"Trump True Believers Have Their Reasons" - !!! - Actual NYT Op Ed headline from today

[NewHendoLib]

they seem to be missing "But They Are Wrong".

I see this as a perfect example of the media being quite clueless and legitimizing lies. Usually Edsall isn't this bad, but...wow. He is getting nailed in the comments.

Here is the link - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/opinion/trump-voters-2020-election.html

Sorry about the paywall

I will cherry pick a few paragraphs. He really doesn't write much in this - he just refers to expert research. That is what I will paste below.

snip

About 35 percent of Americans believed in April that Biden’s victory was illegitimate, with another 6 percent saying they are not sure. What can we say about the Americans who do not think Biden’s victory was legitimate? Compared to the overall voting-age population, they are disproportionately white, Republican, older, less educated, more conservative, and more religious (particularly more Protestant and more likely to describe themselves as born again).

snip

Social dominance orientation is a variable that refers to the preference for society to be structured by group-based hierarchies. It’s comprised of two components: group-based dominance, and anti-egalitarianism. Group-based dominance refers to the preference for these hierarchies and the use of force/aggression to maintain them. Anti-egalitarianism refers to maintaining these sorts of hierarchies through other means, such as through systems, legislation, etc. Trump voters were unique compared with supporters of other Republicans in the strength of their group-based dominance. I think group-based dominance as the distinguishing factor of this group is highly consistent with what happened at the Capitol. These individuals likely felt that the Trump administration was serving to maintain group-based hierarchies in society from which they felt they benefited. They may have perceived the 2020 election outcome as a threat to that structure. As a result, they turned to aggression in an attempt to affect our political structures in service of the maintenance of those group-based hierarchies.

snip

It may seem ironic that authoritarianism, a belief system that entails sacrifice of personal freedom to a strong leader, would influence the experience of meaning in life through its promotion of feelings of personal significance. Yet, right wing authoritarianism does provide a person with a place in the world, as a loyal follower of a strong leader. In addition, compared to purpose and coherence, knowing with great certainty that one’s life has mattered in a lasting way may be challenging. Handing this challenge over to a strong leader and investment in societal conventions might allow a person to gain a sense of symbolic or vicarious significance.

snip

The division between intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, they write, is distinctly partisan: intellectuals are disproportionately Democratic, whereas anti-intellectuals are disproportionately Republican. By implication, we suggest that both the intellectualism of Blue America and the anti-intellectualism of Red America contribute to the intemperance and intransigence that characterize civil society in the United States.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. To the christofascist the dictator is just he earthly stand in for God.

anti-intellectualism, fear mongering, racism, militancy, authoritarian, ultra nationalism, "hero" culture all fascist characteristics.

That article seems to be a great piece on minimizing the dangers of fascism and giving credence to their "reasons".

[whathehell]

7. The New York Times is not a "christofascist" organization..

Just sayin'.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

2. The sections you've selected don't seem all that impertinent to me

Reasonable intellectual analysis I thought.

[NewHendoLib]

3. yes, it is the click bait headline that doesn't match rhe article

[JHB]

4. 90% (likely more) of what modern conservatives are up in arms about is fantasy and horseshit

[UTUSN]

5. The excerpts give context for their susceptibility to whackness, but don't give "reasons" that the

article's headline says they have.

[NewHendoLib]

8. yes. if you read the comments, the Op Ed author is getting called out big time

[tblue37]

11. Editors, not writers, choose headlines.

[Yoyoyo77]

6. It could be an attempt at sarcasm. If so there should have been a ? added.

[NewHendoLib]

9. not an attempt at sarcasm, sadly. Just more false equivalence

[tblue37]

10. Writers don't choose headlines; editors do.

[NewHendoLib]

12. well - then the editors came up with clickbait nonsense

[tblue37]

13. Yes, but the OP implies the writer is at fault:

"Usually Edsall isn't this bad, but...wow. He is getting nailed in the comments."

[NewHendoLib]

14. do we really know for sure who came up with the headline?

One way or another, my point still stands. This is actually pretty typical for Edsall Op Eds - he is very much a wishy washy writer that lets the right wing off the hook.