Why is Everything Liberal?

In this conversation, the speakers discuss why everything seems to lean liberal in society. They explore the concept of cardinal preferences, which refers to the intensity of one's political beliefs. The more intense the belief, the more influence it has on shaping institutions and policies. The speakers discuss how liberal activists, who are more passionate and engaged, have a greater impact on shaping the narrative and influencing corporations. They also mention research that shows liberals are more likely to unfriend or avoid people with opposing political views in their personal lives. The speakers discuss the power dynamics and structural biases that favor liberal ideologies and suggest that governing against the elites requires a more centralized approach. The conversation raises questions about representation for those who don't feel heard and the need for active engagement to bring about change. While the speaker doesn't offer specific solutions, they encourage critical thinkin ever get this like weird feeling. It's like everywhere you look, everything's leaning left. Oh, absolutely. And I don't just mean politics, right? It's businesses, universities, even like some sports leagues these days. And it just, it makes me wonder, you know, in a country that's supposedly so divided, how did we get here? It is a curious thing, isn't it? It is. You know, you get this feeling that culturally things are being pulled in one direction, even when elections suggest things are more, you know, balanced than that. Right. That's actually the puzzle that Richard Hanania tries to unpack in his newsletter. Why is everything liberal? And that's what we're diving into today. Okay. Yeah. And you know me, I love a good head scratcher. Of course. And Hanania, he points to this idea of woke capital as like a prime example. You know, we've got these big corporations taking these very public, very progressive stances. And it's like, do profits even matter anymore? Like what's the angle here? It's definitely more nuanced than just chasing profits, or at least, you know, profits in that traditional sense. Okay. I mean, imagine you're a CEO. Yeah. It's probably just easier to kind of go with the flow, especially when that flow comes with a lot of vocal support, media attention, maybe even a boost to your brand image. And that's actually what Hanania argues. He's saying it's not just about who votes, but about who really cares. Okay. So break that down for me, because I'm intrigued now. All right. So Hanania, he uses this concept of cardinal preferences. Right. Right. Okay. And think of it this way. Like you might prefer, say, chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Classic example. Right. So that's your basic preference. Yeah. But how much more do you like chocolate? Like would you walk five miles in the pouring rain forest? That's a good question. That intensity, that's the cardinal part he's talking about. Okay. So you're saying like some people are really into their rocky road, but in like a political way. Exactly. I mean, we all have that friend who's like constantly posting political rants every five minutes. Exactly. Like that's their thing. Hanania is arguing that we underestimate how much this intensity, this cardinal preference shapes, well, everything. He gives this example of two voters. You've got one, a Republican, votes in every election, but that's about it. Okay. And then you've got a Democrat, donates to campaigns, attends protests, organizes online, like the works. On paper, their votes are equal. Right. But in practice. Oh, totally different story. I mean, that Democrat, they're like a force multiplier, right? Their passion spills over, it influences other people, maybe even sways those corporations we were just talking about. Exactly. Yeah. Hanania's point is that this difference in intensity, it plays out on a grand scale. It impacts how institutions operate, how policies are shaped, even how we perceive the world around us. Okay. But is this just like a hunch or is there actual data to back up this whole cardinal preference idea? Oh, Hanania brings receipts. Okay, good. He dug into political donations, specifically pre-Citizens United. So focusing on individual contributions and get this, in the 2020 election, Biden had a 22% advantage in donations. Wow. So if you put that in perspective, that's a bigger margin than he won by in a solidly blue state like Illinois. So it's not just voting with their ballots, like they're voting with their wallets too. Exactly. And they were voting blue. Interesting. Okay. But money isn't everything, right? What about like other forms of political engagement? Good point. So Hanania looked at that too, specifically protests. Okay. And while crowd sizes are always debated, he contrasted the sheer scale of events like the Women's March versus the Tea Party Rally in Washington, DC. And honestly, the difference in those images, the sheer energy, it's hard to ignore. Yeah. I was actually at the Women's March and the energy was palpable. I bet. It felt like this massive collection. The manifestation of those cardinal preferences. Yes, exactly. You could feel the conviction, the urgency. It wasn't just a political statement, it was personal. And that personal investment is key to Hanania's argument. Okay. He also highlights research from Noah Karl, who looked at political tolerance. Let me guess, more data. You know I love a good graph. Of course. But these graphs tell a fascinating story. Karl found a stark difference between liberals and conservatives when it came to tolerating opposing views in their personal lives. Okay. So you're talking about like unfriending someone on social media because of their political posts or refusing to like date someone because they voted for the other guy. Exactly. Wow. Karl's research, it suggests that for many conservatives, politics doesn't permeate their personal lives to the same degree. Interesting. It's not that they don't care, but that their cardinal preference, their willingness to let politics dominate their every interaction is on average lower. So it's not that conservatives are like sitting this whole thing out. It's more like they're playing a different game. That's a fantastic way to put it. So Boninia actually visualizes this difference with the image of a pyramid. Okay. So we've got this pyramid. Help me picture it. What are we looking at here? So imagine this. At the base, you've got like the widest part, right? That's your average voter, the majority of the population. But as you move up, it starts to narrow, right, towards the top, the pointy part. That's where you find your hyper-engaged type. The activists, the big donors, the folks who are shaping opinions, they're in the media online, even at your kids' school board meetings. Oh, I've seen them. Right. And Hanani is suggesting this tip, these super-engaged people, they lean, well, pretty heavily liberal. So it's not just about the sheer number of red or blue votes. It's who's putting in the extra work to get their worldview out there. Exactly. And, you know, this isn't just some weird quirk of American politics. It gets at something, I think, kind of deeper about how power works in general. Ooh, okay. So in the end, he quotes this writer, Scott Alexander, who says, governing with the elites on your side. And he's talking about like anyone with a lot of cultural influence. He says it's relatively easy. Makes sense. But try going against those elites. That's when things get tricky. That's when you see the pushback. Because you're basically up against this whole system that's like structurally biased towards a certain way of thinking. Exactly. We like swimming upstream. You're constantly fighting the current. And Alexander, he makes this point that to govern in that anti-elite way often needs to be more, well, heavy handed, more centralized. To like counteract that network that's already there. Exactly. That is kind of unsettling, to be honest. Does Hanenia think that's the only way, though, to like balance things out? See, that's what I appreciate about his writing. He doesn't really offer any easy answers. He's not trying to push an agenda. He wants us to think critically. But his analysis, it does raise some, I'd say, uncomfortable questions. Like if these cardinal preferences are so influential, if institutions are naturally swayed by them, what does that mean for everyone else? For the people who don't feel represented by those dominant voices? It makes you wonder if there are any like counterexamples, I mean, are there places where conservative activism has actually been really effective in shifting the Overton window, so to speak? Oh, it's a great question. It really emphasizes the need to dig even deeper with this. The pro-life movement comes to mind, for example. And regardless of how you feel about the issue itself, you can't deny the impact of decades of grassroots activism. It challenges this idea that intense engagement automatically equals liberal. That's a good point. Maybe in some cases, those cardinal preferences, they just play out differently. They work through different channels. It's not always as simple as just like left versus right. Exactly. It's about understanding the nuances. How do those really strongly held beliefs translate into action? How do they shape the world around us? And that's where Hanania's argument goes beyond just explaining like, why is everything liberal? It becomes about understanding how change happens. Absolutely. Or doesn't happen. Right. In any society that's, you know, dealing with complex issues where people are engaged on such different levels. It's almost like we forget that democracy isn't this like stationary thing, you know. Right. But what Hanania is saying is that it's like way more dynamic. It's not enough to just vote every few years. You have to actually shape the conversation, you know, be active, push for the change you want to see. Absolutely. And you have to realize that you're not the only one who feels maybe like they're not being heard or represented. Right. That's, I think, one of Hanania's most important points. Even in a system where we see the majority rules, a minority with a really strong belief, well, they can have a huge impact. Which kind of brings us to the million dollar question, right? Like, what do we do with all of this? Right. Does Hania offer any solutions? Any hope for the people who feel like maybe the system's working against them? He doesn't really say, do this, you know, lay out a plan. OK. But he does ask some pretty thought provoking questions. He ends by asking, are these cardinal preferences the only thing at play here? Maybe there are other forces, other things happening within institutions that make them lean liberal. So it's not like a done deal. There could be other explanations beyond just liberals caring more. Exactly. He's leaving that door open for us to consider other ideas, to keep looking into it. I like that. Maybe certain institutions just attract people with certain values and it builds on itself, you know? Right. Who has access to resources, to these networks, or even just how information spreads online these days? It's like he's shining a light on this, like, dark corner and saying, hey, go see what's over there. That's a great way to put it. That's what I like about this piece. He's not giving us easy answers or trying to shut down debate. He's trying to make us curious to get us to look at things in a new way. Absolutely. For anyone listening who's ever thought, like, am I the only one who sees it this way? Yeah. Hanani is saying you're not alone. Not at all. And even more important, your voice matters. Yes. Your engagement, your own cardinal preferences, they can make a difference. A hundred percent. It's kind of a call to action, this deep dive. It really is. Understand how these dynamics work, how much power there is in intensity, in conviction, and then get in the game. Make your voice heard, not just every few years, but every single day. The world isn't just shaped by the people who vote, but by the people who care enough to speak up, to organize, to question things, and to try to build a future that reflects what they really believe in. And who knows? Maybe someone listening right now will be the one to tip the scales. Thanks for diving into this with me. It's been my pleasure. This is a fascinating one.