that month. Pay packets and wages had also remained meagre compared to the increasing cost of living for everyday Americans, angering many that had not seen the benefits of the “growing economy and job sector”. Large swathes of the electorate became frustrated, further diminishing their trust in the so-called elitist establishment that ran America.
The populist movement for change swept across the working-class US, with Trump as their figure-head. His calls for improved job security, opportunity and pay packets resonated with millions of ordinary Americans across the country. Clinton, meanwhile, represented a similar style of presidency to Obama, continuing his economic progress and attempting to use the left’s identity politics to garner support from America’s diverse society, with her standing for blacks, whites, Latinas and Asians. Trump stood for America, “America First” and “Make America Great Again”. Interestingly, when asked who they are many voters commonly refer to themselves as American first, rather than their specific race or gender, and in this way, Trump seems bizarrely inclusive. This is where the problem of the left’s use of identity politics lies. Splitting up the electorate into groups and pandering specifically to each of their needs is firstly impossible, but also breeds resentment between the groups as they argue over who should receive preferential treatment. The presence of cancel culture and political shaming, particularly on US campuses, is where these identity politics thrive, forcing tension between groups of different races and genders as figurative walls arise between those that agree whole-heartedly with the leftist view of identity politics, and those that believe otherwise. Despite the many constructive and enlightening debates on the subject, all too often the singular examples that tarnish the reputation of the left will be the clips that are shared, liked and retweeted thousands of times across the internet, only magnifying these issues further across the world.
Those silenced after voicing opinions on controversial topics that sway from leftist rhetoric are commonly unpersuaded by social media’s barrage of abusive comments and judgement, but rather they begin withholding their opinions, fearful of further retribution. In a country where free speech reigns, we have the opportunity to debate and explore these controversial yet important topics, but with the left’s growing habit of restricting debate and discussion on social, religious and political issues, fewer and fewer people are willing to throw their hat into this ring of fire. Instead, they simply wait until voting day and express their opinions then, without the risk of judgement or abuse.
“The emergence of identity politics has coincided with the most catastrophic leftist collapse in a generation”
Evidently, the left are the authors of their own demise as silencing those that question you does not persuade them on the issue, and it does not dissipate it either. It simply magnifies the problem, with it snowballing into a political freight train of destruction and resentment if it continues for too long, with this being no more evident than on social media. The left must aim to stop their cultural habits of building walls between themselves and those they do not agree with, as this simply does not improve the chances of winning elections if you cut them off and hide behind identity politics to back up your answers. The emergence of identity politics as an evident policy and movement has coincided with the most catastrophic leftist collapse in a generation across Europe and North America. The left using the internet as a battlefield for identity politics has alienated countless voters against the left’s cause, with millions flocking to Trump’s side and the change he was willing to bring, under the all-uniting flag of the United States.
This has happened time and again throughout history. When the population becomes disenfranchised with political parties, populism will arise and people will vote for an alternative, something willing to fight the establishment, something they hope will improve their lives directly. Whole social groups begin abandoning the traditional parties in droves, whether that be to support extremist parties or mainstream individuals like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.
“For many, (voters), it was a decision on face value, Hillary or Donald.”
Despite what much of social media suggests, voting for Trump in 2016 was not a heinous crime, for many it was just a decision on who best represented their interests on face value, Hillary or Donald. Who would provide the change that would benefit them the best, increase their wage packet, provide better job security or create opportunities for their kids? It speaks volumes that despite all of Trump’s faults, issues and inexperience, millions upon millions of Americans would rather vote for him than Clinton. They would rather vote for Trump than maintain their trust in the political elite. Like the 2016 UK referendum, the silent majority of Americans had their say, in the voting booth, when nobody could judge or would know their decision, and voted to elect Donald Trump. They waited their turn and shocked the polls, handing Trump a 304-227 electoral college victory over Clinton, sending social media and the liberal world into hyperdrive.
The 2010s decade truly has changed the political world forever. The circumstances and results of the UK referendum and the 2016 presidential election, with the left wing’s use of identity politics and social censorship to quash opposing opinion and avoid debate has led to a collapse of leftist support across the western world, particularly in these two nations. Times and strategies must change if the left endeavours to mend this disconnect between its leaders and its working-class workforce and support group. We must learn that simply shutting down an argument does not resolve it, but instead breeds resentment, hatred and further discontent. We must rediscover the art of debate and discuss the issues that really matter, not shy away from them. Re-engaging and re-connecting with the silent majority is the only way in which the left can regain the people’s trust and support, and that is what they must achieve in the 2020s if they wish to recapture the imagination of the people moving into our generation of politics.
Cover image by © Reuben, Picture Editor
Second image by © ChiralJon [CC BY-SA 2.0]
Third image by © The Epoch Times via Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0]