Ask Lemmy

America has always rejected fanaticism

Right... the country that literally perfected white supremacism has "always rejected fanaticism" - I guess in your book rejecting white supremacism counts as fanaticism, then?

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.

Radicals radicalize radicals.

Only stable conditions, equaliberiam or entropy deradicalize.

Social was a flash point. Large parts of society interacted for the first time. Echo chambers formed, energy level increase, radical leave the bubbles and new groups militerize in defense.

It made less sense to people out of the loop though. Nazis, antifa, police are raciest, lgbtq, Christian nationalism, socialism, etc. All of these ideas were subcultures that grew bubble online cause they could (much like the Arab spring), and the radicals that formed and took action made big moves from everyone else's ignorance.

The majority didn't have the means, and frankly still don't, to hold the concepts or ideas as unique groups so instead they mapped onto the two party system warts and all. Because "right wing" was Republican the opposing side told everyone "right wing" is Republican. So Republican had to either disavow or defend them, but when these groups wanted to act politically they had almost no choice but to fit in predefined parties.

Its been mostly good, that's the crazy thing, gay rights, trans rights, police reforms, the DoJ has how many anti trust cases going on now?, how unions are forming?, etc

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.

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.

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”.

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

No. The United States government was designed to be ruled by white land owning men. An aristocracy. The only difference from an outright monarchy is that the "King" is to be elected by white land owning men, the "King" or any of his barons or earls can't have you outright killed on a whim (at least, legally,) and there is no state religion that can have you killed on a whim for a being a "heretic."

The current aristocracy is tired of these limitations interfering with their greed and need for control, so they want to set up a Russian style oligarchy with a puppet "King" that they control. And it appears they've already won. The fascists control SCOTUS, both The House and The Senate. Trump will never be prosecuted for insurrection, and what we know as "American Democracy" will be dismantled. Expect to see the return of debt slavery, introduction of pro religious discrimination laws, imprisonment of gays/transpeople, reintroduction of racial miscegenation laws, abolisment of Social Security and Medicare in favor of some 401k invesment scam, and every other hateful form of fuckery for a profit you can imagine.

Leave now, if you can.

I would argue the difference between republicans and conservatives is the fanaticism. Conservatism is believing that we want to do the most good things we can afford, but we have to be conservative in our estimates of what we can afford. That is the only belief inherent to being conservative. I would likewise define the core belief of Liberalism that we have to take care of many basic needs, and figure out how to pay for it, even if it creates hardship. I greatly respect that point of view, and feel the best answer for society lies somewhere between the two.

Republicanism doesn’t care about conservatism any more; I vote for middle of the road Democrats as a conservative. The abortion/gun/god crap is ridiculous.

American values aren't important to them. They want different things. A strong leader, be heard, simple truths and/or some people below them to hate and pick on.

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.

The fringe has been growing with online organizing since the 1990s. You happened to have a strongman politician who sensed that there was a large disenfranchised group of radicals/conspiracy people, who was able to capitalize on them before anyone else.

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.

They really started going insane in the 90s with the whole "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster" thing, and it accelerated with the completely ignorant "Tea Party" movement in the 2010s.

What we're seeing now is just the logical conclusion of that insanity.

America has always rejected fanaticism

The John Birch Society says hi.

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.

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.

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

Much of the world is moving in that direction. The many crises of recent years and an uncertain future outlook for humanity are fertile ground for extremists promising easy solutions and "going back to the good old days".