Independents are what voters want, but we’re blind to the reasons why
As a general election nears, we can expect polling to become a bigger part of the news cycle. However, the reporting of such polls has begun to exhibit a pattern. This usually consists of a leading article with an assessment of what the latest numbers say about the likely electoral fortunes of Sinn Féin. A typical headline might read: “Sinn Féin does X while the rest do Y” — despite that party’s continued fall in numbers.
The pattern reveals a media fixation on Sinn Féin that ignores the slow, but ever-increasing, support for independent candidates. They now account for almost one fifth of first preferences — already more than Sinn Féin, and likely to be considerably more at election time.
Increasingly, the Irish media are not siding with the majority. A mapping of the recent Family and Care referendum results revealed a pattern of a strong alignment between a media narrative and the losing side. This appears to have been centred on the results in an area of south Dublin and a corresponding opposite pattern, with the electoral majority having a centre of gravity located in the north-west and midlands.
It is important to be mindful and respectful about the importance of all votes, even those that may seem unpalatable to the progressive palate that often seems to characterise Irelands’ urbanised media and the chattering classes. Minorities can become ministers overnight.
This overt alignment of so-called “liberal urban elites” is not unique to Ireland and is beginning to be internationally recognised as an issue for media. Witness the local media’s surprise at the emergence of right-wing parties in France and Germany.
It is important, as it is an obstacle to media objectivity — which in turn undermines rights to press freedoms, a cornerstone of effective democracy.
It can certainly be argued that concerns about a progressive media are merely the reactionary response of an older generation, seeking to preserve the status quo which an insightful and better-educated younger generation seek to overturn.
However, this line of argument needs to take account of an increasingly central characteristic of the progressive narrative — namely, that much of it is an edifice of virtuous opinion that often has little basis in evidence or fact.
Maintaining objectivity is difficult for the media today, when the list of topics that claim to be virtuous is long and growing. The list ranges from opinions about gender, justice, ethnicity, equality, poverty, to concerns about the environment and wealth. In commentary about such topics, any traditional news-based media tendency towards a lack of objectivity becomes amplified when threatened by unpopularity, especially from viral and very loud social media.
Seen in this light, unchallenged media bias is another example of “noble-cause corruption”, which seeks to defend or exempt those who believe themselves virtuous, from requirements to be honest, or factual.
Such an approach also seeks to stifle challenge by silencing critics or contrary evidence by attacks that question the virtue of the questioner. In rhetoric, it’s called an ad hominem attack. In sport, it’s called playing the man and not the ball.
Virtue-led reporting on opinions matters — because it leads to a blindness about the practical political importance of views that are unpopular, minor or contrary, especially in the proportional representation system.
PR systems tend to produce coalitions in which minority parties can exert a disproportionate amount of policy power and cabinet representation. This can result in government policies that have little relevance or support in the general population.
It is arguable, for example, that the Green Party’s control of economically transformative portfolios such as energy, communications and transport have imposed the extreme views of 5pc of the electorate on 95pc of the population.
By contrast, independent candidates and parties appear to have the active and increasing support of a fifth of the electorate, and are likely to have grudging support from many more on account of their emphasis on what they repeatedly describe as “common-sense policies”.
These cover fundamental areas such as fairness, practicality, reasonableness or representativeness in matters that affect families, agriculture, energy, immigration, housing and local development. Moreover, they represent part of a growing unease all over Europe, about overreach by unelected and unaccountable progressive groups, from campaigning NGOs to activist officials.
These concerns and their resultant policy proposals appeal to the voter base of established conservative parties, which have the natural political reflex to appeal to “old-fashioned” values — a classic definition of the status quo. Such policies are easily portrayed as being anti-progressive, leading to them being ignored or belittled by a media in pursuit of the next new thing.
Who in Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil is giving serious consideration to the concerns that are increasingly driving the electorate towards these groups? Which mainstream conservative party is unafraid of being unpopular with a progressive media? Who is coming up with the policy proposals to either match those of the Independents, or aim to have workable overlaps?
Such considerations are important because they are likely to be the main drivers of the negotiations of the next programme for government.
There is a pattern in history of the next big thing hiding in plain sight — before leaping out to suddenly change everything, leading to social anxiety and instability. Sudden surprise is no friend of economics or the markets.
Surprises happen when ruling elites, including the media, ignore and belittle outsiders — until it is too late.
In sport, it’s called playing the man and not the ball