"Well, then, you're a Republican"
The dumbest rhetorical cudgel ever
Over the past decade, I’ve seen some version of the following exchange happen more times than I can count. Someone on the far left argues for a position that is far out of the mainstream. Someone who is more moderate (but still on the left, all things considered) responds by criticizing the radical idea and suggesting something much more moderate and sensible. To which the person on the left replies “If you think that, you’re a Republican.”
This exchange is repeated so often because it frequently seems to have its desired effect. Lots of people are self-consciously “on the left.” Whatever it means to be on the left, that’s where they are, and they take any accusation that they’re not on the left as a grave insult. “No, I’m not a Republican, I’d never support the Republicans!” “Well, then, get on side.” Checkmate.
This exchange has always annoyed me because of the way it appeals to people who have their identity tied up with being on a specific political team. I’m not a Republican - I have never voted for the Republicans and don’t anticipate doing so any time soon - but if someone were to call me a Republican, I wouldn’t get indignant. I’d be amused. What a silly thing to say! I can’t imagine a world where the “Well then you’re a Republican” gambit works on me. I’m always vaguely incredulous that it works on anyone, and a little embarrassed for the people it does work on). Don’t you have any self-respect?
In the wake of Harris’s loss to Trump, however, I’m seeing a second and perhaps more important way that this is an incredibly dumb line. Ronald Reagan said that if you agree with him 60% of the time, you’re a Republican. I don’t know if that’s so, but that’s a good marketing line. “If you support what I support, then you’re on my team and you should vote for me.” Makes sense!
So consider some popular, moderate policy. “If you support that policy, then you’re a Republican” is Reagan’s line. It’s a thing you’d expect Republicans to say to encourage people to vote Republican, because it’s a sensible and persuasive marketing message for the Republicans. Yet for years, that’s exactly what Democrats have been saying to people on the center-left. They’ve been saying it because it works on spineless partisans who can’t think about political issues in any other terms than being on the right team.
But for people who have a bit of self-respect and capacity for independent thought, “People who think like you do are Republicans” is the kind of thing that might convince them to actually support Republicans. I’m not saying that’s why Harris lost. But it’s something for Democrats to consider as they look for a way out of the wilderness.
I'm old enough to remember when "well, then, you're a Democrat" was the rhetorical trick of choice, most commonly used when asking a person about their opinion about the abortion issue. Why anyone thought this strategy would work better the other way around, I have no idea.
I think this mentality where you need permission to call yourself a real leftist/progressive is something that emerged when the left-consensus among cool people was stronger. When you're a cool leftie in a cool leftie social circle, being able to exclude someone for not being pure enough is power - at least there, locally. For most people that aren't preoccupied with real severe problems with obvious connections to politics, that local social power is so juicy and delicious that it psychologically overshadows how strategically counterproductive it is for any wider political movement. And when you're deep in an echo chamber the idea that you should have to convince someone can seem sort of alien. Everyone already wants to think what I think (and some embarrassingly fail to live up to it). People who aren't even trying must be evil, irredeemable, bad faith actors that can never be changed anyway.
Sometimes I feel like this particular social dynamic is what broke the online left. A small subgroup of self-centred people treating politics like high-school took over. Choosing that personal clout over actually expanding the political movement you're supposedly a paragon of, at this time, it's a mix of naive and shitty. I think (and hope) it's bound to disappear when the actual stakes become more clear for people. Maybe these people will play up how naive they once were, but I don't think you can escape the shittiness of how it's basically driven by a sort of status-greed.