Tags

, ,

I was recently exposed to a Twitter post* about how people “would rather be in the majority than be right.” This was the first of 20 things learned by British rapper Zuby during the pandemic. Surprisingly enough, the list is not-at-all British centric.

His observation fits a pattern that became clear to me, starting probably 10+ years ago, as I began to scrutinize political races. It is particularly evident in the U.S. presidential primaries. Recent primaries have featured very lengthy lists of candidates. What that means (or at least should mean) is that, early on in the process, a voter can find a candidate who matches his or her own proclivities fairly well. Eventually the field narrows and our first choice is no longer available – often happening by the time the ballot comes to us. The funny thing is that even before the first vote is cast, and definitely before the race is won or lost, the field begins to narrow substantially. Often, it only takes polling numbers and editorial pieces to identify the “front runners” and rob the also-rans of their erstwhile supporters. Some of us remain loyal to that best-choice but so many do not.

Part of what is happening is that people are abandoning their “ideal” candidate for a more practical alternative. The choice is certainly pragmatic and maybe even smart. If one wants to make sure one’s “side” is ascendant, one might start by putting that side’s best foot forward via heavily weighting electability. Drop the intellectual analysis, though, and we are seeing an expression of simple human nature. People are drawn to be on the winning team and so will naturally gravitate towards popularity and success.

As I reread Zuby’s assertion now, in its new context, I realize how much this is a fundamental quality for we humans and it isn’t even a mysterious one at that.

Obviously, when we compete we like to win; its only natural. One might, further, imagine there are fundamentally two ways to win. One is to contribute to the success of your side to such an extent that victory is earned by all. The other is to associate yourself with winners and, thus, join them in their victory.

Depending on the context, we may see the latter as a cop-out; as cheating. But is that so? Being chosen to play on the best team, or recruited to work at the the top company; these are (in and of themselves) hallmarks of success. Furthermore, the two paths are not mutually exclusive. One can easily join the side of the “winners” and then aid them in achieving ever more victorious results.

Of course, there is also a cultural affinity for being the “underdog” and striving to pull out that unlikely victory. In fact, in many cases, isn’t it seen to be “selling out” when one abandons one’s principles for that easy path to success? Certainly I saw it that way when people abandoned Rand Paul for Ted Cruz with his superior electability. But the fact is, the pejorative “sell-out” has the sting that it does because those that earn it seem all too common.

However, this is more than just retweeting Zuby; yes people would rather be in the majority than be right, yes it’s disappointing, and yes it is a bad sign in terms of the future of our culture. But there is more to it than that? There is a second part to my rant.

Over the last year-and-a-half I’ve seen another way to interpret his point. As I said, part of what we see is the human desire to be on the winning team, one way or another. But, note, he points out in his alternatives that by being a winner one is also objectively on the wrong side. Now, this analysis may not work well for politics. When choosing between candidates, every candidate has their pros and their cons. There may be a more “principled” choice versus a more “pragmatic” choice, but I’m not sure if it’s ever black and white. However, when we look back on the past year or so, one might discern a few blacks and a few whites.

Just for one example, take the obvious abandonment of “free speech” by members of the media. Not only does this seem objectively wrong (freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are foundational principles of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization), but it seems counter to a reporter’s own self interest. Yet here we see the very press protected by our nation’s First Amendment telling us that said protection isn’t, after all, all that important. How?

Now, I’ll insert at this point that I think I could come up with compelling examples of all political persuasions “selling out.” This isn’t supposed to be a left versus right thing. To go into too many specifics would probably just provoke a fight – and maybe even my whole free speech thing has done so already. Suffice to say that Zuby’s critique hits its mark on all of us; not just “the others.”

The “how does this happen?” – and why it’s different than just a few years ago – is that I sense people are drawing battle lines. People feel that they must take a side; run up their colors. When we’re engaged in run-of-the-mill civil debate, nuance is helpful. Once the bullets start flying, you’ve got to be aiming the same direction as the folks on either side of you in the firing line. To mix metaphors, there may, in fact, be atheists in foxholes – its just that when the artillery is incoming, this isn’t the time to argue rational humanism with those who are praying for salvation. It is a time to emphasize one’s comradeship and come together with one’s brothers in arms.

In this context, the advantage of being part of the more numerous side becomes even more apparent.

I’ve said it before that I hope I’m wrong, but I fear that I am seeing ever more escalation into some sort of end-game scenario. That said, there are many ways that such an end game can play out. This tendency of social human beings to pick a side and, while we’re at it, pick the winning side – this may actually be part of how we get to a non-violent sort of end.

It is often cynically suggested that a regime that’s in trouble might provoke an external war to distract from its domestic troubles. Think Wag the Dog, or Nineteen Eighty-Four, or Vladimir Putin. As we all take the patriotic, nationalistic side against the evil foreign invaders, our own disagreements fall by the wayside. Likewise, if one side of the argument can be marginalized to the extent that they’re an insignificant minority, then there will be no actual “fight.” Or, at least, if there is a fight, nobody will care when “all of us” win handily.

This all makes for an interesting game theory problem, if one wishes to be dispassionate. The ideological entrenchment and escalation is objectively counter-productive; a form of mutually assured destruction. It accelerates our journey towards a destructive conflict and narrows our ability to later deviate from that path. At the same time, once we have sealed our own fate, our survival in the ensuing chaos may well depend on the extent of our preparations – our entrenchments – in the run-up to the end game. There are obvious advantage to both sides backing down and even to unilaterally backing down. Victory, however, comes from forcing your opponent to be the one to back down when you do not, thus incentivizing the counter-preservation option.

Not good.

Photo by Rosemary Ketchum on Pexels.com

*I’d link to it, but it can take me the better part of an hour to find an old Twitter entry. I guess it’s not for nothin’ that people tend to repost screenshots of Twitter rather than links to the original Twitter post itself. [Update] The Twitter post has been expanded into a written article, albeit one requiring a (free?) subscription to read. I haven’t read it yet, myself.