DC asks this:
Recall that the GOP has been taken over by RWAs (right wing authoritarians: researchgate.net/publication/31…)
RWAs have personality characteristics that enable them to seize power beyond their numbers.
Reason #1: RWAs tend to fall in line.
RWAs “favor obedience and conformity (oneness and sameness) over freedom and difference." docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/02ff25_40e…
Liberals, on the other hand, are comfortable with nuance, complexity, and diversity.
They don’t give up their individuality for the sake of the group. They don't naturally fall in line behind a leader.
Reason #2: RWAs are willing to cheat and break rules.
They'll overlook bad behavior in exchange for a strong leader that invites conformity.
@Maxboot wrote this astonishing sentence:
Trump & pals friends seek to dismantle our government, which includes our democratic institutions.
Liberal democracy leads to diversity, which they dislike.
RWA used to be called “anti-Democratic personality.”
Hahn, Kim & Sivan call this a “crisis of legitimacy.”
“Deep State” = government that they think puts the rights of "others” over them.
So they want to destroy the “deep state.”
Every fascist campaign is an “anti-corruption” campaign. “Drain the swamp” is from Mussolini.
This desire to destroy is why they accept all Trump's lies, even when they know he’s lying.
They understand that lies destroy.
Reason #4: People willing to lie have an advantage.
Playing by the rules has a disadvantage.
Harvard Profs. Levitsky and Ziblatt explain why defenders of democracy must follow rules and norms. . .
Fighting fire with fire burns the place down.
Reason #5: Anti-democratic leaders learn from each other. And the tactics are not hard.
In fact, it's easy: Create crisis and spectacle:
Reason #6: Because RWAs dislike complexity, they embrace chants, slogans, and catchwords.
Advertisers calls them catch phrases: Got milk? Where’s the Beef?
Psychologist Robert Zajonc calls it the “mere-exposure effect.”
Liberals get bogged down in nuance and complexity.
Nuance and complexity doesn’t work well in sound bites.
The choice of “No Collusion!” as a catchphrase was clever.
But it's catchy. It’s easy to remember. It’s slippery enough so that it’s hard to argue against.
"Witch Hunt" is also effective.
This poll is a bit misleading, but still:
It doesn't matter how many guilty pleas & guilty verdicts come out of the Mueller probe, or how many Trump campaign staff coordinated with Russia.
Trump will shout "No Collusion" and "Witch Hunt!" and his followers will take up the cry.
They refute lies with facts. This is good. But there is a disadvantage. . .
Social scientist tell us that 33% of the population is authoritarian.
We’ll never reach that 33% (so please don’t bother trying).
42% will let him survive his presidency. If he drops to 35%, he’ll be poison, even in the GOP.
If you want to break out of the liberal nuance-and-complexity-loving bubble . . .
How about answering “No Collusion!” and "Witch Hunt!" with “Trump cheats! Cheating is BAD.”
Go ahead and give them facts, but keep shouting: “Trump cheats! Cheating is BAD.”
Here is today's thread as a blogpost. terikanefield-blog.com/why-the-far-ri…
The nice thing about my blogposts is that I can correct the errors, expand the sentences, and strive for more—well, you know—nuance.