America's Republican Party is drowning in a cesspool of conspiracy theories and deranged, ratcheting extremism. Why did that happen—and how can it be reversed?
Excellent, Brian. I just want people to know that some Americans can and do change their minds. I’m one. I lived in Newt Gingrich’s district in my 30s, and idolized him for a long time. I listened to Limbaugh every day. I voted R no matter what. I thought FoxNews was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Gradually my eyes were opened through the GWB years, watching the viciousness & vitriol re: immigrants. One day I literally got sick of my own bullshit, parroted unthinkingly for so long. I realized it was an act, a stance for the purpose of conquest and nothing more. I reconnected with my church and its actual teachings, not the Falwell et. al psycho version. I began to read widely and unplugged the g-d tee vee. Ahhh, silence. It’s golden.
Luckily, my husband has been in lock step with me through this journey. Because guess what? He’s the single person I have left as a likeminded companion. To a man and woman, I’ve lost (shed) 99% of fam & old friends. The pandemic sealed the deal, when the nutty & unhinged political toxins turned humans I knew into lethal weapons. Oh well. You can’t pick the times you’re born in, just your own response to them.
We found you several years ago - pre-pandemic. And we have learned so much from you and value your perspective beyond measure. You’ve given me personally many great & lasting gifts. Thank you.
This is one of the nicest comments I’ve ever received, as well as one of the most optimistic and uplifting. And it’s stories like yours that make me keep writing, hoping I can get through to someone about some of the self-inflicted harm America has produced through delusion and giving power to cynical people who care not at all for public service or true leadership. Thank you!
My question is "- why haven't we seen the same thing happen to the Democrats? Sure there might be some Congressmen on what people might consider the far left, eg asking to defund the police, but by and large you don't have the same degree of extremism on the Democrats side, at least for now.
It’s a very fair and apt question. I think there are a few reasons:
1) There’s no Donald Trump. Trump exploited structural cracks and made it so the party became defined by loyalty tests. That amped up the extremism in a way that wasn’t the same on the left;
2) Asymmetric conspiracism. I’ve written in the Atlantic recently about how and why the Republican Party in the US has become a hotbed of conspiracism, whereas that’s not true for elected Democrat;
3) the fragmented media infrastructure isn’t as well developed on the political left (the Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, conservative talk radio, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk podcast world isn’t as robust on the left as it is on the right). And that means fewer incentives to break out by being extreme.
4) Party discipline. The Democrats would have long ago expelled someone like MTG or George Santos from their ranks. The Republicans don’t.
5) Some of these dynamics do exist on the political left, but to a far reduced degree. On cultural issues, Democrats representing landslide districts are more likely to embrace the most progressive stances.
Just my two cents. I think the structural factors are the explanation, but the asymmetry between the parties cause them to manifest in divergent ways.
You point to gerrymandering as the source for some of the bizarre outcomes. I thought the point of gerrymandering was to win the overall elections despite having only a slight majority or an outright minority of the votes by drawing smart electoral borders.
Imagine a state with ten representatives in the House and 50% Dems and Reps each. If I draw the borders, I can aim for 1 district with 100% voters of my opponent and nine districts where I'm 55.55% to 44.44% in the majority. This way I get to control the House representation from my state (I'd do the same for the State house and Senate obviously). And if my State has more seats, and I would like to win all but one, the margin decreases from a good ten percent down. Of course, given the uncertainty of elections, you won't aim for much less but the idea remains: "good" gerrymandering leads to one ultra safe seat (for your opponent), and lots of more narrow margins but reasonably safe, ideally, for your own party's candidates.
Of course, this was optimising it for my party. If I don't particular care about the other politicians of my party, I would draw a safe seat for myself but that would lead, overall to less power for my party.
I thought of gerrymandering following the first model above. Your article suggests that here is a lot of the other type of gerrymandering taking place.
Hi Maurits, yes there are multiple forms of gerrymandering (packing and cracking are two terms used for different forms of the tactic, for example). However, when combined with demographic sorting, the theory goes out the window sometimes. It’s very difficult to draw a competitive district in Minneapolis or rural Alabama. However, there have been some really egregious examples in the past in places like Michigan where Democrats won more votes but got something like 30% of the seats. That’s one metric to see how badly the districts are drawn, but there are others. I personally favor drawing districts to deliberately maximize competition because I think that is central to a functioning democracy. Thanks for a smart and thoughtful comment!
I don’t have specific knowledge for them -- but normally politicians do this through speaking fees, book/podcast/media deals, and other types of spin-off income. A significant chunk of their daily lifestyle can also be funded through campaign fundraising, as most of what they do is part of their political operation, so their Congressional income can be used for other stuff. And both of them raise a lot of money *because* they’re extremists.
Excellent, Brian. I just want people to know that some Americans can and do change their minds. I’m one. I lived in Newt Gingrich’s district in my 30s, and idolized him for a long time. I listened to Limbaugh every day. I voted R no matter what. I thought FoxNews was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Gradually my eyes were opened through the GWB years, watching the viciousness & vitriol re: immigrants. One day I literally got sick of my own bullshit, parroted unthinkingly for so long. I realized it was an act, a stance for the purpose of conquest and nothing more. I reconnected with my church and its actual teachings, not the Falwell et. al psycho version. I began to read widely and unplugged the g-d tee vee. Ahhh, silence. It’s golden.
Luckily, my husband has been in lock step with me through this journey. Because guess what? He’s the single person I have left as a likeminded companion. To a man and woman, I’ve lost (shed) 99% of fam & old friends. The pandemic sealed the deal, when the nutty & unhinged political toxins turned humans I knew into lethal weapons. Oh well. You can’t pick the times you’re born in, just your own response to them.
We found you several years ago - pre-pandemic. And we have learned so much from you and value your perspective beyond measure. You’ve given me personally many great & lasting gifts. Thank you.
This is one of the nicest comments I’ve ever received, as well as one of the most optimistic and uplifting. And it’s stories like yours that make me keep writing, hoping I can get through to someone about some of the self-inflicted harm America has produced through delusion and giving power to cynical people who care not at all for public service or true leadership. Thank you!
My question is "- why haven't we seen the same thing happen to the Democrats? Sure there might be some Congressmen on what people might consider the far left, eg asking to defund the police, but by and large you don't have the same degree of extremism on the Democrats side, at least for now.
It’s a very fair and apt question. I think there are a few reasons:
1) There’s no Donald Trump. Trump exploited structural cracks and made it so the party became defined by loyalty tests. That amped up the extremism in a way that wasn’t the same on the left;
2) Asymmetric conspiracism. I’ve written in the Atlantic recently about how and why the Republican Party in the US has become a hotbed of conspiracism, whereas that’s not true for elected Democrat;
3) the fragmented media infrastructure isn’t as well developed on the political left (the Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, conservative talk radio, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk podcast world isn’t as robust on the left as it is on the right). And that means fewer incentives to break out by being extreme.
4) Party discipline. The Democrats would have long ago expelled someone like MTG or George Santos from their ranks. The Republicans don’t.
5) Some of these dynamics do exist on the political left, but to a far reduced degree. On cultural issues, Democrats representing landslide districts are more likely to embrace the most progressive stances.
Just my two cents. I think the structural factors are the explanation, but the asymmetry between the parties cause them to manifest in divergent ways.
You point to gerrymandering as the source for some of the bizarre outcomes. I thought the point of gerrymandering was to win the overall elections despite having only a slight majority or an outright minority of the votes by drawing smart electoral borders.
Imagine a state with ten representatives in the House and 50% Dems and Reps each. If I draw the borders, I can aim for 1 district with 100% voters of my opponent and nine districts where I'm 55.55% to 44.44% in the majority. This way I get to control the House representation from my state (I'd do the same for the State house and Senate obviously). And if my State has more seats, and I would like to win all but one, the margin decreases from a good ten percent down. Of course, given the uncertainty of elections, you won't aim for much less but the idea remains: "good" gerrymandering leads to one ultra safe seat (for your opponent), and lots of more narrow margins but reasonably safe, ideally, for your own party's candidates.
Of course, this was optimising it for my party. If I don't particular care about the other politicians of my party, I would draw a safe seat for myself but that would lead, overall to less power for my party.
I thought of gerrymandering following the first model above. Your article suggests that here is a lot of the other type of gerrymandering taking place.
Hi Maurits, yes there are multiple forms of gerrymandering (packing and cracking are two terms used for different forms of the tactic, for example). However, when combined with demographic sorting, the theory goes out the window sometimes. It’s very difficult to draw a competitive district in Minneapolis or rural Alabama. However, there have been some really egregious examples in the past in places like Michigan where Democrats won more votes but got something like 30% of the seats. That’s one metric to see how badly the districts are drawn, but there are others. I personally favor drawing districts to deliberately maximize competition because I think that is central to a functioning democracy. Thanks for a smart and thoughtful comment!
Excellent! One question that I’ve been pondering, how do MTG and LB convert their large followings into $$s?
I don’t have specific knowledge for them -- but normally politicians do this through speaking fees, book/podcast/media deals, and other types of spin-off income. A significant chunk of their daily lifestyle can also be funded through campaign fundraising, as most of what they do is part of their political operation, so their Congressional income can be used for other stuff. And both of them raise a lot of money *because* they’re extremists.