Remembering the first time I knowingly encountered the befuddling thing I would eventually know as MAGA.
It was 2008, on Facebook.
It was my old college buddy, Stove Minivan.
(Names have been changed to mock the guilty.)
There was a lot of linking to sites I’d never heard of, like Breitbart and Newsmax, and of course plenty of Fox News. There were a lot of memes. There were a lot of conspiracy theories (a big birther, was Minivan).
Some of his posts contained subtle bigotry. Most of the rest contained not-subtle bigotry. Several of them contained slogans and statements that were, very simply, neo Nazi and white supremacist memes and watchwords.
At the time my belief was, you defeated bad ideas with better ideas, by confronting the bad ideas directly with the better ideas. Debate was for changing minds. You presented your ideas, they presented theirs, you countered, they countered, eventually everybody saw the truth.
But the intention was that I’d change his mind, with facts presented logically, delivered calmly and patiently.
This was my belief.
What happened confounded me, but perhaps you can predict it.
I’ll admit that over time my interactions stopped being polite and bloodless, and I’m not particularly sorry for it. I told him some things about himself he seemed not to know, but which I thought really ought to be said.
I have a bit of a penchant for sarcasm, which you may have noticed.
I employed this skill, and you can feel how you want to about sarcasm, but I think it helped convey the correct posture to take toward someone who says the sorts of things Minivan was saying.
Minivan was not somebody whose intentions could be trusted. He was not operating in good faith, and I believe he well knew it, because many of his favorite sources of information have written instruction books on how to engage with people in bad faith.
Minivan was not debating; he was using debate to inject his counterfactual beliefs into the discourse, which were designed to further marginalize already marginalized people while simultaneously cloaking himself in self-exonerating grievance.
More, he was exerting an active effort to not know things that could be easily known, and then demanding to be convinced out of deliberate ignorance, not because he was interested in having his ideas challenged, but because he demanded that we all must live in a world not of shared belief in reality, but one in which he got to decide what was real.
Further still: Minivan *learned* from me. The effect of telling him he was using one or another logical fallacy was not to sharpen his reasoning, but to teach him about the existence of logical fallacies, which let him (incorrectly) accuse others of logical fallacies—deploying the language of logic, in ways that betrayed a total lack of understanding about logic, yes, but still a presentation that likely made him seem more knowledgeable and reasonable to a casual or sympathetic observer.
Indeed, soon enough, another figure would come on the scene, whose behavior matched that of Minivan almost exactly, a perfect avatar for this spirit of aggrieved bigotry and supremacy that seemed to be moving through my former friend.
And sure enough, as I saw, there were millions and millions of smiling seething people who loved him.
And that guy became president.
Few believed he would. And then he did.
Because Stove Minivan, it turns out, wasn’t some weird outlier.
@JuliusGoat This makes total sense on one level: Conservatism was always MAGA that dared not speak its name. But the interesting q to those hoping one day to live in a world without MAGA is why, at some point, that value system got established in him when it didn’t in you or others. (Or why, once established, it changed for others and not him.) Somewhere the stories diverge, and there must be some leverage there.