Thanks for this, looks interesting, will listen when I get a chance. But have to say I’m a little triggered by the idea of Helen Lewis, a leading light in the campaign to delegitimise the only alternative to the current UK government, asking a psychologist how come we have authoritarianism.
Despite similar reservations about Helen Lewis, I gave it a go. I tried to keep an open mind but it really is as terrible as you might expect. Among the contentious claims are (my sarky comments in brackets):
Conservativism is a bulwark against authoritarianism (what, actually existing conservativism?)
Conservatives and liberals are natural allies against authoritarianism (what, actually existing liberals?)
1/3 of the population is genetically predisposed to authoritarianism (citation needed)
"Superwoke" is a variety of left-wing authoritarianism (neglects power relations)
Lack of cognitive capacity... stupid people are more likely to be authoritarian (define stupidity)
It's our responsibility to help those people to make peace with "liberal democracy" (how liberal and democratic are we?)
Shared values and shared authority - normative threats = loss of confidence in leaders + loss of sense of shared vaues (gee, how does
that happen?)
Journalists are "by definition" more open to experience - love diversity, complexity, mising with different kinds of people... (frankly, this is beyond parody)
Diversity and complexity is overwhelming to some people (but not us sensible liberal types, oh no)
If you're in favour of diversity you should stop "banging on about it". Create a feeling of "oneness and sameness". (don't be too "uppity")
The left needs to get over its wariness of patriotism (yeah, that's worked well so far, hasn't it)
If only we could talk about immigration more freely (Christ, it's all we've talked about for over a decade!)
Steady as she goes - make politics boring again (What like successful politicians like Trump, Farage, Johnson?)
It's worth noting that the guest operates outside academia (she has her own consultancy business) - make of that what you will.
There are a few small crumbs of insight:
Don't call political opponents stupid and racist (bit late for that, really)
Possibility of unifying behind a vision of reducing inequality, UBI etc - good, but this is barely explored (patriotism and addressing legitimate concerns about immigration get more bandwidth)
But these ideas have all been explored more persuasively elsewhere.
In short, the analysis is shallow, ahistorical and psychologistic. It ignores power relationships (especially economic power) and is completely silent about the role of the press in creating division.
