Buddy sent me this link. I’m a professional social scientist who works in this area. There’s a lot, but I’m gonna focus on two things.

1. Donald Trump, 2) Slanted elections

1. Donald Trump. He has been the de-facto party leader since his nomination for the presidency in 2016. He has repeatedly endorsed and encouraged violence among his supporters, culminating with the January 6 Capitol Attack. And he hasn’t stopped. (The opinions and beliefs of leadership trickle down to shape the beliefs of their supporters–see an example here. Despite many of their misgivings, one of three things happened to Trump’s GOP opponents: -A) They voluntarily left elected office (Bob Corker) -B) They were punished for criticizing him (Liz Cheney), or -C) They fell in-line (Ted Cruz). Those who left the GOP or were forced out have been replaced by more extreme leaders yet–folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Few left in the GOP openly challenge Trump because they’ve seen what happens to those who do. So there’s no one of much influence within the GOP capable of leading a credible anti-Trump charge.
2. The GOP is better shielded from the electoral consequences of extremism than Democrats. Owing to aggressive partisan gerrymandering after Republicans swept statehouses in 2010, MANY state and U.S. House districts were drawn to maximize the number of uncompetitive elections that would all but ensure Republican majorities. You see this in many states that are very competitive at the state level like North Carolina and Wisconsin, but Republicans have locked up enough statehouse seats to retain control of legislatures, even when most of the state’s vote went to Democrats. Uncompetitive elections mean that incompetent, corrupt, and extreme candidates who alienate most voters can still defeat moderate consensus-builders. What happens is Democrats have to run candidates with exceptional cross-appeal (i.e., moderate consensus-builders) if they want even slim electoral wins. Meanwhile, Republicans can hold onto those majorities without having to moderate.

America has always rejected fanaticism

lol. Let’s see: fought a war to keep slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, Scientology, Kenneth Copeland, the Bakkers, the Mormons, National rifle association, survival preppers — seems to me that the opposite is true.

You can go back as far as you want but I think the current situation is because they got routed in the 2008 election and decided that openly courting the worst people in society was their only option. There’s always been racists and conspiracy theorists in America — see The John Birch Society, for one of many examples — but parties didn’t openly court them, at least without plausible deniability. Maybe a wink and a nod but not open courtship.

So, after 2008, Republicans started saying the quiet parts out loud because they were desperate. They — especially Mitch McConnell, in my opinion — thought they could control the beast they unleashed but, it turns out, that isn’t how unleashing beasts works. It started with the Tea Party and pretty quickly escalated into a situation where “moderate Republican” became an oxymoron. And then Trump came along yelling the formerly quiet parts and that was that.

I think it’s because they’re cowards. They have been scared into believing that the boogeyman exists, and brainwashed into believing that it’s everyone that disagrees with them.

And when those doing the brainwashing promises to be the hero that will slay the boogeyman- well, I’d image the cowards will do just about anything to make that happen.

No one likes a boogeyman. Especially cowards that believe in them.

It’s also worth mentioning that Russia and China have been caught manipulating online conversations, spreading misinformation, etc. The USA does it too, and probably a lot of countries. One of the most effective ways to gain geopolitical ground is to spread political division within your rival.

Internet makes that easy, especially when profits line up. Creating information bubbles and ragebait pays the bills.

It helps them ignore actually doing good things for their constituents. Identity politics is what fascists use to work voters into a frenzy to manipulate them into voting for them in order to sneak extreme corporatism into office.

We have never rejected fanaticism.

The revolution was built on fanatical ideas and ideals of American exceptionalism and where was propaganda to support that.

The civil was started primarily because the wealthy didn’t want to give up free labor (slaves) but a lot of individuals supported it because they felt the big scary northern government was attacking their homes and they had to defend them and their way of life (still, slavery,).

Pretty much every war is sold based on fanaticism. The Spanish American war was wholesale created by yellow journalism. The world wars were a bit different because America was very isolationist then and it needed a push.

Overall America isn’t an exception here. Most humans need to be fanatical to really do big things like war or revolution.

This is really long and for that I apologize. I think it really goes back to the whole of United States history. I’m going to focus mostly on news media and major political periods, starting with Nixon and the 1970s. Some stuff I am going to have to only mention in passing because it would require its own essay lol. I’ll try to keep it general.

The TLDR is the radicalization was slow and occurred over decades. They’ve been lied to and misled by their preferred news organizations for years at this point. They do not realize they have been radicalized. It all goes back to their media and the republican establishment trying to control the narrative.

The long story? I’ve heard it started with Nixon’s impeachment, and I think I agree. Republicans realized they needed news organizations to be in their camp to prevent something like Watergate from happening again. So, the genesis of right-wing news organizations really lies in the 1970s.

Then, you have Reagan’s decisive victory in 1980 and (especially) 1984. I am not a big fan of Reagan, but his charisma significantly grew the republican base. Personally, I think many of the problems with today’s government and economy have their origins in his presidency, but his popularity at the time is not deniable; he won 49 of 50 states in 1984 which is unthinkable today. As untrustworthy as the Reagan Administration was, he had the trust of most Americans.

Following that, you have the rise of republican Newt Gingrich in the 1990s during Bill Clinton’s presidency. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich made it republican policy to not compromise with democrats. To this day, that is still republican policy towards democrats.

So, even prior to the 2000 election, the foundation for partisanship was laid. Compromise had become a dirty word. But the critical moment was, in my opinion, Bush vs Gore, where the Supreme Court basically handed Bush Jr. the Presidency despite problems with the vote in Florida. Not coincidentally, that is also the year the democrats became “blue” and the republicans became “red”; prior to that election, they would swap back and forth each election cycle.

The 2000 election cycle ended in a way that was extremely divisive, and people ended up watching the news that most closely matched their point of view. From here, I would argue, is really the point in time where the news organizations started to seriously diverge from each other.

It started subtly. Fox News, for example, initially just had a slight conservative bent, so conservative’s preferred to watch it. Also, being cable television it (and I should also say that the majority of modern news media sadly follows this rule as well) was dependent on ad revenue and therefore had an incentive to increase viewership and engagement. This, combined with the fact that the republican establishment wanted to control the narrative, pushed Fox News (and others) in an even more conservative direction; with each passing election cycle, they presented the news ever more partisanly. Like an anglerfish’s lure, they pulled their audience with them.

The partisanship became even worse after Obama was elected in 2008. While many conservatives did not care Obama was a black man, many did and became determined to unseat him. It is difficult for me to say exactly how much a role Obama’s race played in the rise of the Tea Party, but it was definitely a factor. Their influence over the republican party began to grow and was immediately felt in the 2010 midterms. That being said, I argue that Mitt Romney getting the republican nomination in 2012 was the republican establishment suppressing the Tea Party’s influence in favor of a more polished, mellowed-down candidate that they felt was actually electable.

But as history would prove, that did not work out for them. Personally, I doubt any candidate the republicans fielded could have defeated Obama (who quite frankly was a superstar candidate).

I think it was after 2012 when many republicans and conservatives began to lose faith in the sort of “compassionate conservativism” that Bush or Romney promoted. Even by then, “Reagan conservatism” was becoming a distant memory and many young conservatives were not alive to see his presidency. An ideological power vacuum had opened up, and ultimately would be filled by Trump.

But back to conservative news media. This narrative would not be complete if I did not address media figures such as Glenn Beck. While there were others like him, he is the one that sticks out. It’s difficult to articulate the damage Glenn Beck has done. To my knowledge, he was the first, mainstream talk show host to actually give a platform to the alt-right, and many conspiracy theories he started are still a problem today. He took conservative’s distrust of government, validated it, and presented distortions to make them think the democrats were secretly communists that were hellbent on bringing about the downfall of the United States.

His show is the perfect example for a mainstream, Fox News talk show host that also basically taught people how to justify their own conspiracy theories. He pretty much walked everyone through his “thought process” on every show. He also did it in a way that radicalized people who originally were just disgruntled with, or distrusting of, government. I remember one time he even went so far as to have a purported “insider” come on the show as a black silhouette with a fake deep voice to “confirm” everything Beck was saying about Obama and the “Liberal Agenda.” How people fell for that is beyond me, but they did. Eventually, he got so out of control Fox News fired him. But the damage was done.

So, with Romney’s failure in 2012, the “moderate” republican establishment was rudderless and the rise of Tea Party continued. They basically became even more mainstream. Meanwhile, as Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnel continued and perfected Gingrich’s “obstruct and do not compromise,” and Fox News was a decidedly conservative platform. The stage was set for Donald Trump.

As far as republicans go, Trump is pretty much the opposite of Romney. Romney is polite, polished and presentable, whereas Trump is vulgar and derisive. Many conservatives had become convinced they must “save America from the socialists” and Trump was their strongman. It also did not help that the conservative media machine spent decades trashing Hillary Clinton, who was the democratic nominee. Conservative’s had their hated enemy, and their unlikely strongman hero.

The worst part of this narrative? Trump actually won. The mean, vulgar, derisive candidate won, and proved to many conservatives that his way was the only way they could win. Trump had beaten the republican establishment into submission and emboldened all the worst parts of America. Trump validated all their conspiracy theories and won. Their radicalization was complete.

Of course, there is a lot I am leaving out of this narrative such as the obvious racist and fascist undercurrents that have existed in the republican party ever since Nixon’s “Southern Strategy.” For more context, the democrats more-or-less ejected the racist “Dixiecrats” (southern white racist democrats) from the party with President Lindon B Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act. Nixon made it his mission to pick them up (and he did, turning the US southern states into republican strongholds). It also leaves out the sexist undertones that come with conservative traditionalism. There is also an entire religious component and the economic decline of rural America. Each of these would require its own essay lol.

But basically, the radicalization was slow and occurred over decades and now we are seeing the result.

Congress adopted In God We Trust over E Pluribus Unum and added Under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50’s in response to the Red Scare and America has been pretty fanatical about it since then.

The why is kind of hard to pin point and I would probably say someone with a higher degree in poli sci could answer better.

However, I just wanted to point out that they don’t see it as fanatical. They truly believe the left to be evil and doing demonic rituals. I’m almost willing to say they have delusional disorder or symptoms of light psychosis. Shits wack

I’d suspect it’s reaction to large cultural shifts in the last couple of decades - including gay and trans rights, George Floyd and increased racial integration in media, me too, etc. For whatever reason, perhaps loss aversion, many people tend to react angrily and violently to change and the threat of change. Perhaps it’s analogous to how communist movements in the early 20th century led to fascist movements a decade or two later.

I also don’t think it’s the US only, so you can’t put it all on Trump. I’d argue Trump and similar figures around the world are the result of the above counter-reaction.

Because Conservativism is not an ideology. It’s narcissism dressed in a stoic costume. Conservatives believe themselves to be righteous, so they support policies and legislation that benefit themselves. They gain followers by promoting a sense of belonging so they can defend the self and attack the other. There is no lie to brazen, no hypocrisy too obvious, no depth too low for a conservative seeking power, because they are justified by their identity. If the conservative is good, then anything the conservative does or says is good while they are doing it or saying it.

When they can no longer hold power through politics, they always fall back on fascism and bigotry.

Because they reject facts, logic, and reason at every opportunity. When you’ve kicked those things to the curb, all that’s left is fanaticism and blind faith. Plus, fanaticism allows you to be an inconsistent, unpredictable hypocrite without consequence. You can dictate rules without being bound by them. It’s the juvenile, irresponsible definition of “freedom”.

deleted by creator

Because they are servile imbeciles by their very nature. They are unwilling to think, synthesize, and confront their own limitations.