I think you should also include the Iraq War. Evangelicals set a lot of their identity in their belief that the War on Terror would be the final Holy War that would bring about the Kingdom of Christ (with them at the top, of course). But instead their holy war turned into an undeniable catastrophe in front of their eyes.
And also Jesus didn’t come back like he was supposed to.
And it’s really hard to overstate the significance of that war. The vast majority of Washington politicians and the vast majority of mainstream media outlets explicitly endorsed it as being just, they were all proven as liars before it even started and certainly after the fact, and very few of them apologized for the massive amounts of deaths that they caused. They never will apologize, they can’t deal with that, their pride won’t let them.
I’m just saying that I seem to remember the cons claiming that Obama was so “divisive” all through both of his terms. If you’d ask them what that actually meant, they really could offer nothing cogent as to what they meant.
Meanwhile characters like Newt and Rush had laid the groundwork in the 90s to really create a lot of polarization.
Lots of reasons 2008 would do this.
I think you should also include the Iraq War. Evangelicals set a lot of their identity in their belief that the War on Terror would be the final Holy War that would bring about the Kingdom of Christ (with them at the top, of course). But instead their holy war turned into an undeniable catastrophe in front of their eyes.
And also Jesus didn’t come back like he was supposed to.
And it’s really hard to overstate the significance of that war. The vast majority of Washington politicians and the vast majority of mainstream media outlets explicitly endorsed it as being just, they were all proven as liars before it even started and certainly after the fact, and very few of them apologized for the massive amounts of deaths that they caused. They never will apologize, they can’t deal with that, their pride won’t let them.
I’m thinking so much of it was the first one.
And when we say “polarization”, I’m sure that’s a bothsiderist way to say: “Republicans/conservatives getting even more crazy”.
The effect of economic turmoil should not be underestimated. “That guy over there took my house” would boost polarization for sure.
I’m just saying that I seem to remember the cons claiming that Obama was so “divisive” all through both of his terms. If you’d ask them what that actually meant, they really could offer nothing cogent as to what they meant.
Meanwhile characters like Newt and Rush had laid the groundwork in the 90s to really create a lot of polarization.