1

Stahl
Matthew Stahl

Dr. Mahoney

ENG 345

5 May 2024

The Horseshoe: How American Conservatives Repurpose Progressive

Rhetoric

Over the past few decades, American conservatives have leaned

further and further toward fascist extremism. While this shift has taken place

over a relatively long stretch of time, with some pointing towards Ronald

Reagan’s presidential tenure as the “beginning” of the Republican Party’s

push towards unbridled fascism in the party, but even more recently the

Republican party, and conservatives in general, has reached new heights in

their approach to social issues within the United States. While economically,

conservatives have stood relatively steadfast in the interest of capital

acquisition and pro-corporate policies, conservatism in America has relatively

recently taken a new approach that challenges even this “bedrock” of the

Republican Party. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked an

interesting development in how the Republican Party has framed its rhetoric

toward political issues, with a renewed and outspoken interest in social

issues as the crux of almost all discussions within the political ecosystem.

Interestingly enough, the current shift in conservative rhetoric seemingly can

seemingly be linked to the core rhetoric of American progressives, with links

both between how conservatives utilize -progressive messages to their own

2
Stahl
benefit as well as how conservatives appear to use the rhetoric of

progressivism itself for their own purposes. Within this exploration of modern

American conservatism, these links will be explored, including how

conservatives co-opt and alter progressive language, how conservatives

have all but claimed political ideas like populism and libertarianism, and how

conservatives utilize even the foundational principles of progressivism to

their advantage, in order to examine why conservatives have begun to utilize

the opposition’s tactics and what implications this has about the modern

American political environment.

The Modern Republican Party

While the Republican Party has been no stranger to addressing social

issues, with examples like abortion rights and Christian Nationalism being

bastions of the Republican Party for decades, the shift to social issues being

practically the only concern of the party is seemingly a more recent

development. Since the Trump administration, conservative politicians and

media figures have become increasingly interested in speaking on social

issues like immigration, LGBTQ rights, and racism. Even economic discourse

is often inexplicably woven into discussions on societal problems stemming

from, usually, one of the three aforementioned topics. Discussions on why

businesses are failing are often linked to “increasing” crime rates in inner

cities, which is almost always linked to poor minority groups as the root

cause. To conservatives, increasing gas prices and inflation is a result of Joe

Biden being in power, with limited information being provided that actually
3
Stahl
links the two things. Housing crises are a result of Chinese interference in the

American housing market, and young people being unable to afford living

spaces is a result of laziness and entitlement. The list of this could continue,

but the attribution of social issues to economic issues is becoming

increasingly prolific in conservative dialogue.

This apparent shift in rhetoric was not some haphazard decision by the

Republican establishment, rather, it is a carefully crafted method to ensure

political engagement from the American population. Average Americans,

despite claiming that economic issues are at the top of their list of concerns

(Most Important Problem), at least appear to fall into discourse on social

issues much more easily than economic ones. There are quite a few possible

reasons why this is happening in America. For one, while economic issues are

somewhat intangible to many Americans, such as the national debt, the gaps

between the rich and the poor, and wage stagnation, social issues are much

more visible. While these economic issues can be displayed via charts and

graphs, the response from seeing these is much different from seeing, for

example, a drag queen reading a novel to elementary school students or

vast amounts of refugees attempting to cross the southern border. A

conservative can turn on the news and see a man adorned in makeup and

exorbitant wigs walking in a parade, and immediately see the thing that is

making them uncomfortable. The US government, on the other hand, doesn’t

have a giant vault of money that is increasingly diminishing over time for all
4
Stahl
Americans to see. The tangible threats become seemingly, at least in the

moment, more serious than the intangible.

This, however, does not account for all economic issues. For example,

while a person may not be able to see the immediate difference in what they

are earning versus what their employer is, they can certainly see the prices

of their grocery bill increasing, or how they are no longer able to afford

payments that they once were. These issues are more tangible, and thus,

unavoidable in public discourse. This is where the relabeling of political

issues becomes necessary for the Republican party. In his book, The

Persuaders: At the Front Lines of the Fight for Hearts, Minds, and Democracy,

political pundit and journalist Anand Giridharadas explains the ways in which

political issues are framed has a vital impact on how they are perceived. In a

chapter where he explains his discussions with activist Anat Shenker-Osorio,

Giridharadas details how, “…comprehension couldn’t be assumed, meaning

well isn’t enough, stimulus doesn’t equal response” (216) and continues to

explain how Shenker-Osorio went about creating a new methodology to

engage voters. This methodology involved working within lots of groups to

test which political messages were the most impactful to people, and which

fell flat. This system did not create a “one-size-fits-all” solution, but rather

was a way to create and test messages, failing and learning as these tests

went on, before eventually releasing one to the public which resonated with

the intended audience.

5
Stahl
In a vein similar to Shenker-Osario, the Republican party seemed to

find a messaging tactic that resonated with their base: fear. While an innate

human emotion, fear has been shown to be one of the foundational aspects

of conservative ideology (Pedersen et al.). While this is not to say that other

political ideologies do not feel fear, an example being that progressives are

fearful of issues like LGBTQ and abortion rights being stripped away,

conservatives seemingly react more strongly to these fear responses, hence

the title of “reactionary”. The Republican Party is aware of this and has

catered their messaging accordingly. While an advertisement of a

Democratic politician may be beckoning for a better tomorrow, Conservative

messaging is much more likely to appeal to this fear response. LGBTQ

individuals aren’t just “odd” or “different” from the audience, they threaten

their very way of life. LGBTQ isn’t an ideology of acceptance to them, it’s

forceful indoctrination into their lifestyle and it’s LGBTQ groups wanting to

take their children and groom them. Immigration isn’t just an issue because

immigrants don’t always speak English, it’s because immigrants will take

their jobs and murder their loved ones. The Republican Party plays into

preexisting biases and turns those into real fears, and coupled with the

likelihood that their voter base will not be interacting with these groups, it

creates an environment where these “others” can’t be anything other than a

threat. The current Republican Party is using this sort of messaging to

inflame their voter base and make voting a matter of life or death. Placing

economic issues like job security hand-in-hand with immigration issues turns
6
Stahl
these economic issues into yet another reason why this social issue is

critical.

Progressive Language

Considering that social issues play a vital role in the conservative

movement, surpassing economic issues in terms of media coverage and

interest, these social issues are often covered as a way of framing it as an

“Us versus Them” issue, but with the rise in progressive ideology in America,

conservatives have also begun to borrow the terminology of progressives to

their benefit, despite labeling progressives as the enemy. One such example

of this is the term “woke”. Conservatives are quick to label anything and

everything as “woke” as long as it disagrees with them. Healthcare is

“woke”, workers’ rights are “woke”, and anything having to do with the

disenfranchisement of minority groups is “woke” as well. “Woke” is a term

that came into usage in the early 1900s to symbolize an awareness of social

issues, and due to originating from Black communities, especially those of

racial issues (Woke). Over the past few years, being “woke” became less of a

way for progressive activists to signal their alertness of disenfranchisement,

but was taken over by the right as a way to label, and therefore trivialize,

any sort of progressive activism that counters their own interests. Despite

this, conservatives have taken the term and morphed it into their own self-

interests besides alienation. Rather than being “woke”, conservatives who

“understand” what is going on behind the scenes of the economy and

government are a different type of “woke”. Conservatives will be quick to

7
Stahl
label anyone, especially liberals and progressives, who use mainstream

media as “sheep”, framing themselves as the lion in the idiom, “Lions led by

sheep”. Aside from the implications of being courageous, the lion also is used

as a way to say that they are at the top of the hypothetical food chain and

that everyone else who does not agree with them is simply an animal waiting

to be slaughtered.

To conservatives, being “woke” is interestingly not all too different from

the progressive understanding, though needless to say there are some very

critical differences. For one, conservatives who claim to be aware and

informed will often criticize the political establishment, something which

progressives are also in favor of. “Woke” conservatives seem to understand

that the political system is flawed and that there is a disparity between the

wants of the American populous and the wants of the political and economic

elite in the nation. The key differences are found in who, or what, is actually

governing the nation. For progressives, the common idea of what is actually

controlling politics is almost always the bourgeoisie. Progressives link the

actions taken by politicians and the funding they receive and have concluded

that politicians are almost always subject to their corporate interests, rarely

acting in a way that would harm them. Conservatives, on the other hand,

often seem to believe that there is an elite cabal of people who run the

nation for one reason or another. These theories are almost always rooted in

racism or antisemitism and often include people like the Obamas, Clintons,

Bidens, and George Soros. Many appear to believe that Barack Obama is still
8
Stahl
in charge of the nation and is only using Joe Biden as a way to bypass the

two-term policy, while others say that wealthy billionaires (who are for some

reason almost always Jewish) are in control. Regardless, it is clear that the

“elite” that progressives refer to and the “elite” that conservatives refer to

are not the same.

Another example, which is related to the notion of the “elite” is the

right’s obsession with corporate groups like “big pharma” and “big tech”.

While progressives also refer to these groups as societal powerhouses that

need to be checked, once again this issue is divided in what is going on.

Similar to the “elite”, conservatives view these corporate powers as

institutions in charge of a conspiratorial “globalist” agenda. To them, Big Tech

censors their free speech (usually by banning or suspending fascists on

social media) and Big Pharma poisons them by giving fake vaccines that will,

somehow, either kill, possess, or infect the population in one way or another.

Big Pharma in particular was a big concern of conservatives in the COVID-19

pandemic, wherein conservatives were quick to write off any vaccination as a

scheme from some elite figure, often Bill Gates, to poison the human

population. While progressives also have issues with these institutions, it

usually stems from their control over things like what media is being

displayed in the case of Big Tech, and how pharmaceutical corporations are

price gouging life-saving medicine in the pursuit of profit.

In trying to attack the Covid-19 vaccinations, conservatives

hypocritically attacked the idea of trusting science. Conservative pundits

9
Stahl
attacked Democrats for alleging that the vaccine was safe and that the

scientific trials that were done concluded that they were safe. In doing so,

these conservatives, knowingly or otherwise, backpedaled on one of their

biggest arguments against the LGBTQ movement, that it was not supported

by science. Despite the claims that transgender people are scientifically

invalid, a claim that holds no actual grounds in science considering the

modern scientific movement separates sex and gender, was arguably one of

the most overused talking points in the height of the trans-panic of the early

2020s. Conservatives claimed that the scientific research done was

illegitimate, finding niche scientist grifters to talk about how the vaccine was

dangerous, many of which later either took back their claims or were found

to have no real influence or legitimacy in the field of virology, harkening back

to the vaccine panic spurred on by Andrew Wakefield over 25 years ago.

“Facts don’t care about your feelings” has been one of the trademark lines of

political commentator Ben Shapiro, especially in relation to transgender

people’s rights. Interestingly enough, this rhetoric is coming from the

political party that adopts Christian rhetoric, which also concerns itself over

how life begins at conception, that evolution is not real, and in some sects,

that the Earth came into being only around 6 thousand years ago, all of

which do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Despite these contradictions,

conservatives have attempted to paint themselves as the ideology of science

and common sense, stating that liberals and progressives lack the ability to
10
Stahl
account for science, despite turning a blind eye to any science that disproves

their values.

Conservatives have used these progressive terms and ideas to their

advantage, making it seem as if, to their voters at least, they are the party of

common sense. To conservatives, it isn’t that progressives are incorrect that

there are certain societal issues, but rather that those issues aren’t what

progressives seem to believe. While other examples of this exist, such as

how conservatives believe in racism, but they often don’t believe it is as

prevalent as progressives claim it to be or even go as far as to say the only

racism in America is against white people, but the previously examined

examples paint a vivid picture of how conservative rhetoric takes the terms

and phrases popularized by progressives and uses them for their own gain.

The Claiming of Political Ideas

Conservatives have been successful in taking almost exclusive

ownership of certain political concepts and ideologies as well recently. One

example of this is the ideology of libertarianism. While not inherently a

progressive nor a conservative ideology, conservatives have successfully

rebranded libertarianism as an inherently conservative political philosophy.

For one, modern American libertarians focus a lot of their efforts on

combatting gun control, climate control, and other corporate interests. To the

modern American libertarian, the corporation has the same rights as an

individual, and quite often, even more so. It is up to a company how much

they should pay their workers and how they should be treated as well as
11
Stahl
what means they take to produce their products. This is foundationally

related to “Reagonomics”, or the idea that when the heads of corporations

receive more wealth, that wealth will “trickle down” to all of those in the

company. For this reason, any government intervention in corporations,

whether it be making union busting illegal or providing a minimum wage and

other worker protections, is harmful to the worker. Libertarians also

commonly associate themselves with protecting things like the right to self-

defense and free speech. Libertarian advocates state that gun reform takes

away the right of Americans to defend themselves from others, with an

emphasis on the government being a threat to those Americans. They also

argue that the right to free speech is being attacked, which circles back to

the earlier discussion on “Big Tech” censorship, usually in regard to hate

speech. This also ties back into corporate interests, as the weapons market is

inexplicably linked to the Republican Party. Though the Libertarian Party in

the United States is technically a third party, they do work closely with the

Republican Party (much as the Green Party does with the Democratic Party),

with Donald Trump even speaking at the Libertarian National Convention

(Colvin).

Another political idea, in this case, a political stance and rhetorical

tactic, is often associated with the far-right and Republican Party, that being

populism. While progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria

Ocasio-Cortez also fall in line with populist rhetoric, no politician has been as

greatly associated with it recently as Donald Trump. By speaking to the

12
Stahl
American people as an “outsider”, Trump was able to garner the support of

millions in the 2016 election, with many still being die-hard supporters. He,

and other adjacent far-right politicians, capture the populist ideas of anti-

establishment perfectly to the American people, with one of Trump’s

catchphrases in his 2016 election campaign being “drain the swamp”, or in

other words, to evacuate the government of all the political establishment

and set forth a new wave of (conservative) outsiders. Both Sanders and

Trump might use the phrase “political elite”, but as we explored in the

previous section, they mean entirely different things. Trump’s populism has

created a cult of personality behind with, with many voters claiming he can

do no wrong, and him even stating that he could, “I could stand in the

middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any

voters, OK?” (Dwyer). Again, though not inherently a progressive tactic,

populism does play a large role in how candidates like AOC and Sanders

were able to garner a supportive voter base, especially young people. By

taking over the American perspective of what a libertarian or populist is,

conservatives have been able to associate anyone who has that

perspective with some form of political extremism, as while liberals might

hate Donald Trump and his populism, they now link populism with his

extreme positions, and thus place Sanders into a box of extremists who

should not be in office.

The Foundational Principles of Progressivism

13
Stahl
Some of the most interesting developments in the American

conservative movement have been how Republicans have reframed some

of progressivism’s most foundational principles to their advantage. For

example, inclusivity is seen as an inherently progressive feature.

Conservatives are generally depicted as exclusionary, being described as

racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, and the list goes on.

Contrarily, progressives are seemingly supposed to be welcoming to

everyone, caring not what a person’s background is as long as they want

to help the movement. While these are still the core values of these two

political ideologies, the viewpoint of many Americans may paint a

different picture. Despite being an ideology built on equity and inclusion,

modern progressives often come off as exclusionary, wanting the “purest”

political activists to join their ranks. Slight differences in opinions,

backgrounds, and where a person gets their news from is often divisive

and causes small in-groups within the left to form. Conservatives, on the

other hand, appear to be welcoming of almost anyone from the outside

perspective. It’s not uncommon for conservatives to be spotted holding up

signs that say statements like “Blacks for Trump”, or less commonly now,

“LGBTs for Trump”. Despite progressive media figures being much more

likely to be in a minority group, and possibly because there are so many

more minority media figures in progressive circles, minority conservatives

stick out more and almost make it seem like there are more of them.

Figures like Ben Shapiro, Candice Owens, Hannah Pearl Davis (more
14
Stahl
commonly known as “JustPearlyThings” or “Pearl”), and Blaire White stand

out on the right for constantly discussing their marginalized identities,

making it seem that simply having those identities makes them the most

informed on issues relating to them. A person might see a video by Blaire

White and think that because it is a trans person speaking out against

other trans people, they must be better informed on the issue and just not

subject to the biases of the communities. This, while not true,

demonstrates how conservatives have made it seem like anyone is

welcome in their circles as long as they understand that what the left says

about their marginalized identities simply isn’t true. When critically

looking at these figureheads, however, it is clear that this acceptance

isn’t always there. Ben Shapiro is outspokenly Jewish but is often attacked

by the far right, including Candice Owens, for his identity as a Jewish

person. Blaire White and Pearl are often considered to be political

punching bags, selling themselves out to receive attention from

conservatives and progressive commentators.

Despite this, the illusion of acceptance from conservatives is still

present, and the gatekeeping of many progressive groups is as well. The

progressive movement has lately found itself struggling to allow those in.

The fear of inviting newcomers into circles only for them to hurt the

progressive movement has led to groups becoming increasingly defensive

with whom they accept and do not accept while the conservative

movement has gone on the offensive, scooping up anyone they can in

15
Stahl
order to gain a larger base. Even if the newcomers are well-intentioned

and have meaningfully reassessed their values, the fear that they still

could revert back to their old ways of thinking, or that even if they have

always been seen as progressive could shift what they stand for (much

like Kyrsten Sinema did a few years ago), has led to progressive groups

being too fearful to accept newcomers to their movement. This is, as

Anand Giradharadas calls it, “the great write-off”. This fear-driven

practice has had, and likely will continue to have, disastrous

consequences for the political left. As Giridharadas puts it,

The stakes of this writing off were high: some of the most dangerous

and antidemocratic movements of our time had managed, in spite of

those features, to make their causes appear welcoming and make

newcomers feel at home, whereas some of the most righteous,

inclusive, and just movements gave many the feeling of being

inaccessible, intractable, and alienating. (14)

This tendency leads moderate voters to be increasingly likely to want to

participate in what they perceive as a welcoming community, especially if

they don’t have strong political ties. Even more startling, as has been

made evident over the past few years, lonely young people (especially

boys) will join groups that they perceive to be welcoming to them, and if

they are even slightly reactionary (as young boys can tend to be) this will

lead them to join online groups that push them into the alt-right rabbit

hole.
16
Stahl
This writing off could also lead progressives to lose the bigger

picture and fall into despair or, as it is commonly referred to in online

circles, “doomerism”. In this period of political instability, with Donald

Trump and Joe Biden facing off in their second election, the political

stakes of writing off could lead to an extreme shift in how politics work in

America. When it comes to writing off, progressives don’t simply stop at

not allowing people into their circles, but write off politicians as not

worthy of being voted for in the first place. This was seen in 2016 and

2020 with the “Bernie or Busters”, and is once again coming back to

haunt the Democratic party as Joe Bidens disastrous handling of the

Israel-Palestinian genocide has made progressives see him as an enemy,

and make the decision to not vote for him out of their perceived moral

purity. This could lead to Joe Biden losing the 2024 election and making

the effects of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” a reality, spelling

the end to democracy in America as we know it.

Implications for the Future

It is important to understand why conservatives might have

adjusted their rhetoric to more closely mimic that of progressives to

understand what implications it may have for the future of the Republican

Party and the future of America. For one, focusing on social issues through

a lens similar to progressivism seems to be the most logical way to do so.

17
Stahl
Because progressives, as a result of their ideology, are the driving force

behind making people aware of social issues, it is only natural that

conservatives, who seek to maintain the status quo, change their

arguments based on the leading fights of progressives. It is also important

to point out that while conservatism is seemingly on the rise in America, it

comes as a result of progressives increasing in popularity. A Gallup poll

done in 2023 showcases how conservatism had been on a steady decline

from 2009 to 2015 and then stabilizing from then onwards, while

liberalism has been increasing from 2010, dropping off in 2019, before

wavering back and forth between then and 2023 (Jones). This wavering of

political ideologies showcases how conservatism is simply not as popular

now as it has been in the past, and to compensate for this, the Republican

Party decided to change their approach to one that had been shown to be

working, that of progressives. Appealing to an “Us vs Them” mentality

and attacking the “elite” is a symptom of Americans losing their faith in

an establishment that has only been making their lives worse, a topic that

progressives have been actively trying to combat. By taking the

progressive perspective and having a “Them”, they have been able to

counter this decline in popularity, turning it from deflation to stagnation.

Conservatives were often considered to be the party more

concerned with economics, while progressives and liberals were more

focused on social problems, but when Republicans were losing on

economic issues and Democrats were winning on social ones,

18
Stahl
conservatives shifted their strategies. By hiding their economic agendas,

ones which would not benefit most of their voting base, in social policies

that enflame their voters, conservatives are able to kill two birds with one

stone. Not only are they able to enact social policies that attack

marginalized groups and create scapegoats for their voters to blame for

societal issues, but they are able to sneak through pro-corporate policies

that benefit their funders. It also helps conservatives to sway the

undecided voters, who Giradharadas calls the “Good Point People”, or the

“persuadables” (220-222). Conservatives are able to appeal more to these

persuadables by focusing on issues that they would be paying attention

to. As Shenker-Osario points out, “What we actually see from

persuadables is that they toggle between competing views of the way the

world works, and whatever they hear repeated most frequently becomes

‘common sense’ and ‘what everybody thinks” (Giradharadas 222). In this

way, the media plays a crucial role in determining what issues this 60% of

voters believe in. If, for example, a voter watches an equal amount of Fox

News and MSNBC coverage of a particular political issue, and Fox News

states that immigrants are dangerous more than MSNBC states that they

aren’t, then Shenker-Osario’s theory would make it so that person is more

likely to think that immigrants are dangerous. Though this is not how this

usually works, Americans are more likely to watch one or the other, the

principle still stands as those voters are now almost exclusively hearing
19
Stahl
one side of the argument, and thus, only believing one side is “common-

sense”.

There are several implications for these conservative tactics, and

luckily for progressives, not all of them lend to conservatives’ benefit. For

one, the shift into social issues speaks to the desperation of

conservatives, as they realize what they have been doing is no longer

working. Conservatives have realized that their obsession with helping

corporations is not popular anymore as millions of Americans face

economic problems. Attempting to cloak their unpopular economic

policies with social policies might sound good on paper, but conservatives

seem to have gone too far too fast with it. Take LGBTQ issues for example;

conservatives have been making the trans-panic and LGBTQ concerns

some of their top issues, yet in 2023, most Americans were not in favor of

the anti-LGBTQ policies being pushed by conservative politicians (Peele),

and economic issues were still, by a huge margin, the top concerns of

Americans (Economy Remains).

In conjunction with this disconnect with the majority of voters,

conservatives have opened the floodgates to more fascistic members to

become outspoken and sacrifice their relationships with their corporate

ties. As a result of the Republican Party diving headfirst into reactionary

rhetoric, and allowing the Trump administration to essentially disqualify

any Republican who doesn’t align with the reactionary social policies of

the alt-right, a new wave of conservatives have become popularized:

20
Stahl
conservatives who do not care about corporate interests. If the point of

expanding more into social issues was to distract voters as they push

unpopular economic policies, these new actors have become problematic

as they do not care about corporate issues. By focusing almost solely on

social issues, the Republican Party has allowed for politicians like Ron

DeSantis and Marjory Taylor Green who openly fight against corporations

and the elite that the Republican Party serves. This could be used to the

advantage of the Democratic Party and progressives as Republican Voters

are no longer truly being catered to by their party, and if the Democratic

Party were able to hone into economic issues that focus on helping the

middle and lower class, they would be more likely to persuade the

persuadables.

With the 2024 elections coming up soon, the political ecosystem will

take a crucial step in one way or another. Conservative desperation has

led them to new lows, vowing to disrupt democracy by any means

necessary as soon as they gain power. While this might seem like an easy

win for Democrats, the Biden administration has lately been mishandling

crucial issues such as the protection of immigrants and the genocide

against Palestinians, making it increasingly likely that young voters do not

show up to vote. It is yet to be seen how this upcoming election will play

out, but whatever the result is, the only thing that can be certain is that

the political ecosystem of America will be changed dramatically. While

conservatives have taken up many progressive elements to boost their

21
Stahl
support, it is likely that this will be changing once the election has been

decided, for better or for worse. While the Republican Party might rely on

using progressive rhetoric and vocabulary for now, if they were to win

they would likely shift their rhetoric to become strictly fascistic. On the

other hand, if Donald Trump once again loses this election, it might spell

the end for the Republican Party as we know it. With Democratic economic

policies and viewpoints becoming more popular with the majority of

Americans, and with conservatives losing support in social issues, it is

likely that once the 2024 election comes to a close, whether it be Joe

Biden or Donald Trump in office, the political landscape will change

significantly.
22
Stahl

Works Cited

Pedersen, Walker S et al. “Conservatism and the neural circuitry of threat:

economic conservatism predicts greater amygdala-BNST connectivity

during periods of threat vs safety.” Social cognitive and affective

neuroscience vol. 13,1 (2018): 43-51. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx133

Colvin, Jill. “Trump Will Speak at the Libertarian National Convention as He

Woos Independent Voters.” AP, 1 May 2024, apnews.com/article/trump-

libertarian-rfk-jr-voters-gop-biden-

659e6f19dec85344bfe1f93e0ea1c0a1.

Dwyer, Colin. “Donald Trump: ‘I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn’t

Lose Any Voters.’” NPR, 23 Jan. 2016, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-

way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-

i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters.

“Economy Remains the Public’s Top Policy Priority; COVID-19 Concerns

Decline Again.” Pew Research Center, 6 Feb. 2023,

23
Stahl
www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/02/06/economy-remains-the-

publics-top- policy- priority-covid-19-concerns-decline-again/.

Giridharadas, Anand. The Persuaders: At the Front Lines of the Fight for

Hearts, Minds, and Democracy. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Kindle Edition.

Jones, Jeffrey M. “Social Conservatism in U.S. Highest in About a Decade.”

Gallup, 8 June 2023, news.gallup.com/poll/506765/social-conservatism-

highest-decade.aspx.

“Most Important Problem.” Gallup, 2024, news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-

important-problem.aspx.

Pedersen, Walker S et al. “Conservatism and the neural circuitry of threat:

economic conservatism predicts greater amygdala-BNST connectivity

during periods of threat vs safety.” Social cognitive and affective

neuroscience vol. 13,1 (2018): 43-51. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx133

Peele, Cullen. “Reality Check: Public Opinion on LGBTQ+ Issues Ahead of

Second GOP Debate Highlights the Failure of Extremist Attacks.” Human

Rights Campaign, 26 Sept. 2023, www.hrc.org/press-releases/reality-

check-public-opinion-on-lgbtq-issues-ahead-of-second-gop-debate-

highlights-the-failure-of-extremist-attacks.

“Woke.” Merriam-Webster, 18 Apr. 2024,

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke.
24
Stahl