General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Hasn't The American Left Convinced More Americans To Vote For More Progressive Candidates? [View all]cprise
(8,445 posts)...on paper and in concept at least. That allowed social conservatives to align with free-market "conservatives" and both had fundamentalist factions that grew considerably after Johnson's term.
The rectitude of the Left in its stance on race and gender was so towering, and the sea change so bracing, that the Right could neither argue against nor reconcile with the new American identity. And the lens that brought the new identity into focus counter to the white patriarchy was a (big) government that set about mingling their kids with other races and upending their home lives via social services that judged them and often "took" their families away (actually enabled their families to "rebel" against them).
If the unreconstructed dominant white males could not have a government devoted to them specifically, then no one else could have it, either. As groups like the Heritage Foundation preached free-market fundamentalism to social conservatives, the recurring theme they evoked was the disposal or murder of government-- make it small enough to drown in a bathtub, like some biblically wayward child. (Its no surprise to me that today's Right that grew up on this stuff has created an America so hostile to children; Its part of the neocon/neoliberal social template.)
The above is what motivates the average, non-elite conservative demographic at its core.
A new facet was added in the 1990s: Anti-environmentalism which stands in for anti-communism. The pursuit of living large is non-negotiable, otherwise there is no reason for average people to believe they are going to make it big one day; no reason to identify with the wealthy and their aims.
Within this miasma of political instinct and calculation you have three tracks: 1) Those who believe that sabotage of government regulation and infrastructure is desirable because it allows a less encumbered environment for bringing people to Jesus before the imminent Second Coming; 2) Those who worship the market instead, and believe that pure "free trade" is preferable to democracy and will bring government under the control of market forces-- when infrastructure fails its because the market deemed it necessary to smite the "evil" poor; 3) Elites who tell themselves that 1&2 can't really be serious or influential enough in modern times to do much damage, and that borrowing from their zeitgeist is OK because it allows the private sector to get things done for their social strata.
1) Dominionist, 2) Social Darwinist, 3) Third Way... they all preach and abide by consumerism. Frighteningly, its 2&3 that do so for the same reasons which are economic growth, innovation and keeping people entertained/docile.
Some would say there is a fourth segment, the Tea Party. They are the unsophisticated cohort of 1&2 for the most part. But I'd say that doesn't make them any less of a burgeoning fascist movement.