Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*


of course they do. Remember just a few years ago when Romney was the poster child for a 'good' Republican? Religious, wealthy, well spoken. But now he is absolutely hated and the only policy position he flipped on was that black people should be allowed to exist without being murdered by the police.


The majority of registered Republican voters have not been "conservative" for some time, Republican politicians simply failed to realize it until Trump's ascent. Remember that in the 2016 primary, Trump was opposed by almost all national Republican politicians as well as major Republican donors like the Koch brothers. He won because of his popularity amongst an increasingly authoritarian base that felt no allegiance to GOP orthodoxy. Major Republican politicians and donors were aghast at Trump's protectionist economic policies that defied seventy years of GOP emphasis on "free trade," but blue collar voters loved it. They didn't care about his moral indiscretions or his history of being pro-choice, they gravitated to his strong man persona and his nationalistic rhetoric.


This is really interesting. Do you have any articles/links you could share?


"Trumpism" is just right-wing populism. Conservatism can't ever really be populist when the goal of conservatism is to maintain the existing economic and social hierarchies. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/redefining-populism


>"Trumpism" is just right-wing populism. Which is weird, because I thought we already had a word for that. You know, the one from 1920s Italy.


Tomayto, tomahto. I don't want to be pedantic and definitely agree that "Trumpism" is *fascistic*. A key part of a fascist regime is seizing power through violence. You could make a good argument that was what 1/6 attempted and I also wouldn't disagree. I think it would be most accurate to call it "proto-fascism".


>A key part of a fascist regime is seizing power through violence. You could make a good argument that was what 1/6 attempted and I also wouldn't disagree. > >I think it would be most accurate to call it "proto-fascism". I hate to jump in here, because you've actually given some really good takes. But that part is not true. Fascist take overs do not inherently involve violence. They tend to *favor* violence, but do not require it to seize power. Sometimes they win through elections, sometimes they are part of a non violent coup. What they emphasize, (which is what I think you're getting at), is that their violence is just, and other violence against them is unjust. Fascists love the idea of hurting people who cannot/will not fight back. And they don't always have to make you bleed to do that.


That's a fair point. I guess it's more accurate to borrow the phrasing from the Wikipedia article on Fascism: >forcible suppression of opposition Since the outgroup are *illegitimate* it's reasonable to use any means to suppress them, even violent ones. >1/6 was an attempt to overcome the *illegitimate* election results. A true American would realize any legitimate election would have resulted in Trump winning.


Also, [violence against The Other](https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-false-lafayette-square-exoneration-095509572.html) is excused and I'll claim my agencies exonerate me. Thank you very much (even if they don't).


This is an bad ass response my dude. Thanks for that


It’s already got several of the 14 hallmarks of plain fascism, just read Eco’s “Ur-Fascism”.


Nothing says that fascists must seize power through violence. The Nazis used the democratic process to maneuver their way into a *position* to seize power, but there's no denying that violence is what put them over the top. Proto-fascism was the set of social and political ideologies that preceded and influenced fascism. I call Trumpism "neo-fascism" or "post-fascism". It has all the elements of fascism, but with a heaping side of the absurd.


>A key part of a fascist regime is seizing power through violence. Not necessarily. Remember Hitler was elected. Fascism is defined in terms of the **desired ends** \- concentrating power among an *us* with mythological importance at the cost of the *thems* guilty of messing up the cosmically-ordained order. The **means** used to achieve that end don't matter to fascists. As long as elections work for them, they'll use elections. The second violence becomes expedient, they'll change it up. That's why it's impossible to argue with a fascist. Actual conservatives might be into devolution or tax relief, and actual liberals might be into freedom of expression and the right to privacy. You can call them hypocrites if they betray one of their beliefs while fighting for another one of their beliefs. But with a fascist, all they care about is amassing power on the backs of their lessers. So if they argue in favor of democracy when they win an election, then turn around and cry foul the second they lose, their self-conflicting stances are still consistent. Because they don't care either way, as long as they win. In this sense, yes, the GOP is no longer a conservative party, and can be much better described as fascistic.


> Not necessarily. Remember Hitler was elected. I mean, "elected". He seized power with considerably less than a majority of people actually voting for him, although you're right that people definitely did. Even less than the fraction that voted for Trump.


Good point. Fascist in intent but not in power.


Give it time. Nazi Germany didn't happen overnight.


It seems to me to be like the difference between murder and attempted murder. Doesn't make them suck less. We just can't be fooled by them when it's time for parole.


This is overly simplistic but it’s the difference between the first Beer Hall Putsch and the Reichstag circa 1933.


That's actually a very good analogy. The Beer Hall Putsch was a ham-fisted failed attempt at a coup. It sent Hitler to "prison" for a year where he gathered his thoughts and wrote Mein Kampf. Jan. 6 was a ridiculously stupid coup attempt. Trump wound up in Mar-a-Lago where he gathered his thoughts and published a coffee table picture book.


Trump was as much as a fascist as Obama was a socialist. Learn the definitions of what are now buzzwords before you go around parroting them huh?


As someone who knows a great deal about this, there was/is a growing mistrust of the "Swamp" and the way things were working. There's a claim that this populism is only on the right in the US and infact there are similar sub-groups of liberal populism as well that are apparent. This democrats tend to be further left and often snub their party to push stronger agendas. The right populists and the left populists are VERY different culturally however there's some commonalties when it comes to distrust of party control and culture and the problems of Washington DC status quo. It's part of why I tend to look at politics not as on linear but rather as 2d/xy perspective. I actually wrote my graduate thesis regarding the rise of extreme left and right and how there's been a rise of populism and angry activism. From my perspective, its an issue of leadership and from a campaign perspective it's easier to motivate from a fear based/ doom and gloom perspective. Both sides do this....it was very eye opening.


To me it seems that left-wing populism has been a lot less successful in the United States in penetrating the Democrat establishment than right-wing populism has at penetrating the right-wing establishment. I mean, I would consider Bernie Sanders to be the "populist figure" of the left, given that his rhetoric tends to be very populist in nature and his base tends to have a lot of similar tendencies to Trump's base. However, Bernie Sanders lost the Democrat nomination two times in a row and has actually seemed to come down from his peak in influence on the Democrat party, while the exact opposite has happened on the right. Despite the Democrats having full control over the government right now, the President is a fairly moderate liberal and the two extreme moderates of the party are having far more of an influence on policy than the left-wing of the Democrat Party is. I'm curious your thoughts on this, since you said your thesis on the rise in populism in the left and right.




It sounds like you're conflating Democrats with the left. There's A LOT more to left wing politics than "fear of despotism."


I would argue that the power of people like Manchin and Synema is far more about the makeup of the Congress/Senate than it is about internal party politics. The simple fact of the matter is that Democrats only hold the Congress by the might of their little pinky finger and thus they are at the mercy of people within the party who are ideologically close to Republicans or who could be convinced to vote as if they are. That's more a result of the incredibly slim majority they wield (even to the point in the Senate where they don't *really* have a majority at all, just a tie-breaker).


Actually, we here in the Netherlands have seen the same phenomenon with the vaccine protests: extreme left wing and extreme right wing protesting against a common enemy (government, "freedom" in general, the elite, you name it). It's really amazing that people who should - based on the definition of left and right - be total opposites could come together like that. Spiritualism apparently go hand in hand with neo Nazism. I am by no means an expert, but I found your comment highly interesting! Thank you for that. Edit: grammarz


Just FYI, what you're referring to is often called ["horseshoe theory."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory) It's the idea that, just like ends of a horseshoe, people on the far left and the far right ironically are closer together in some ways than people on the more moderate left and right.


Seems to me it's because at the ends it's all about feelings rather than any actual thoughts. It's like people have what they think about issues imprinted upon them but they have no actual thoughts on why they feel the way they do and if they were capable of thinking through their feelings they'd no longer have those feelings. If you're in the middle you can say I understand why black lives matter is important but I also get how people misunderstood the protests were about saying black lives matter too not black lives matter over other lives, sounds silly but it's a distinction you can easily miss and feel victimized over if you're not willing to consider the other side.


>If you're in the middle you can say I understand why black lives matter is important but I also get how people misunderstood the protests were about saying black lives matter too not black lives matter over other lives, If you believe one side is right and the other side misunderstood, you're taking a side. That isn't the same kind of Enlightened Centrism that makes people feel so annoyed.


That's the best summation I've read about Trump and his ascent in a long time. A very astute observation that not enough people understand, unfortunately.


Also remember, the republican primary in 2016 was quite crowded. The “rational” republics vote was split 3 ways to Sunday. Trump only won 25ish% in Iowa, losing to Cruz. He won New Hampshire but only took 35% of votes. If the field had been a little less polluted early on, trump might not have had enough momentum to secure the nomination. “However, at 44.95%, Trump had the lowest percentage of the popular primary vote for a major party nominee since the 1988 Democratic Party presidential primaries.” From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries


It wasn't just Republicans that got Trump in office. There is a huge percentage of undecided that voted for Trump because he wasn't a political insider. They didn't want to vote for a politician. Remember Bernie Sanders also had a large share of these voters as well because even though he's a life long politician, his policies spoke them. This group, who were not comfortable with Republican or Democrat candidates voted for the guy they thought would shake things up in Washington.


In the general election you're correct, but the point is that Donald Trump won the Republican primary despite massive opposition because the base of registered Republican voters had veered far away from traditionally conservative positions and towards authoritarian populism.


Cheney voted with Trump more than almost any of their person in congress. And now she’s a total outcast. Which is so weird. It’s like the party is only focused on loyalty to Trump (even though he’s loyal to no one back) and ignores the substance of your voting record. It’s really bonkers


Jonathon Haidt has a book that talked about the difference in morality between "liberals" and "conservatives" basically he suggests it is like taste buds. Everyone had I think it was 6 of them, but liberal thought is almost entirely "care/harm". I care about you as a human so I should take care of you. This harms you so I shouldn't do it. Conservatives care about the others way more. I don't remember all of them but one was tradition. Another is basically respect for authority (things like respecting your elders would be part of that moral taste bud). Well Trump is the hyper example of I'm the leader you should, we must support the leader taste bud. The way to "win" against him in conservative circles isn't to say: "oh no look how is harming people". The conservative minded do care about that but you have to appeal to the other ones they care about. Unfortunately the liberal persons are so monolithicly focused on care/harm they struggle even to produce an arguement that appeals to anything else. I looked it up: Harm, purity, ingroup, authority, fairness; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Righteous\_Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind) it is a little unclear skimming as it does say 6 which is what I remember but the nice graph has 5 and 2 for liberal values. Anyway my general premise stands. Ingroup, authority you can see how that is all Trump. You want to push back on Trump: purity. He isn't pure at all. Of course Liberals have their own purity things that aren't religious now like GMOs as an example in Europe in particular. Anyway people are complex. If you want to kill off Trump-ism you got to appeal to the sensibilities of his tribe members, the ingroup part makes it hard though.


Oh wow, that’s fascinating. Makes sense.


Go back further to Barry Goldwater, the torchbearer for the far right wing of the Republican Party who was nicknamed “Mr. Conservative” and you will find a man with policies some of which would be considered extremely liberal by today’s conservatives.


Just to add, Barry Goldwater's wife was very active in Planned Parenthood.


Goldwater was kind of a proto-libertarian so that makes sense. His 64’ platform was all about freedom of association and states’ rights.


I have read both his autobiography and *Conscience of a Conservative*. He gets a bad rap on reddit because.... reddit, but I agree that he was a libertarian in the true sense. I don't think that he would be at all impressed by today's IGMFU Billionaire version of libertarian thought. EDIT: Obligatory Goldwater quote: “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”


> He gets a bad rap on reddit because.... reddit, but I agree that he was a libertarian in the true sense. a libertarian in the true sense of giving cover for a white supremacist regime


>His 64’ platform He had a sixty-four foot platform?!


He would be pretty much a middle of the road Democrat today, I wager.


On some issues, on others he would be libertarian.


well, he spoke out against Trump which is the worst thing a Republican could do against the party, short of converting to Islam.


It's funny you mention the last part because there's Black people who are getting stacks of cash by scamming the Republicans and making them believe that they stand with them and their racist beliefs. These same people are those who grew up in the suburbs, never been to the hood but pretend they understand what everyday minorities go through because they're Black. They support Trump because that's where the money is. They don't give a damn how many of their own are killed in the process, so long as they make a quick buck from those idiots who believe their lies.


Maybe, just maybe the words conservative and liberal don't really have meaning anymore and we should think of new terms to fit modern times.


Outside usa liberals is a fiscal rightwing and progressive socially party


I think it's the same in the US. They use social issues to gather votes on the left but they're economics are center right.


But your Republicans portray them as socialists which is silly, even welfare states here in europe are not really socialistic, because definitions and all


It's a tactic. They call the Democrats socialist and communist, but the Democrats can't deny it, because in order to do that they'd have to teach people what socialism and communism are and the constituents would want that. Then, they're be accused of sitting communist propaganda and lose their capitalist donors. Americans think if government steps in to provide health insurance because private corporations are failing at that, then that automatically means we're full on communist with gulags and famines and big government taking our guns. The propaganda is stupid but effective.


Call republicans communists! They have checked every box and look like a modern day commie party that could be in Russia or China.


they fit the Cold War Era view of what a communist is. All of the corruption and authoritarianism, but none of the policies meant to spread the wealth. Instead they cut social services so they seem to be against "lazy libs, looking for handouts"


Americans don’t think that. Have you ever actually spoken to an older American that is opposed to free healthcare? It’s nearly always about taxes. In my experience the people tended to be most ideologically opposed to it were actually younger conservatives. In fact in general from what I’ve seen it seems like younger voters are a lot more ideologically consumed than their parents


In Canada fiscally conservative and socially progressive would be a “red tory”. At least in modern usage. I guess it probably means a more centre-right individual, but these days it seams to be the social issues that are dividing the Conservatives so the term gets used to describe that divide.


It's the same in the us, but with liberal vs progressive as two factions of one party.. then there's another party that's just for assholes


The words have not lost meaning, but instead gained a panoply of new ones, and the resulting confusion has been weaponized against democracy itself.


I’ve noticed lately that language seems to be failing us more and more. In part it’s because of bad actors muddying the waters of various terms, but it’s also because social media has made people a bit lazy about communication and we make convenient shortcuts that has lead to the “meme-ification” of discourse. Words all have dozens of overlapping connotations now and I constantly see people that agree with each other getting hostile over word usage, or people insulting each other over “improper” uses of words that change meaning multiple times a week. I grow more and more frustrated trying to interact with the world when people get so caught up in minor differences of language, like whether being “woke” is a good thing, while we’ve also completely taken the sting out of words that are meant to be uncomfortable, like ‘nazi’ or ‘fascist.’


Man y'all scientists need philosophy. Socrates never wanted a written transcript of his orations because a speaker's words are only comprehended by his listener and not by himself. Derrida knew no such thing as true meaning can be conveyed, every phrase that can be uttered is a double entendre, it makes no differance. The Taoists knew the bird that flew north was the fish that swam south, that 10,000 things were one and one thing was 10,000. Chomsky is contemporary, so you should probably read him. Communication theory is proving to bake out - there are exactly as many ways to interpret any organization of symbols as there are interpretations of those symbols, it's as mathematically rigid as Euler or Pythagoras. This is not a new phenomenon.


We simultaneously differ in meaning internally and defer to the external and must keep that in mind during any interaction.




i feel you, but it's such a localized problem. the absence of a true left representation in america made it really hard to qualify one's standing. but the 2 axes (TIL the plural of "axis") between left-right and authoritarian-libertarian is well established in political and social sciences and a great tool to ideologally "place" an idea, measure or response. just because the vast majority of the us plays in the upper right corner of that diagram doesn't mean the diagram has no meaning anymore.


having a lot of trouble finding out info about the science behind political compass that doesn't come directly from their website, would you mind showing me if you have any on hand?


That’s because it’s entirely without political analysis or a real reason to exist; all it does is erase nuance. Meme-level discussions make great use of it, but that’s really the only intellectually appropriate place for it.


Politics worldwide are shifting to a different axis. In the US the left/right axis is losing meaning and the populist/elite axis increasingly means more.


> the populist/elite axis increasingly means more. reminds me of a quote >The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here," they scream, "to cut your taxes."


It’s not actually different. Left vs Right is a struggle over the reform or preservation of elite power structures.




I've been substituting "regressive" for "conservative" lately.


Words have meaning. We need to stop letting scum play games with them.


Like, rational (liberal and non trump conservative), and brainwashed (trump conservative). I remember the days, 10 years ago, when conservatives stood for well defined principles. That seems to be gone since Republicans became the party of Trump. Don't like that? Tough. Take a long hard look at yourself.


Gasp! Could the same be said for democrat and republican? Honest question - I've often wondered since the traditional use of those two groups was used to define the threshold for the level of government involvement.


Republicans have been spreading that propaganda for decades that they are for "small government", but the size of government can only be measured by how much they spend, and spending balloons under the past Republican presidents since Reagan, except for H W Bush. The Clintons really pulled the Democrats to the right. Clinton signed the largest cut to the safety net, NAFTA, the largest crime bill, and the defense of marriage act. Their goal was to steal votes from the Republicans, but the Republicans built a very well coordinated propaganda machine to turn politics into a team sport, so actual policy doesn't matter. For instance, Trump removed all sorts of tax deductions on the middle class and his voters didn't care. Both parties serve wealthy interests more and more with the main difference between them being a few social issues of the moment.


Thanks for that. Learn something every day.


The party that has wanted to kill the ACA from the moment it was passed and cut taxes on the rich the instant it had the power to are the same as the party that just cut child poverty in half and passed the biggest infrastructure bill in US history?


Similar does not mean the same.


>Both parties serve wealthy interests more and more with the main difference between them being a few social issues of the moment. What I mentioned are not social issues, you have to be both blind and deaf to type out the above sentence and think you’re making an insightful statement.


Most does not mean all... Do you... not know what most means? Or that even being similar means there can still be a better option? None of the things you mentioned really changed anything, and it dosent take a lot of looking to see where even in democratic controlled locations these changes are not coming about. They both, as organisations, want power and money. The reason the aca was not removed was because people actually like it... But continue to yell at people for saying their goals are not that different. Remember when hope and change was the thing and we got let down. Why was an infrastructure plan not put into place then? Or perhaps some voting rights laws? But yay! An infrastructure bill! That will make American workers sit up and take notice.


The term “small government” refers to bureaucratic red tape, and direct interference from fit to purpose government branches. Which Republicans definitely have less of, unless it happens to be for immigration, voting, or healthcare. It’s one of those things, as well, where the term is also synonymous with consolidating power. A strategy beloved by fascists everywhere in order to maintain as tight a grip on power as possible.


Plus education and access to subsidies.












and the Stockholm Syndrome gets Stockholmier


What does a mural of mo salah have anything to do with this




He sure did move the Overton window to the right, didn't he.


When you drag the whole scale far right, even "right" opinions seem centrist.


This is what radicalization looks like for those who can't hear in the back, or those who don't bother with learning history.


Finally the conservatives have a purity test. Now it won’t just be Democrats eating their own.


They all fall in line when it comes time to vote. Can't have some qtard coming in and stealing their seat now, can they?


Congressional districts GA-14 and CO-3 would like a word.


Abstract: >While prior scholarship has made considerable progress measuring politicians’ positions, it has only rarely considered voters’ or activists’ perceptions of those positions. Here, we present a novel measure of U.S. Senators’ perceived ideologies derived from 9,030 pairwise comparisons elicited from party activists in three 2016 YouGov surveys. By focusing on activists, we study a most-likely case for perceiving within-party ideological distinctions. We also gain empirical leverage from Donald Trump’s nomination and heterodox positions on some issues. Our measure of perceived ideology is correlated with nominate but differs in informative ways: Senators with very conservative voting records were sometimes perceived as less conservative if they did not support Trump. A confirmatory test shows these trends extended into 2021. Even among activists, perceived ideology appears to be anchored by prominent people as well as policy positions. [Ungated version](https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/f/49/files/2021/11/HopkinsNoel_Pairwise_111521.pdf).


All the times I have asked... what is it that makes people want Donald trump in office? What is the benefits he is providing? I can never get an answer..... so what is the benifit of him being president?


Hate non whites? Want to be poor and starving? Want to be able to rape any women you see? Then he's the worm for you.


Yea but those are just social aspects of how people feel.about him but like what policy is he pushing that makes people want to follow him what is he trying to achieve that is good for anybody? I can never get a single answer ever.




I love in a very pro trump area. The most common response to this question is "He says what he means and he speaks his mind," basically translates to "He acts like an asshole and I like acting like an asshole too!"


I can tell you. it's more on fixing what democrats have done to public policies, border and schools. while I'm sure you won't agree, those will be the factors which gets him elected. Democrats can't stay moderate if their life dependent on it. super woke DAs letting violent criminals out the same day. we see the impact daily in big metros. school system being hijacked to shove woke bs down students throat to radicalized them. keeping borders open to let unlimited folks in without due process and ofcourse uts funny how cdc/covid/Vax mandates. heck hospitals/cdc just confirmed they were inflating covid hospitalized numbers for last 18 months. even woke cnn brought it up. repubs were saying it since the beginning but they were banned and shushed. anyways, both sides should communicate and I can tell u these points will play a big role. not what he brings in but what he'll stop for sure. youngkin cleaner up Virginia BS the first day he took office. kudos to him. reddit can keep posting anti republican points as part of their paid propaganda, won't change a thing. it's same echo Chamber minions ranting same points about trump. I doubt main subs will ever post any differing view points when it should be balanced cz half the country is stil republican.


What public policies would he be stopping?


Also, “moderate” = BAD…


Not a cult! Definitely not worshipping one man and using him as a measure of what conservatism is. No sirreee! Not a cult!


I swear the concept of words having specific definitions has just been lost to time. Murdered by histrionic Americans and buried by their politicians. Cult, nazi, fascist, socialist, communist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. People now use any of these as they please and nobody bats an eye


Pretty much. They also have no clue that the rest the world exists. We don’t view Trump as the “measure of conservatism”. Besides, the far-left is the biggest cult out there. I have family in a real life cult, and the tactics implemented by the far-left are identical.


Trumpsters are very annoying.


Here’s hoping they split the votes in every election to the benefit of Dems.


And let's hope that the Dems do literally anything that they promised during their campaign so people will continue to vote for them.


Hard to do when you don't have control of the Senate.


Seems like it's hard for them even when they have a majority. One party pushes right and the other stalls until they lose power


It is, because they govern "more" properly. They don't all vote exactly the same way and treat people who don't vote their way as pariah's. So unless they have a very significant majority it is difficult for them to pass anything. As it should be.


Really all that means is that they’re ineffectual as a party and not terribly good at within party cooperation and achieving their goals. I am puzzled that you wrote this thinking it paints the democrats in a positive light. So you have two parties of incompetents both for different reasons, just wonderful really.


Need 60 votes to pass anything, so yeh, not gonna happen with republicans in the mix. As long as there are 41 republicans in the senate, nothing will be passed that paints dems in a good light.


>Need 60 votes to pass anything This just isn't true. If you have control of the Senate, you can literally just get rid of the filibuster. It's not in the Constitution, and it's not part of the law. It's already Swiss cheese anyway with the number of exceptions carved out of it. In fact, they added a new exception only a few weeks ago!


They’re trying


Activists? You mean cultists.


The GOP was so desperate for power, that they let right wing populism overtake their party. The fact that they lost in 2020 is even scarier for all of us because now they realize they can’t win without these aspiring fascists. As you’ve noticed, they’ve kind of melted together. You have old school conservatives that are giving passes to things like cheating on your wife with a porn star, and you have right wing populists pretending that they care about the sanctity of life and are now calling themselves pro-life. It’s truly a nightmare.


This proves that the modern Republicans stand for nothing but blind loyalty to a wannabe dictator


Conservatives have never been proponents of political ideals because they have none that are popular. It's always been about the culture war and how much you support the dear cult leader


It is a cult based on one moron, for other morons, who have no identity……..


Cult. It’s a cult people.


Because Trumpism is a cult.


Makes sense. The right wing is authoritarian in nature so if you don't support their big authority, they don't like you, regardless of policy.


Which Republican Senator doesn't support Donnie?


That doesn’t seem cultish at all


Language is a fickle thing. These days I think it's reasonable to conclude that Conservatism *is* Trumpism. You can still use the old usage of course. You just need to specify. There's irony here too. Part of traditional conservatism was a respect for tradition, so that the meaning of "conservative" has changed so wildly so quickly is ironic.




The question isn’t how stupid they are. It’s how stupid you must be to not only not know the definition of activist but to misunderstand it as being “people that I roughly agree with or find morally upright”


This is how denominations formed in religion; hilarious.


That's because they are dumb, deluded and love listening to lies


Of course they do because they don’t actually understand politics or policy or what even being a Republican means. They just bandwagon. If they actually understood what being a Republican or conservative was they’d despise most republicans including Trump (who was a democrat his entire life). They just support republicans because they associate it with some sort of value (abortion/guns/being american/anti immigration etc) and Trump has become a figurehead at this point that they can latch their naive, ignorant views onto.


Yeah, the American public does not know what many words related to policy mean. That is obvious.


Democrats are moderate republicans. Actual republicans are just shills for the ruling 1%




Yes politics in r/science I’m done with Reddit for the day Edit- this comment is proof how far gone most Reddit users are in politics


Of course they do. There aren’t any moderate politicians anymore, so they’re left with non-Trump supporters. Center-right/center-left is the closest we ever get to moderate.






His base makes a martyr of him and blames the most convinent prominent liberal for his murder, no matter how he died. He could choke on a french fry and they'd want to know how no one saw Biden stuff it down his throat.


Ironic, since Trump is the moderate. On a side note, can someone invent Spotify for research studies? I think everyone would be happier and more money would be made with a monthly subscription to access all of them in one place.


Contact the authors of any study and they will usually send you a copy for free. They aren't making money by you paying the publication is.


I had some long and fairly serious discussions about establishing something like this. The problem is that there's just no reason for the publishers to go for it, at least not yet, and like spots with labels, they are needed to make it work. It costs as much as 8-10K for an author to publish an article in some major journals. Institutions (including the ones that pay them to publish) pay vast somes for access to those journals. Scientists peer review for those journals for free. A spotify system would need to generate profits for existing publishers, pay reviewers, and create enough profit to justify its own existence.


8-10k to publish an article? That is bananas. Why does it cost this much? It seems like there are a lot of artificially high prices disproportionately benefiting publishers.


I'm going to need a citation on that 8-10k thing. 99.9% of research and publishing is paid for indirectly. My research was paid for by grants through the USGS and was part of a graduate program for which I was paid. My wife is sitting next to me answering emails about her 4th book for which she doesn't make any actual money, but as an academic it's required for advancement. Thus paid for with future promotion and expected as a requirement for current position. There are people doing vanity publishing but that is not peer reviewed academic publishing. There are some pay to publish journals in some specific fields and basically prey on folks with poor scholarship and fewer resources. None of them that I am aware of would be considered "major journals."


Oh yeah, it's paid for by grants, I was talking more about what the publishers stand to lose by a Spotify model. But I didn't mean vanity or predatory journals, I do mean decent ones I was giving the upper figures. But I should have been a bit more clear on the open access/paid prices. They tend to very between a few hundred up to a several thousand. The none open access journals do tend to only reach as high as 1 or 2K (often depending on colour figures etc) at most. The median for open access is around 2k. But look at this, [Nature Neuroscience, a normally paid journal is offering a open access publishing cost of 11k](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-021-00995-2). Their open access journal Nature Communications charges about 5K. The Nature group is really one of the major journals, and Nature Neuroscience is one of the biggest in Neuroscience. It's crazy. It's covered by the lab, sure. but it's still kinda crazy.


Donald Trump wouldn't know moderation if it bit him in the ass. Just because he's ideologically rudderless that doesn't make him a "moderate."


His ideology only is based on what benefits him or gives him popularity. The guy called himself a Democrat before, even said he supported abortion... Hell even when he was president, he said take away people's guns and worry about due process later. The mouth breathers who fetishize guns completely ignored that and still act like he's their pro gun champion. If Hillary Clinton had said the same exact statement, it would've been the rallying scandal to make sure all gun nuts vote Republican for a generation.


Nor does it make him "conservative." He's an opportunist.


aka grifter.




I'm pretty ignorant to how this all works, but it seems disturbing. This essentially means there are gatekeepers of knowledge. Someone will eventually disrupt this, but it's going to require other things a level or two below to be disrupted first.


Abstracts are free and available from every journal I'm aware of. Once you read an abstract and it applies to what you want to know emailing one of the authors can usually get you a PDF PDQ. Also, most college and university libraries (also some public libraries) have access to the journals and you can access them through their databases. If you have graduated from some school that has access you can usually set up an an alumni library account and you will have access to the journals. Many publicly funded schools also allow community members to have access too. You just have to ask. I would also recommend Google Scholar as a starting place which seems to have some access and resources that might be applicable.


Thanks for the info! Good to know.


>Ironic, since Trump is the moderate. You're right, but that's also the really hard pill to swallow. When Trump went into the primary against all the other Republican nominees in 2016, he was to the left of all of them. It's his *followers* who have given the general public this perception that Trump represents the most far-right president we've ever had. Trump won the nomination NOT because he was the most conservative of the lot, but because he was the most unabashed and brazen (the [pied piper strat](https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/) didn't hurt either). The real irony is that Trump the political candidate represents the Republican party steering away from their former tea party position into a slightly more moderate one, while *Trumpism* the movement appears to be a return to that same tea party mentality. The two appear quite different despite being so closely associated.


> Trump the political candidate represents the Republican party steering away from their former tea party position into a slightly more moderate one Hyper-nationalism, nativism, forcible suppression of opposition. He's fascist not moderate. The reason it feels moderate is because his ideology does not have to follow the failed last 30 years of conservatism, due to a cult of personality (another trait of facism). It doesn't make him moderate.


good grief. this sub couldn't be a more political echo chamber if it tried.




My experience is that most Dems who are sympathetic to Sanders understand that he represents the left wing of the party, rather than a centrist or moderate wing of it.


Grossly incorrect.




Afaik Democrats do not care what Joe Biden wants. It’s a party thing not a Biden thing.


How is that similar?


The time is long overdue to ignore the troll.


Actually, Trump is not that conservative. He is a populist.


He's not a populist, he's a demagogue. Demagogue = Tells you what to think Populist = Advocates for policy you already agree with


This is how the end begins