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.
During WWII the United States government rounded up tens of thousands of people, including many US citizens, and put them in internment camps because they looked sort of similar to the people who bombed pearl harbor. Why? Because fear is a powerful drug and when people are afraid, logic tends to go out the window, if there was any logic to begin with. If you pay attention to conservative rhetoric, you’ll notice that much of it is intended to stoke fear, while inserting themselves as the solution. They do it because it works.
Way out in the Arkansas Delta, in a soybean field 50 miles from anywhere, there is a memorial where one of these internment camps stood. If you aren’t looking for it, you’d probably drive right by it unnoticed. All around the camp there are these little voice boxes that you push a button on and it explains what you’re looking at. The voice providing the narration is none other than George Takei who was held there with his family as a child. Spend a little time at a place like this and it will quickly disabuse you of the notion that America has always rejected fanaticism.
There was also the very real fear of spies during WWII. Not that at all excuses interment camps.
The rejection of fanaticism went out the door along with E Pluribus Unum in the 50’s when the Christian nationalists forced their religion on the national motto. Then over the next decade black people were lynched and attacked with fire hoses when they were asking for basic rights.
They also started conversion camps where they emotionally and sometimes physically and secually abuse minors in conversion camps to attempt to change sexual orientation.
I believe it was Nixon who helped foem fox News to pull the Republicans further right and we’ve been seeing the consequences of that.
Basically the fanaticism has always been there, but with the internet and social media, it’s easier for them to make their voice heard.
I think it’s important to question the idea that the US has “always rejected fanaticism”. Sure, our state doesn’t want to be viewed that way. I just think that looking at our history shows a lot of fanatic shit, from the way settlers treated the native population, to all of our conflicts in the 1900’s to now.
Mention the concept of a daily stand-up pledge of allegiance in schools in any other democracy and get laughed at.
Hell, in the inter-war period, mainstream America was even generally pretty comfortable with…uh…if not actual fascism, at least things that looked and sounded a lot like fascism.
Fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt. They’re afraid.
Yep this. They are afraid that their way of life is being threatened… Just like the other fanatics There are religious fanatics, sporta fanatics, Independent fanatics prepping for the aliens to come and kill them, etc. Mobs are dangerous no matter the flag they wave.
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.
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?
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.
They love money, are afraid of losing a single cent of it, and want to control the government so they have to pay as little taxes as possible. That’s it. Everything else, the culture war stuff, is just to get the stupid poors to vote against their self interest.
Climate change is real. We either do nothing and everything changes, or we change our way of living to save humanity. Either way, change is coming.
There’s nothing to conserve. Conservatism doesn’t have a ground in facts & reality, if it ever had. Hence conservatism now fights fanatically for its own survival, and capitalism survival, at the
behestcost of all us, the progress that humanity has achieved so far, and the planet that we all share.FYI, I’m pretty sure “at the behest of” means “as requested by”, but it looks like you meant something more like “to the detriment of” or “at the cost of”
You are right, thanks! Edited
Didn’t you shoot university students for protesting the Vietnam war?
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.
I think it’s the conservative movements final stand to be selfish, retrograde minded and cruel. The majority of people now believe in empathy and doing the right thing but those who don’t have doubled down on their ways.
My 2c anyway!
Because it’s the only path left they have to attain power. They cannot win on merit, debate, ideas, track record, etc… it’s been like that for a while but now they are getting more and more desperate
Why don’t you ask a conservative or a republican?
Because they’ve also got the lie-a-beetus.
So your philosophy has the effect of cutting communication between you and about 50% of your countrymen? Doesn’t that make you feel like you’re being used?
Immigration. In 20 years Texas has changed from 70% white Americans to 50%. In 30 years all of America has changed from 80% to 60%.
Is that just down to immigration though? To me it seems that it is in part also because of the common understanding of what “being white” means: racial descriptions often still come down to a sort of visual one-drop-rule. If somebody looks even a bit off-white, they are seen as black. Common example here would be Obama, who is mixed race, but universally seen as a black man, even though thats just half the truth. With such an understanding of what it means to be black or white, a lowering percentage of white people is inevitable, even without immigration.
That’s honestly a good point. Anti immigration rhetoric is wildy different across the US in part from this. Where some Hispanics are extremely raciest reasons for being anti immigration with the belief that they are “white” but the Midwest or southern definitions of whiteness excludes them.
Fash gonna fash, that’s why we gotta always be ready to bash bash bash.
Work towards peace. Prepare for the inevitable.
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.
