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

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.

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.

Fanaticism is overcompensation for doubt. They’re afraid.

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.

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?

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

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!

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.

why? because it’s all they have left.

demographics are changing. their population is aging. their kids hate the way they live and move away.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.