One of your paying subscribers here, first time commenter…keep up the good work, I am awestruck by the level of detail and research you get into your Substacks. I’m amazed that you can go into such depth, into some historical corners which otherwise seem forgotten, that you find new angles or previously (to my knowledge) unreferenced historical examples to shed light on today’s media landscape never ceases to amaze.
But look after your health too! If you need to take a break, take some breaks or holidays if you need to. Sure, we’ll miss you, but it sounds like it’s important that you stay healthy and live in other ways in your offline life. OK, hope that doesn’t sound too patronising or obvious…
Anyway, onto your debate with M Goodwin. Good on you for doing this. Could see you were a little nervous – I reckon Goodwin had more practice than you beforehand under the ‘studio lights’, so came across as a little more relaxed than you were, but that’s life, I suppose, it can’t be helped.
I don’t know if you also watched the interview he did with Novara Media which was a kind of similar format. I guess Aaron Bastani comes from experience as being a more relaxed and practiced interviewer – and managed to locate some good points of challenge and weakness from Goodwin early on. I’d recommend you to watch it (if you aren’t already sick of thinking about Goodwin, of course!).
I had a few thoughts on Goodwin, which I thought I’d share with you – I haven’t read the book. Haven’t any intention to. But his ‘argument’ was fairly straightforward I thought. He’s similar in a way to near namesake David Goodhart – for my sins I have forced myself to read two of that guy’s books…
Goodwin sets himself up as a kind of “prole whisperer”, thinking himself a representative of an ignored strain of supposedly working class thinking – Brexity, socially conservative, anti-immigration, anti-benefit. He takes a wholly one-eyed view the beliefs he projects on to one sector of the population which he then labels as more authentic – more British, more traditional – than other strains of thinking (like the dreaded ‘woke’).
Of course, this is a load of horseshit. Anybody who has spent any time living in the UK becomes fully aware that there’s a full spectrum of beliefs and political standpoints amongst ‘authentic’ members of the UK populace. And who counts as ‘authentic’ anyway? Goodwin hasn’t set out his parameters, except perhaps he’s selecting those who haven’t gone on to higher education, don’t live in London – and I find it hard to believe he’s so familiar with this demographic that he’s established solidly what they “believe” (ok, this could be in the book).
What David Goodhart did in his book ‘The Road to Somewhere’ (which covers similar areas) was that he took survey and polling data to show ‘in general’ what the ‘Somewheres’ believed. However if I remember that book rightly, he discarded or ignored evidence that the ‘’Somewheres” were interested in a funded NHS, decent welfare payments, housebuilding (these things weren’t interesting to him it seems) and only emphasised any result if it supported his supposition that the demographic only cared about restricting immigration, ‘traditional’ values, tightening welfare spending. It’s right there in front of your eyes on the pages of the book. If a “value” isn’t to Goodhart’s liking, it is totally forgotten in the passages where he recommends policy implementations based on a selective reading of the research into what ‘ordinary’ voters want. Naturally it’s a very right-wing prescription. What a coincidence, in line with what Goodhart has decided already.
With Goodwin, from his interviews it is bizarre. He just seems to think that ‘liberal’ or left wing thought just shouldn’t be there at all. It’s just illegitimate, as far as he is concerned, and people shouldn’t be thinking such “woke” thoughts. He gives no reason for this, other than his personal distaste for it.
It’s from a long line of right-wing conspiracy mongering that can’t accept that people just form different opinions in reaction to their life experience. To explain this by some conspiracy theory – like the trope of cultural Marxism stampeding through institutions – rather than accepting that it’s a natural phenomenon that within populations a range of political views develop organically – is, I agree with you, very dangerous.
Because it attempts to ‘other’ a whole range of political thoughts as unnatural, inauthentic, non-British, non-patriotic in order to delegitimise and stigmatise.
But at the same time, Goodwin is kinda laughable. What makes him the spokesman for the common man or woman? Nothing. Just a guy blowing hot air around interview tables, and plugging a book almost nobody is going to read.
Again, keep up the good work, in my view, you’re one of the most interesting guys on the internet and long may remain so,
You're right to give the style police a wide berth. True to his abstractions of "average voters" and "ordinary working class people", Goodwin was wearing the uniform of the pundit class. You weren't representing a class, only yourself - even whilst he would project onto you / us a class "agenda". The same critiques were made of Cornyn, of course, by many of the same people.
Hope your recovery is going well Mic. You were in fine form there!
A serious point though: style and presentation should never become a substitute for ideas and commitment. Being able to remain calm and maintaining one’s voice at an even volume, while admirable in some situations (the medical profession?), is an oft-abused skill used by charlatans (Jacob Rees-Mogg being an excellent example), to wrap offensive ideas and opinions in a veneer of respectability and reason. So keep rocking the hoodie and being passionate!
I haven’t read the book (I will order it from the local library today), but the concept of a ‘Russell group woke elite’ is an intriguing idea. As someone who attended a Russell group university and currently lectures in the HE sector, I have several issues with this hypothesis - the primary one being that U.K. universities are some of the most neoliberal institutions in the world in terms of their organisation, structure and, most importantly, the motivation of their senior leaders. Nearly all decision making is governed by the bottom line; revenue trumps all other considerations. Also, the demographic of many Russell group universities is heavily weighted towards international students who bring in more revenue than their home-based equivalents. For many students (but clearly not all), gaining a degree has become a financial transaction rather than an academic endeavour. Hence the rampant grade inflation of recent years, which absolutely suits the agenda of the universities: if the majority of people graduate with a first or upper-second class degree, academic differentiation becomes more difficult. The solution - coerce students to enrol for Masters programmes for another £10k or so.
This hardly sounds like fertile ground for a woke elite to flourish in......
I read Goodwin’s book. This is what I thought having spent 20 years offshore (1997-2017.) His argument that those who voted Brexit felt left behind absolutely resonated with what I knew and know about the part of the U.K. where I loved and returned to. His argument that a majority don’t know who to vote for rings true too. My life long Labour voter wide says so as do my Muslim family. I get all that.
Where he lost me was in a failure to address the widening economic inequalities created post 2008 and which mirror what I saw while living in the US. His flaccid attempt in your discussion to say ‘of course but...’ was a poor way to waft away the point, and especially for an academic with his position.
The point about appearance/dress is more important than you might think. Back in the day, I deliberately dressed unconventionally when meeting powerful CEOs. I knew my stuff and had very much a fuck you attitude but there was always a sense that I wasn’t taken as seriously as was evident to observers who are blind to these things. Things changed dramatically when I donned the ‘sincere blue suit.’ You/I might hate it but conforming to certain conventions works at the most crucial times. #justsaying.
Hi there Mic
One of your paying subscribers here, first time commenter…keep up the good work, I am awestruck by the level of detail and research you get into your Substacks. I’m amazed that you can go into such depth, into some historical corners which otherwise seem forgotten, that you find new angles or previously (to my knowledge) unreferenced historical examples to shed light on today’s media landscape never ceases to amaze.
But look after your health too! If you need to take a break, take some breaks or holidays if you need to. Sure, we’ll miss you, but it sounds like it’s important that you stay healthy and live in other ways in your offline life. OK, hope that doesn’t sound too patronising or obvious…
Anyway, onto your debate with M Goodwin. Good on you for doing this. Could see you were a little nervous – I reckon Goodwin had more practice than you beforehand under the ‘studio lights’, so came across as a little more relaxed than you were, but that’s life, I suppose, it can’t be helped.
I don’t know if you also watched the interview he did with Novara Media which was a kind of similar format. I guess Aaron Bastani comes from experience as being a more relaxed and practiced interviewer – and managed to locate some good points of challenge and weakness from Goodwin early on. I’d recommend you to watch it (if you aren’t already sick of thinking about Goodwin, of course!).
I had a few thoughts on Goodwin, which I thought I’d share with you – I haven’t read the book. Haven’t any intention to. But his ‘argument’ was fairly straightforward I thought. He’s similar in a way to near namesake David Goodhart – for my sins I have forced myself to read two of that guy’s books…
Goodwin sets himself up as a kind of “prole whisperer”, thinking himself a representative of an ignored strain of supposedly working class thinking – Brexity, socially conservative, anti-immigration, anti-benefit. He takes a wholly one-eyed view the beliefs he projects on to one sector of the population which he then labels as more authentic – more British, more traditional – than other strains of thinking (like the dreaded ‘woke’).
Of course, this is a load of horseshit. Anybody who has spent any time living in the UK becomes fully aware that there’s a full spectrum of beliefs and political standpoints amongst ‘authentic’ members of the UK populace. And who counts as ‘authentic’ anyway? Goodwin hasn’t set out his parameters, except perhaps he’s selecting those who haven’t gone on to higher education, don’t live in London – and I find it hard to believe he’s so familiar with this demographic that he’s established solidly what they “believe” (ok, this could be in the book).
What David Goodhart did in his book ‘The Road to Somewhere’ (which covers similar areas) was that he took survey and polling data to show ‘in general’ what the ‘Somewheres’ believed. However if I remember that book rightly, he discarded or ignored evidence that the ‘’Somewheres” were interested in a funded NHS, decent welfare payments, housebuilding (these things weren’t interesting to him it seems) and only emphasised any result if it supported his supposition that the demographic only cared about restricting immigration, ‘traditional’ values, tightening welfare spending. It’s right there in front of your eyes on the pages of the book. If a “value” isn’t to Goodhart’s liking, it is totally forgotten in the passages where he recommends policy implementations based on a selective reading of the research into what ‘ordinary’ voters want. Naturally it’s a very right-wing prescription. What a coincidence, in line with what Goodhart has decided already.
With Goodwin, from his interviews it is bizarre. He just seems to think that ‘liberal’ or left wing thought just shouldn’t be there at all. It’s just illegitimate, as far as he is concerned, and people shouldn’t be thinking such “woke” thoughts. He gives no reason for this, other than his personal distaste for it.
It’s from a long line of right-wing conspiracy mongering that can’t accept that people just form different opinions in reaction to their life experience. To explain this by some conspiracy theory – like the trope of cultural Marxism stampeding through institutions – rather than accepting that it’s a natural phenomenon that within populations a range of political views develop organically – is, I agree with you, very dangerous.
Because it attempts to ‘other’ a whole range of political thoughts as unnatural, inauthentic, non-British, non-patriotic in order to delegitimise and stigmatise.
But at the same time, Goodwin is kinda laughable. What makes him the spokesman for the common man or woman? Nothing. Just a guy blowing hot air around interview tables, and plugging a book almost nobody is going to read.
Again, keep up the good work, in my view, you’re one of the most interesting guys on the internet and long may remain so,
You're right to give the style police a wide berth. True to his abstractions of "average voters" and "ordinary working class people", Goodwin was wearing the uniform of the pundit class. You weren't representing a class, only yourself - even whilst he would project onto you / us a class "agenda". The same critiques were made of Cornyn, of course, by many of the same people.
Hope your recovery is going well Mic. You were in fine form there!
A serious point though: style and presentation should never become a substitute for ideas and commitment. Being able to remain calm and maintaining one’s voice at an even volume, while admirable in some situations (the medical profession?), is an oft-abused skill used by charlatans (Jacob Rees-Mogg being an excellent example), to wrap offensive ideas and opinions in a veneer of respectability and reason. So keep rocking the hoodie and being passionate!
I haven’t read the book (I will order it from the local library today), but the concept of a ‘Russell group woke elite’ is an intriguing idea. As someone who attended a Russell group university and currently lectures in the HE sector, I have several issues with this hypothesis - the primary one being that U.K. universities are some of the most neoliberal institutions in the world in terms of their organisation, structure and, most importantly, the motivation of their senior leaders. Nearly all decision making is governed by the bottom line; revenue trumps all other considerations. Also, the demographic of many Russell group universities is heavily weighted towards international students who bring in more revenue than their home-based equivalents. For many students (but clearly not all), gaining a degree has become a financial transaction rather than an academic endeavour. Hence the rampant grade inflation of recent years, which absolutely suits the agenda of the universities: if the majority of people graduate with a first or upper-second class degree, academic differentiation becomes more difficult. The solution - coerce students to enrol for Masters programmes for another £10k or so.
This hardly sounds like fertile ground for a woke elite to flourish in......
I read Goodwin’s book. This is what I thought having spent 20 years offshore (1997-2017.) His argument that those who voted Brexit felt left behind absolutely resonated with what I knew and know about the part of the U.K. where I loved and returned to. His argument that a majority don’t know who to vote for rings true too. My life long Labour voter wide says so as do my Muslim family. I get all that.
Where he lost me was in a failure to address the widening economic inequalities created post 2008 and which mirror what I saw while living in the US. His flaccid attempt in your discussion to say ‘of course but...’ was a poor way to waft away the point, and especially for an academic with his position.
The point about appearance/dress is more important than you might think. Back in the day, I deliberately dressed unconventionally when meeting powerful CEOs. I knew my stuff and had very much a fuck you attitude but there was always a sense that I wasn’t taken as seriously as was evident to observers who are blind to these things. Things changed dramatically when I donned the ‘sincere blue suit.’ You/I might hate it but conforming to certain conventions works at the most crucial times. #justsaying.