There Are No Others

“Any given movement's political enemies are all alike; every political ally is is an ally in its own way.”

This inversion of the concept that is sometimes called the "Anna Karenina Principle" often confuses people in the context of American politics, but it really has a simple origin, the concept that: "One is either with us, or against us." Take that, and apply labels to "Us" and "Not us," and that's really all you need. For people who disagree with this viewpoint, it's the root of false equivalence. But in a lot of ways, the charge of false equivalence is little more than a criticism that a difference between two things that is important to the critic is unimportant to the criticized.

For instance, I am acquainted with someone who styles herself a Progressive. The primary thing that matters to her about other people's politics is whether or not they fit within her definition of Progressive. If they do, she will acknowledge those items that they may differ on. Everyone else, like myself, is simply "a Republican." And this is all that then matters about them. And yes, this includes most Democrats. As far as she is concerned, it's all lies; people hiding their true political motives out of malice or having been mislead. Likewise, I have a Republican friend who attaches the label "Socialist" to pretty much any and everyone who disagrees with him on most policy points. In both cases, I've given up attempting to explain to them that I am not what they describe me as. There was nothing to be gained by it.

It's often about options. The more selective someone feels that they can be, the more freedom they have to make questions into a binary. Consider another example, an employer looking to hire someone. An employer who has applicants for an open role lined up around the block has more leeway to treat everyone with any criminal record as equally unsuitable than one who goes begging for workers. With a number of applicants to chose from, an employer is free to dump everyone with a record into one bucket and forget about them. then carefully consider the differences between the rest to determine who they feel is the best person for the job. With only a few applicants, that freedom is not there.

And so it goes with politics. People who understand themselves to be part of a large group believe that they have enough allies that they don't need to make room for others except on their own terms. And while groups might seem fringe to people outside of them, to people inside of them, they often seem expansive enough to win elections; or righteous enough not to care. And so why bother understanding the ways that other people see themselves, when there's no reason to actively appeal to them?

The mixing of ethics/morality and politics that gives rise to this sort of thinking is, of course, not limited to the United States. I suspect that it happens around the world. But, as it says on the tin, I'm an American, and so these are the politics that I can be said to have first-hand experience with. Here in the United States, as the tone-setting activists of the two primary political parties become more and more convinced that the other side's policies are actively bad for the nation, there is less and less room for third parties; anyone who isn't fighting for the right side is combatant for the wrong one.