Ask Lemmy

26707 readers

1411 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why are Republicans/Conservatives embracing fanaticalism these days? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

America has always rejected fanaticism, especially since WWII. We are supposed to be E pluribus unum -- out of many, ONE. Now, the right wants America to be E unum pluribus -- out of ONE, many.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

Donald Trump, 2) Slanted elections

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.
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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

first-past-the-post voting artificially limits the number of viable political parties. This reduces the competition in the electoral system, reducing the quality of the representation across the political spectrum.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

This answers the question of why republican politicians are behaving the way they are, but not the republican voters.

Presumably none of these people would have any power were they not voted in, even with gerrymandering.

Can you give another answer focusing on the average republican voter as well?