One party not only suffers few consequences for its lunatics, it actively and publicly celebrates and encourages them and comes down like a ton of bricks on people unwilling to support or become the lunatics.
But it is so ugly and the contemplation of it is so ugly (especially on the part of people supporting the madness) that we turn awa…
One party not only suffers few consequences for its lunatics, it actively and publicly celebrates and encourages them and comes down like a ton of bricks on people unwilling to support or become the lunatics.
But it is so ugly and the contemplation of it is so ugly (especially on the part of people supporting the madness) that we turn away from it. Much safer to talk about the lunatics that aren't actually dangerous.
You are also correct to point out that saving the republic, losing Democracy--these are abstract things to most people. A lot of people continue to believe that it cannot happen here. They NEED to believe that.
The stuff that they think impacts their lives (most of which really doesn't, but the narrative says otherwise) is more understandable less abstract, more immediate. This is why I can persuade someone with an anecdote (that actually runs contrary to fact in the aggregate, despite being a real and true story in a narrow context) where I cannot do so with reams of scientifically tested and generated data.
One party not only suffers few consequences for its lunatics, it actively and publicly celebrates and encourages them and comes down like a ton of bricks on people unwilling to support or become the lunatics.
But it is so ugly and the contemplation of it is so ugly (especially on the part of people supporting the madness) that we turn away from it. Much safer to talk about the lunatics that aren't actually dangerous.
You are also correct to point out that saving the republic, losing Democracy--these are abstract things to most people. A lot of people continue to believe that it cannot happen here. They NEED to believe that.
The stuff that they think impacts their lives (most of which really doesn't, but the narrative says otherwise) is more understandable less abstract, more immediate. This is why I can persuade someone with an anecdote (that actually runs contrary to fact in the aggregate, despite being a real and true story in a narrow context) where I cannot do so with reams of scientifically tested and generated data.