Worse than Identity Politics: Linkage Politics

It seems to me that a lot of what is being called “identity politics,” might actually be something else, that I think of as “linkage politics,” or even more specifically, “FALSE linkage politics.”

 I believe I see this as an explanation for the many (what we used to call) "strange bedfellows" alliances we see.

Back in my youth, there were weird attempts to get the anti-war people to join forces with the communists, for example. The only things that the two groups had in common, was opposition to the Vietnam war, and it certainly was bad for the peace movement to include the pro-dictatorship communists, since they were all about personal freedom for everyone.

Nowadays, we see false linkage political alliances that are just as bad or worse. Among the older and more obvious false linkages, are the religious conservatives, and the so-called Free Market business people. The business people are inherently amoral, while the religious people are very moral, but they find a common “enemy,” and literally form an “unholy alliance.”

Even more sinister to me, are the people who KNOW that their goals and views are commonly seen as “bad,” (such as racists), so they imply unspoken “linkages” with other peoples concerns, in order to form an alliance which they can scoot along just behind, quietly advancing their “bad” agenda while all the focus is on the “official” concern. Part of the modern anti-abortion movement involves exactly that.

Finally, we have what I like to call “anti” movements of various kinds, which focus entirely on establishing blind support to prevent whoever they are “anti” about, from being happy in any way. They also play on often unspoken “linkages,” in order to gather allies, but are worse, because they are so focused on being “anti,” that they will quite literally destroy their own country, if that helps to make the people they oppose, have a bad time. A most recent example of this, is the movement to praise Putin and Russia, for invading other countries, manipulating the news here, in order to undermine the effectiveness of the American government overall, and so on. It is genuinely traitorous to actively support a foreign power that is determined to thwart the best interests of your own country, but we see some Republicans and their allies doing exactly that, simply because they reeeeely hate Obama and or the Democrats.

I’m posting this, to commend others to watch out for people trying to “play you” for their own purposes, by implying that there are “linkages” between what they want, and what you want, which, if you look closely, are complete balderdash.

Identity politics generally refers to focusing on race and sex. You didn’t demonstrate how this would be a false linkage, e.g. Minorities and white liberals shouldn’t be a coalition, because X and Y.

The most cliche false linkage is lower classes identifying with the business elite.

The only part I think I disagree with was that “anti-” movements would “literally destroy their own country.” I’m pretty sure that, for instance, both pro-life and pro-choice groups (both of whom are, functionally, “anti-” movements) would stop and give up long before the safety of the country was on the line.

(e.g. if you could prove beyond doubt that abortion caused a huge increase in the crime rate – or the reverse, that is caused a huge drop in the crime rate – the respective movements would lose a lot of adherents. Obviously, there would first be a period of denial…)

That said, yes, there are some linkages I don’t like. As a supporter of Israel, I’m sorry that pro-Israel support, today, in the U.S., has become a right-wing thing. I remember the older days when it was the left that mostly supported Israel.

There were linkages I liked! I miss the old black/Jewish civil rights alliance, which seems to have fractured.

And, yeah, the new right-wing/Russia linkage is just weird. The same people who shrieked against communist aggression are almost celebrating Russian aggression. They put us into a war to defend South Viet Nam…but Ukraine can go to blazes and they don’t care.

This is called ‘building a coalition’ and has been part of politics since the year dot.

Yeah…but those are voluntary linkages. There’s the other kind, such as accusing the civil rights movement, and MLK Jr. to communism. It’s more “smearage” than “linkage,” but it’s still a big part of the picture.

Russia is not a communist country in any way, shape or form, although Russian communists are probably more comfortable with Putin’s regime than with the liberals. You can favour Russian actions in Vietnam and in the Ukraine, oppose both of them, or support one while opposing the other.

There’s also the consideration that today’s conservatives are largely not the same people as conservatives in the 1980s.

As for abortion, why do you think people would change their mind based on the crime rate? Both pro choice and pro life side thing that there are absolute unchalleangeable moral principles at stake (innocent human life in one case, personal freedom in the other) and those aren’t the kind of things you easily sacrifice to consequentialist considerations.

This.

I am having a very ***hard ***time envisioning pro-choice feminists shrugging and saying, “OK , we cave in, guess we’ll agree to women being forced to incubate fetuses in their uteri against their will since it’s what’s best for the country.” Ditto for the religious fundamentalists on the opposite side: Shrug “OK, we’ll go along with the murder of the unborn, since it’s in the country’s best interests.”

Some people claim there are absolute unchallengable moral principles.

Others, for reasons of pragmatism, do not. For example, some on the pro-life side are willing to accept abortion for cases incest and rape. Some also would permit abortion in cases of severe threats to the pregnant woman’s health. Both of these undermine the “absolute” principle, but they allow it, in the first case because it improves the demographics, and in the second case because they are willing to balance one belief against another.

So, yes, many would be swayed if a concrete link to significant changes in the crime rate could be demonstrated. And many would not.

I believe (and can’t think of any possible way to prove it) that the results would be truly significant in a political way, swaying the issue a few critical percentage points to one side or the other.

ETA: Velocity: There are many, many people who are somewhere in the middle, and are open to new arguments one way or the other. No, the hardliners wouldn’t be swayed, but there are millions who are not hardliners.

I did not intend to declare all identity politics to be false. Rather, to point out that in many cases, people are falsely claiming that what is going on IS pure “identity politics,” when it is not.

Many times, when someone seeks to get you to IGNORE something from someone else, on the grounds that they are playing identity politics, what they are really doing, is using linkage politics, to create an ally by trickery.

First, I am not claiming the phenomenon is new. I am pointing out that is is being commonly ignored now, and that there are more FALSE linkage-based coalitions being built now than usual.

Second, I hope you are not implying that because people have been deceiving each other and playing tricks for a very long time, that it should be accepted or ignored.

My goal with this, is for people to watch out for false linkages, so that more of what we do politically, can be for the reasons we actually THINK we are acting.

IMO an interesting aspect of “linkage”

So, some KKK people lurv the fuck outa Trump. They get some social media traction and all of a sudden T Rump supports the KKK as viewed by the “other side”.

Or Hillary gives a speech…and behind her is the father of the Orlando “attacks”…a fucking asshole IMO that came just this side of defending his sons actions…

Neither Trump or Hillary (at least in theory for the purposes of this discussion) would “accept” such “endorsements”. At worst, because they both are political assholes…but at best because they just don’t like that shit.

But, in this media/linkage dominated world…they get “linked” to to because some random assholes did the “linking” themselves.

I’m not sure who this is addressed to. If it is to me, then my response is, that the whole point of the false linkage game, is NOT to try to get the target group to CHANGE their goals. The point is, to get the same knee-jerk support for the falsely linked goals, that the target group has for their original ones.

Thus, there have been (successful) efforts to claim that whoever supports social safety net programs, will ipso facto, support abortion, as one of the social safety net services. And since Roe v Wade made it nearly impossible to directly change abortion law, the manipulators suggested that anti-abortionists simply take up anti-social safety nets, as a way to indirectly prevent all those poor people from being able to afford abortions.

That allowed them to create a false linkage with the racists as well, by (often falsely) claiming that social safety nets are primarily directed at groups that the racists despise. Therefore racists should oppose the same financial security that they logically should want for themselves, so that they could prevent the race that they hate, from getting any “freebies.”

Like blue collar trades and the oppressed of the week? That doesn’t seem like a natural alliance if pork is removed.