Why do good people who are Republicans act so bad regarding their government?

[Badger]

No, seriously. Hear me out.

There are a number of Republicans and conservatives whom I can definitively say are probably bad people on a personal level. To take to recently band posters is examples, I can confidently say that Mike naso AKA Reagan fan and famous Mortimer are horrible racists and, as I'm not incidental relation, pretty lousy people. However, there are plenty of Democrats who are individually lousy people as well. Such as the way of the world and it always shall be. Nothing new Under the Sun.

When it comes to governing the country - - I refuse to minimize or excuse their behavior by referring to these issues as merely "politics"-- Republicans and conservatives - - or just Trump supporters we will say - - almost universally disregard basic facts, and at minimum tolerate not outright write off for even appreciate Trump's self-dealing corruption and obvious megalomaniacal narcissism plus complete lack of personal empathy.

Or at least they don't mind it for the president.

If someone who worked for them started spouting off literally about their own great and unmatched wisdom, they would probably can that guys being clearly delusional and not up to the task. If one of their kids behaved and showed the level of narcissism and fundamental lack of human compassion, they would likely take them aside and ask WTF, didn't I raised you better than this? If someone in their local business community was his blatant about self-dealing and Corruption, and even publicly bragged about his efforts to shut down the investigation, they would think what a crock that guy is he belongs in jail. I am thinking of several members of my family who are I believe fundamentally decent people. They are by no means stupid, though most are addicted to Fox and oh, well, the size of their brain capacity does it mean it's not being filled with bulsh**t.

So my query, about which I'm genuinely confused, why do good people like this basically segregate one area of decision-making in their life, that being about the running of our country, and literally check out their good judgment and personal Integrity? These are people who I firmly believe would not cheat on their taxes or otherwise break the law to get ahead financially, so why do they readily tolerate it in their political leaders? They genuinely believe in helping others and volunteering for the soup kitchen - I can obviously don't talk to me about taxes and socialism - - but have no problem with toddlers being separated from their parents in locked in dog kennel so long as they're labeled illegals. These are very intelligent people, not morons. So how are they able to literally buy anywhere from 80 to 99% of what Trump says and not be able to see it for the Raging in your face don't care if you believe me or not bullsh**ting that it is?

The fact that they're politically conservative just isn't a satisfactory explanation for me. There's a difference between being politically conservative and being a moron who lacks basic empathy for anyone but you and yours. And yet while these people whom I love do not act or think this way in any other aspect of their life, when it comes to governing the country all bets are off and those Brilliant Minds and warm Hearts go right out the window.

Someone help me explain this? If you're some conservative with a legit answer, great. If you here just to get a snarky one shot in, then you can f*** off now.

[T'Chenka]

Whether they know it consciously or not, they are tribalists who want to see their tribe prosper and other tribes bend the knee and know their places as #2 or lower. Each of them defines "their tribe" differently, whether it is ideological, racial, cultural, etc. Their tribe's success is VERY important to them. They are willing to betray their own principles to ensure that their tribe succeeds and that "Americans" and "American values" are seen as synonymous with THEM and THEIR values.

To think of a more extreme example, some Syrians support ISIS because America has invaded their home and caused the death of their loved ones and destruction of their homes. They will support ISIS because ISIS is close enough to tjeor their tribe as compared to Americans. I'm not excusing this choice to support ISIS, but in a way I somewhat understand why they do it. Americans on the other hand are not living in a war torn country that can at times and places be full of death, danger, hunger, violenve, rape and anarchy. They have MUCH less of an excuse for tossing their principles aside in favour of tribalism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You cannot begin to understand the current political divide by looking to any point in living memory of anyone alive today.

We have an immense cultural divide that defines the two parties. We have a partisan press that caters to each side, with the positive feedback loop and confirmation bias that tailored search engines and recommended lists on various social media sites tend to create. This means that both worlds live in their own universe with their own priorities and their own truth.

Furthermore, they view the success of the other side as a fundamental destruction, an existential threat to the continuance of their culture, their political and social norms and their political wish list. To put it bluntly, it is a figurative fight to the death with the highest stakes attached to victory or defeat, possible.

The closest parallel that can be informative is the post Civil War period. This is often wrongly taught today emphasizing too much that there was a "lack of disagreement" between the two parties. This is fundamentally false, appropriating modern understandings of policy (especially economic) onto a past period. The Republicans, the party of Yankee whites and the Democrats, the part of White Southerners, Irish and other immigrants. The Democrats viewed the success of their opponents as an existential threat to either Southern culture or Irish political and religious rights, or both. Republicans viewed the success of the Democrats as an economic threat risking complete devastation to their wealth and power achieved in the Industrial Revolution and also a demographic threat in the form of displacement by immigrant groups (some things never change).

They each had their own newspapers, they each had their own "truth" and unity was maintained as much in opposition to the other side as in favor of any particular agenda, ideology or philosophical underpinnings.

Not surprisingly corruption during this period was rampant and it was tolerated and waved off, because while a Republican might be a crook, at least he will keep the tariffs high and put the Irish in their place, likewise a Democrat might be a crook but at least he will protect the immigrants and put the... (you can fill in the rest in your minds).

 It also worth mentioning that corruption itself takes on a partisan meaning. You see this every time one party raises hell about some behavior only to do it themselves. Also to the fervent diehards, the opposition party's agenda is itself the product of corruption. You saw this with conservatives viewing the green agenda as a slush fund for rich liberals in California and likewise Democrats seeing Republican policies as "corrupting the system" to benefit the rich. Once you play this out, the word corruption loses its objective meaning and becomes solely anything that the other side is doing, which by extension means that simply by opposing them and defeating them you have in your eyes, "drained the swamp". In Trump's eyes and many of his supporter's eyes, he "drained the swamp" when he defeated Hillary Clinton. His grifting since is either ignored, deemed irrelevant or even more blatantly embraced on the grounds of, well they had their turn at it, now it is ours (NC GOP on redistricting right there).

That is literally where we are at. "He might be a crook, but at least he is 'our' crook". The good news is, sooner or later this paradigm breaks.

[Person Man]

You cannot begin to understand the current political divide by looking to any point in living memory of anyone alive today.

We have an immense cultural divide that defines the two parties. We have a partisan press that caters to each side, with the positive feedback loop and confirmation bias that tailored search engines and recommended lists on various social media sites tend to create. This means that both worlds live in their own universe with their own priorities and their own truth.

Furthermore, they view the success of the other side as a fundamental destruction, an existential threat to the continuance of their culture, their political and social norms and their political wish list. To put it bluntly, it is a figurative fight to the death with the highest stakes attached to victory or defeat, possible.

The closest parallel that can be informative is the post Civil War period. This is often wrongly taught today emphasizing too much that there was a "lack of disagreement" between the two parties. This is fundamentally false, appropriating modern understandings of policy (especially economic) onto a past period. The Republicans, the party of Yankee whites and the Democrats, the part of White Southerners, Irish and other immigrants. The Democrats viewed the success of their opponents as an existential threat to either Southern culture or Irish political and religious rights, or both. Republicans viewed the success of the Democrats as an economic threat risking complete devastation to their wealth and power achieved in the Industrial Revolution and also a demographic threat in the form of displacement by immigrant groups (some things never change).

They each had their own newspapers, they each had their own "truth" and unity was maintained as much in opposition to the other side as in favor of any particular agenda, ideology or philosophical underpinnings.

Not surprisingly corruption during this period was rampant and it was tolerated and waved off, because while a Republican might be a crook, at least he will keep the tariffs high and put the Irish in their place, likewise a Democrat might be a crook but at least he will protect the immigrants and put the... (you can fill in the rest in your minds).

 It also worth mentioning that corruption itself takes on a partisan meaning. You see this every time one party raises hell about some behavior only to do it themselves. Also to the fervent diehards, the opposition party's agenda is itself the product of corruption. You saw this with conservatives viewing the green agenda as a slush fund for rich liberals in California and likewise Democrats seeing Republican policies as "corrupting the system" to benefit the rich. Once you play this out, the word corruption loses its objective meaning and becomes solely anything that the other side is doing, which by extension means that simply by opposing them and defeating them you have in your eyes, "drained the swamp". In Trump's eyes and many of his supporter's eyes, he "drained the swamp" when he defeated Hillary Clinton. His grifting since is either ignored, deemed irrelevant or even more blatantly embraced on the grounds of, well they had their turn at it, now it is ours (NC GOP on redistricting right there).

That is literally where we are at. "He might be a crook, but at least he is 'our' crook". The good news is, sooner or later this paradigm breaks.

I imagine that just doesn't happen when someone just "gives up".