Understanding Sullivan’s Law: The "Invisible Drift" of Institutions
深入解析「薩利文定律」：機構背後的「隱形左傾」
In recent political discourse, former British Prime Minister Liz Truss has frequently invoked Sullivan’s Law to explain why conservative governments often struggle to implement their agendas. This sociological observation provides a framework for understanding how powerful institutions—from central banks to global NGOs—seem to drift toward "progressive" or "left-wing" ideologies over time, regardless of who is in power.
在近期的政治討論中，前英國首相**卓慧思（Liz Truss）經常引用「薩利文定律」（Sullivan's Law）**來解釋為什麼保守派政府在推行政策時往往阻礙重重。這一社會學觀察提供了一個框架，讓我們理解為什麼從中央銀行到全球非政府組織（NGO）等強大機構，無論誰在執政，似乎都會隨著時間推移而傾向於「進步主義」或「左翼」意識形態。
What is Sullivan’s Law? | 什麼是薩利文定律？
The law was coined by John O’Sullivan, a British conservative commentator and former speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher. The principle states:
"All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."
這條定律是由英國保守派評論家、曾任戴卓爾夫人撰稿人的**約翰·奧薩利文（John O’Sullivan）**所提出。其核心原則是：
「任何不具備明確右翼傾向的組織，隨著時間推移，最終都會變成左翼。」
Why Does This Happen? | 為什麼會發生這種現象？
According to O'Sullivan and supporters of this theory like Liz Truss, several factors drive this institutional drift:
Selection Bias in Recruitment: People drawn to roles in the public sector, academia, and NGOs often hold more communal or progressive values. Over decades, this creates a "consensus swarm" or "The Blob."
The Path of Least Resistance: Left-wing activists are often more focused on capturing institutional culture. For a non-aligned administrator, adopting "progressive" policies (like Net Zero or EDI initiatives) is often seen as the safer, more socially acceptable path to avoid conflict.
Institutional Capture: Once a critical mass of staff holds a specific worldview, the institution begins to define "neutrality" based on that worldview. Anything outside of it is labeled "extreme."
根據奧薩利文及卓慧思等支持者的說法，這種機構偏移由以下幾個因素驅動：
招聘中的選擇性偏差： 傾向於進入公共部門、學術界和非政府組織工作的人，通常持有較強的集體主義或進步主義價值觀。幾十年下來，這形成了一種「共識蜂群」或被稱為「大堆頭（The Blob）」的現象。
阻力最小的路徑： 左翼活動家通常更致力於佔領機構文化。對於一個中立的管理者來說，採納「進步主義」政策（如淨零排放或多元平等共融 EDI 倡議）通常被視為避免衝突、更安全且社會接受度更高的選擇。
機構俘虜： 一旦職員中持有特定世界觀的人數達到臨界點，該機構就會開始根據該世界觀來定義「中立」。任何在此框架之外的觀點都會被貼上「極端」的標籤。
Liz Truss and the "British Deep State" | 卓慧思與「英國深層政府」
Liz Truss argues that during her brief 2022 premiership, she wasn't just fighting political opponents, but an entrenched technocracy governed by Sullivan’s Law. She points to several key examples:
The Bank of England & HM Treasury: She believes these institutions are wedded to Keynesian economics (high spending/borrowing) and were hostile to her supply-side tax cuts.
Net Zero & Climate Orthodoxy: Organizations like the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) prioritize environmental targets over raw economic growth, treating Net Zero as an unquestionable moral imperative rather than a policy choice.
Identity Politics: The spread of "woke" ideology within the civil service, where institutional energy is spent on identity-based social engineering rather than administrative efficiency.
卓慧思主張，在她 2022 年短暫的首相任期內，她不僅是在與政治對手鬥爭，更是在與受薩利文定律支配的根深蒂固的技術官僚體系作戰。她舉出了幾個關鍵例子：
英格蘭銀行與財政部： 她認為這些機構沉迷於凱恩斯主義經濟學（高支出/高借貸），並對她的供給側減稅政策抱持敵意。
淨零排放與氣候正統： 像**預算責任辦公室（OBR）**這樣的組織，將環境目標置於純粹的經濟增長之上，將「淨零」視為不容置疑的道德命令，而非一種政策選擇。
身分政治： 「覺醒（Woke）」意識形態在公務員體系中的傳播，導致機構精力被耗費在基於身分的社會工程上，而非行政效率。
The Counter-Strategy | 應對策略
Truss and her allies argue that to fix the economy, a government cannot simply win an election; it must dismantle the "House of Blair"—the legal and institutional framework left behind by the left. They suggest moving toward an American-style system of political appointments, ensuring that the people running the "Deep State" actually share the democratic mandate of the elected government.
卓慧思及其盟友認為，要挽救經濟，政府不能僅僅贏得選舉，還必須拆解「布萊爾之屋」——即左翼留下的法律和機構框架。他們建議轉向美國式的**「政治任命制」**，確保管理「深層政府」的人員真正認同民選政府的民主授權。
發表文章
