What are the psychological characteristics of people holding far-right beliefs?

[SNOWFLAKE]

No, it's not what I want to believe, it's what all of the psychology research on political leans shows.

It's not my opinion, it's a fact.

The left wing is higher in openness and agreeability. The ring wing is high in industriousness and disagreeability.

If you want to talk about extremists and fanatics, then they come from all walks of life and it would look less biased if you simply created a thread to talk about extremism in general. It has its own unique kind of psychology that is applicable to any side of the political spectrum where it is occurring. The specific beliefs that extremists exhibit are incidental to the psychology, meaning that it is not the specific beliefs themselves that create extremism but the way the person develops their own self-reinforcing psychology through repeated patterns and selective thinking.

That's not unique to the far right. Both the far right and the far left are prone to it.

Let me know when the Far Left in the US storm the Capitol, openly advocate for Civil War, refuse to accept election results, and come armed to school board meetings.

 

[HenryChinaski]

What are the psychological characteristics of people holding far-right beliefs?​

(no kidding)

https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english...tics-of-people-holding-far-right-beliefs.html

Snippets:



(SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT)



(EXPLAINS TRUMPISM)



(This one I tend to believe is not necessarily an exclusive far right phenomenon, we ALL tend to gravitate towards groups of "like-minded people.") Don't we?

They ooze tribal mentality, authoritarianism and sociopathic traits. But not always all of those at the same time.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Insecurity and a small penis.. Lol...

And lots o guns..

 

[Northern Light]

The issue is violent activity, there is little of that among college professors. The worst you’re going to get there is some identity stuff, which while it’s something I see as somewhat silly (I subscribe to the old notion of just treating people with respect unless they prove otherwise), it’s ultimately harmless.

What about left wing ideology that promotes rioting in disenfranchised areas, and the apologism for it if the rioters are "the oppressed", like POC? I'm thinking about Kenosha right now. Yes, a controversial moment to be sure, but it did demonstrate a double standard in how it was covered. Massive property damage with little support from law enforcement (until later), in the mean time a lot of "white people" were just defending themselves and their properties from mobs. When was the last time you saw right wingers rioting and then apologizing for it with their ideology? That ideology comes from the colleges. So I would say that the social justice politics and critical race theory in the higher institutions definitely has a negative impact on society. Accompanying that is cancel culture, mass censorship (see Twitter), doxxing, altering the education system to indoctrinate, etc. These things are real.

I don't think it's harmless at all. The ideology becomes weaponized when they espouse that the oppressed aren't committing violence against oppressors when they destroy towns etc... it's the oppressed trying to equalize systemic oppression, etc. I am paraphrasing, but that is essentially it.

Perhaps because you are liberal you only see extremism as a right wing problem. I'm moderate/centrist and I see both sides doing highly problematic things right now, more so the left in terms of sheer damage that can be measured in $$$. However, to balance this out, the right wing's damage is ideological when it comes to enabling other kinds of violence, such as rampant pro-gun culture that leads to schools being shot up, and the apologism around that. Maybe the damage can't be measured in $ so much, but its impact on the young generation is massive. They fight against inclusivity and see agendas everywhere when anyone simply disagrees. And yes Trumpists in the capitol... a scary moment to be sure. Controversial though as it seems like the security situation enabled it, which may have right wing implications as well.

In the past 5 years though? The left have definitely become out of control. If you can think of comparable right wing examples I'd love to hear them. I'd like to emphasize, I am saying that both are a problem, but the left is more, currently.

 

[Buckeyes85]

No, it's not what I want to believe, it's what all of the psychology research on political leans shows.

It's not my opinion, it's a fact.

The left wing is higher in openness and agreeability. The ring wing is high in industriousness and disagreeability.

If you want to talk about extremists and fanatics, then they come from all walks of life and it would look less biased if you simply created a thread to talk about extremism in general. It has its own unique kind of psychology that is applicable to any side of the political spectrum where it is occurring. The specific beliefs that extremists exhibit are incidental to the psychology, meaning that it is not the specific beliefs themselves that create extremism but the way the person develops their own self-reinforcing psychology through repeated patterns and selective thinking.

That's not unique to the far right. Both the far right and the far left are prone to it.

You may have stumbled into the wrong thread. This one is premised upon the purported attributes of the far right. And while it's true the fringe on either side of the spectrum may share various characteristics, it's a logical fallacy to suggest sharing certain attributes means they are "just the same." They are not.

And of course, the topic also begs the question of what exactly is the "far right" these days? When a majority of a party subscribes to unproven conspiracy theories that would normally be considered "fringe," has that not become the new normal?

 

[Northern Light]

I have no problem with a specific case study on the far right. My problem with this thread's premise is that the far right are "the problem" when that is a shared role with the far left. That's all I'm saying. I'm trying to check and balance some pretty obvious political bias, not derail your thread.

I never said anywhere that just because they share similar attributes that they are just the same. I said that extremism has certain characteristics which are shared among all extremists. I also believe that I clearly distinguished liberals from conservatives psychological, rendering them different categories, even at the extremes.

Anyway... moving on to the core of your thread, by your request.

My understanding of the definition of "far right" is a type of extremism that tends toward fascism. That is the classical definition anyway. It usually accompanies extreme nationalism, often racism, supports autocracy by violent force, and is against pluralism. I also think it goes without saying that far right extremism is against all things liberal. The psychological factors I mentioned earlier are still relevant. Right wingers are high in conscientiousness, which is the psychology way of saying that they value order. They highly value enduring social structures that are customary and traditional. Fascists are usually extreme control freaks that hate anarchy or even the suggestion of disorder. Hitler, for example, hated germs and was a clean freak. He found animals so dirty that he was a vegetarian. Hitler was a right-wing fascist/extremist.

What popular America now calls "far right", I'm not so sure fits the definition. The various echo chambers online that breed right wing conspiracy theories, I don't think we can say they are signs of extremism in of themselves. You have to assess the individuals consuming that content, and not just the platform itself. For example, a lot of people watch horror movies with psychopaths, but it doesn't mean all viewers are psychopaths. Some watch just to be frightened. But maybe there really are psychopaths out there watching because they derive pleasure from watching violence. And when ideology becomes espoused in political parties, you have to ask one very important question: do they really believe what they are saying or are they just saying it because it's a reflection of their voting base? And you can usually tell which is which by assessing their actionable behavior. You have to look at the SIGNS. Our country still tends to vote fairly 50/50 right/left in most elections. No need to worry yet.

My theory about most of these more recent "far right" characterizations is that they have grown out of a severe distrust from the left. Left wingers are critical of how the content on these platforms functions as an echo chamber that amplifies right-wing views, while having no checks and balances (such as outside info) to prevent mental hijacking. However, I would question if this qualifies them as "extremist" and not just hyperpartisan. I personally prefer the classical view of "far right" described above. To give an example of what I mean, I don't think Trump supporters are "far right" in of themselves. I think some individuals are, but many are not.

I think the left-wing in its hyperpartisanship will call anything to the right of it "far right", especially radical leftists. Disclaimer, I am not calling them radical leftists, this is what they call themselves. The left-wing has a problem with its own radicalization, and how there is in-fighting and competition for who can be the most radical in the application of ideology. That's why I don't think you can fully isolate the "far right" in this thread without talking about the "far left". The term "far right" is frequently borne of a radical left that sees everyone to the right of them as "far right". For example, I'm a moderate/centrist... if I critique left wingers at all, I get called a right-winger. Sometimes I even get called a right wing extremist! So you have to question who is coining this "far right" term to start with, since there is not an equally pervasive use of the term "far left" except maybe on Fox.

The answers you are looking for are totally relative to who is asking them. As a moderate/centrist, I find that a lot of so-called "far right" things are just "very conservative", but I wouldn't call them radical. Similarly, a lot of right wingers run around calling liberals "radical leftists" and I'm sick of it. People need to get a grip on their terminologies. A true radical leftist/extremist looks like Mao's liberation army or the Leninists/Marxist revolution vanguard. We're not there yet folks.

 

[Northern Light]

Let me know when the Far Left in the US storm the Capitol, openly advocate for Civil War, refuse to accept election results, and come armed to school board meetings.

Those things are true. So is left-wingers rioting in cities causing millions in property damage, ruining businesses and homes, and not being accountable for their actions because left-wing intersectional social justice theory and critical race theory claim that these acts are warranted in order for the oppressed to repay the oppressor. A black person who attacks a white person for being white literally cannot be a racist under these theories. It's impossible. You can't be racist against a white person. And if you question that, you're just a privileged racist who should shut up and sit down.

There are enablers everywhere. I see both sides playing the field quite well from where I sit on the center line.

 

[weaver2]

Let me know when the Far Left in the US storm the Capitol, openly advocate for Civil War, refuse to accept election results, and come armed to school board meetings.

You forgot their belief that Democrats are pedophiles that drink the blood of children behind the cellar door of the Ping Pong Pizza Parlor.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Those things are true. So is left-wingers rioting in cities causing millions in property damage, ruining businesses and homes, and not being accountable for their actions because left-wing intersectional social justice theory and critical race theory claim that these acts are warranted in order for the oppressed to repay the oppressor. A black person who attacks a white person for being white literally cannot be a racist under these theories. It's impossible. You can't be racist against a white person. And if you question that, you're just a privileged racist who should shut up and sit down.

There are enablers everywhere. I see both sides playing the field quite well from where I sit on the center line.

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.

Whataboutism: Behind the Deflecting Tactic in Arguments | FlaglerLive

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”

flaglerlive.com

You could have taken a short cut and do what the Right always does when confronted with an analysis of the Right - just yell "BUT BLM"

 

[Slartibartfast]

What about left wing ideology that promotes rioting in disenfranchised areas, and the apologism for it if the rioters are "the oppressed", like POC? I'm thinking about Kenosha right now. Yes, a controversial moment to be sure, but it did demonstrate a double standard in how it was covered. Massive property damage with little support from law enforcement (until later), in the mean time a lot of "white people" were just defending themselves and their properties from mobs. When was the last time you saw right wingers rioting and then apologizing for it with their ideology? That ideology comes from the colleges. So I would say that the social justice politics and critical race theory in the higher institutions definitely has a negative impact on society. Accompanying that is cancel culture, mass censorship (see Twitter), doxxing, altering the education system to indoctrinate, etc. These things are real.

I don't think it's harmless at all. The ideology becomes weaponized when they espouse that the oppressed aren't committing violence against oppressors when they destroy towns etc... it's the oppressed trying to equalize systemic oppression, etc. I am paraphrasing, but that is essentially it.

Perhaps because you are liberal you only see extremism as a right wing problem. I'm moderate/centrist and I see both sides doing highly problematic things right now, more so the left in terms of sheer damage that can be measured in $$$. However, to balance this out, the right wing's damage is ideological when it comes to enabling other kinds of violence, such as rampant pro-gun culture that leads to schools being shot up, and the apologism around that. Maybe the damage can't be measured in $ so much, but its impact on the young generation is massive. They fight against inclusivity and see agendas everywhere when anyone simply disagrees. And yes Trumpists in the capitol... a scary moment to be sure. Controversial though as it seems like the security situation enabled it, which may have right wing implications as well.

In the past 5 years though? The left have definitely become out of control. If you can think of comparable right wing examples I'd love to hear them. I'd like to emphasize, I am saying that both are a problem, but the left is more, currently.

The idea comes from basic human nature and the fairness instinct where humans have evolved to have an expectation of sharing within the tribe.

We aren’t in tribes (at least in this society) but that instinct is still there and translates into modern society.

The other aspect is that the poor gets routinely shit on, that’s part of being ooor.

A third aspect is that the poor have been rioting well before the invention of public education, it’s one of the few mechanisms they have. Look at what’s happening right now with china and COVID.

You are looking at the wrong thing to blame here, if you are looking at the colleges.

In terms of the other stuff you mentioned, what’s old is new again and stuff like publishing the personal information of people or mobbing based on some notion of justice has been going on for decades if not longer. Is it good? No. Is it some new invention of colleges or progressives? No. Are the progressives the only ones doing it? Every group is doing it.

 

[HK.227]

Can't wait to see the responses from the far right.
I'm sure in their mind these traits perfectly describe everyone on the left- not even the far left, everyone left.

The problem with your comment is that not only would you be right, they would be right too to some degree.

Left-wing authoritarians share key psychological traits with far right, Emory study finds | Emory University | Atlanta GA

People with extreme political views that favor authoritarianism — whether they are on the far left or the far right — have surprisingly similar behaviors and psychological characteristics, finds a new study by Emory psychologists.

news.emory.edu

Extremists don't view themselves as extreme.
If their extremism is at a level where they can't completely delude themselves that they are balanced individuals, they will refer to themselves as "avant-garde" or similar terms, but never as extremists. Extremists do however tend to project their own negative traits people they don't like***. Not just people they don't like who are extremists too, but everyone they don't like. Which is why you would get the effect you predicted, but it would be a tarnished victory inasmuch as they would at least be partially right insofar as it covered the far left.



*** ...and dress them up appropriately too while they are at it. Can't have those negative traits be too obviously one's own, which is why Nazis and Socialists will identify each other by ideological slogans and flag colors rather than traits that actually matter, such as being authoritarian scum who love reducation and thought police.

 

[element94]

Whatdo they call them up north?

Usually Dad, or when speaking of them we say my father, not my Daddy.

 

[Ikari]

Socialism or communism only works with a boost from capitalism.
See China for a good example.

Yeah, you like China, don't you comrade.

 

[Northern Light]

The idea comes from basic human nature and the fairness instinct where humans have evolved to have an expectation of sharing within the tribe.

BLM riots are not based in that. They're based in the ideologies aforementioned. The problem is that they are systems theories, they aren't meant to be foisted against individuals. So when BLM rioters trash police stations for example, they are saying that the systems theory applies to all the police in that station. The organization must be torn down. This is why the riots become indiscriminate and apologized for later.

We aren’t in tribes (at least in this society) but that instinct is still there and translates into modern society.

I think that is such vague and generalized reasoning that it comes off as quasi apologism.

The other aspect is that the poor gets routinely shit on, that’s part of being ooor.


A third aspect is that the poor have been rioting well before the invention of public education, it’s one of the few mechanisms they have. Look at what’s happening right now with china and COVID.

The riots weren't all "poor people" though. In areas like Portland and Seattle, a lot of the civil unrest/violence has been from middle class young people.

China is a completely other topic that is extremely complicated and I don't have any interest in conflating it with this one. We're talking about American politics here.

You are looking at the wrong thing to blame here, if you are looking at the colleges.

Not really. I think the social factors such as poverty and racism have always been issues, but the way the colleges are teaching young people to frame these issues is toxic and one-sided. It's leading to social movements that are violent, unaccountable, and not really remedying the problems they claim to be trying to address. BLM for example is becoming old news in the activist community now. Their corruption and money laundering is well known. Did they accomplish their Marxist manifesto? Not really.

In terms of the other stuff you mentioned, what’s old is new again and stuff like publishing the personal information of people or mobbing based on some notion of justice has been going on for decades if not longer. Is it good? No. Is it some new invention of colleges or progressives? No. Are the progressives the only ones doing it? Every group is doing it.

"The other stuff you mentioned"... like what? What are you quoting me on?

And I'm pretty sure I already said like 10 times now that both sides are doing it. I wasn't just blaming progressives. Again, your left lean is preventing you from seeing clearly what I'm trying to say. You want to go after the right, I am going after both the right and the left, and all you see is that I'm attacking the left.

 

[Northern Light]

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.

Whataboutism: Behind the Deflecting Tactic in Arguments | FlaglerLive

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”

flaglerlive.com

You could have taken a short cut and do what the Right always does when confronted with an analysis of the Right - just yell "BUT BLM"

Exhibit A of me being called a right winger, lol.

I'm not interested in your entry level definitions being used as diversionary tactics. My analysis included both the right and the left. There was not "whataboutism" since I was talking about the bigger picture.

Go away.

 

[Northern Light]

You may have stumbled into the wrong thread. This one is premised upon the purported attributes of the far right. And while it's true the fringe on either side of the spectrum may share various characteristics, it's a logical fallacy to suggest sharing certain attributes means they are "just the same." They are not.

And of course, the topic also begs the question of what exactly is the "far right" these days? When a majority of a party subscribes to unproven conspiracy theories that would normally be considered "fringe," has that not become the new normal?

Does nobody in this thread know how to read?

I just wrote a large post justifying how the right wing phenomenon is linked to the left (and vice versa) and how you can't talk about one without talking about the other, since they are related.

It's like I am talking to myself here.

You keep trying to steer the topic back to the far right as if I am off topic when I am very much on topic, and I have justified twice now how I am on topic.

Read more carefully or go away. I'm not going to keep doing this meta thing where we talk about who talked about what in this thread. I want to talk about the actual topic, which is extremism.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Does nobody in this thread know how to read?

I just wrote a large post justifying how the right wing phenomenon is linked to the left (and vice versa) and how you can't talk about one without talking about the other, since they are related.

It's like I am talking to myself here.

You keep trying to steer the topic back to the far right as if I am off topic when I am very much on topic, and I have justified twice now how I am on topic.

Read more carefully or go away. I'm not going to keep doing this meta thing where we talk about who talked about what in this thread. I want to talk about the actual topic, which is extremism.

I'd like to think my reading comprehension skills are just fine.
The "actual topic" of the thread is/are the characteristics of the far right. That you want to discuss something related, but different does not change that. Maybe you can have your own thread "Unhealthy characteristics shared by the extremes of both political spectrums." As I've willingly admitted, there's plenty of common ground.

But the "actual topic" of this thread is particularly more relevant in that at present, what would have once been considered fringe right wing ideologies are prominent amongst those actually running the republican railroad.

 

[Slartibartfast]

BLM riots are not based in that. They're based in the ideologies aforementioned. The problem is that they are systems theories, they aren't meant to be foisted against individuals. So when BLM rioters trash police stations for example, they are saying that the systems theory applies to all the police in that station. The organization must be torn down. This is why the riots become indiscriminate and apologized for later.



I think that is such vague and generalized reasoning that it comes off as quasi apologism.



The riots weren't all "poor people" though. In areas like Portland and Seattle, a lot of the civil unrest/violence has been from middle class young people.

China is a completely other topic that is extremely complicated and I don't have any interest in conflating it with this one. We're talking about American politics here.



Not really. I think the social factors such as poverty and racism have always been issues, but the way the colleges are teaching young people to frame these issues is toxic and one-sided. It's leading to social movements that are violent, unaccountable, and not really remedying the problems they claim to be trying to address. BLM for example is becoming old news in the activist community now. Their corruption and money laundering is well known. Did they accomplish their Marxist manifesto? Not really.



"The other stuff you mentioned"... like what? What are you quoting me on?

And I'm pretty sure I already said like 10 times now that both sides are doing it. I wasn't just blaming progressives. Again, your left lean is preventing you from seeing clearly what I'm trying to say. You want to go after the right, I am going after both the right and the left, and all you see is that I'm attacking the left.

We have had riots and protests before this current crop of college professors and its consistent among multiple societies and cultures. You are more interested in scapegoating then understanding human nature.

 

[sub1028]

Related to many of the observations made here but another aspect that is nearly universal among the far right is a belief in some kind of unified historical narrative. For example, basically all fascists believe in some kind of cyclical view of history. The "strong men create good times > good times create weak men > weak men create bad time > bad times create strong men" shit for example. Another common one is viewing Western Civilization as this sort of ongoing connected struggle starting with the Greek philosophers and directly connecting with us today. Sometimes the religious types will describe history as a battle between Good and Evil; very common among Qanon to view it this way.

There is this need to narrativize history and ascribe undo importance to events. A lot of Qanon members believe they aren't just battling for the presidency or political policy, there is an cosmic (almost mystical) importance to their struggle. They are fighting to save all of Western Civilization. They are fighting to save the US from literal Satanic influence. Etc. The need to believe everything is happening for a purpose and that reality is more like the Chronicles of Narnia.

add ANTIFA

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Go away.

When you take over ownership of this forum, then you can tell me to "go away".

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I'd like to think my reading comprehension skills are just fine.
The "actual topic" of the thread is/are the characteristics of the far right. That you want to discuss something related, but different does not change that. Maybe you can have your own thread "Unhealthy characteristics shared by the extremes of both political spectrums." As I've willingly admitted, there's plenty of common ground.

But the "actual topic" of this thread is particularly more relevant in that at present, what would have once been considered fringe right wing ideologies are prominent amongst those actually running the republican railroad.

People who STILL don't understand what whataboutism is.

 

[weaver2]

BLM riots are not based in that. They're based in the ideologies aforementioned. The problem is that they are systems theories, they aren't meant to be foisted against individuals. So when BLM rioters trash police stations for example, they are saying that the systems theory applies to all the police in that station. The organization must be torn down. This is why the riots become indiscriminate and apologized for later.

OK let's address the riots. They are based pretty specifically on police killing of Blacks. Conservative media never discussed the reasons for the marches, never addressed the confined locaions. They focused only on the violent marches and ignored the peaceful ones. The public now thinks all marches burned and looted vast expanses of cities for no good reasons. That conservative image is simply false.
From Time Magazine:"Their report (ACLED) states that more than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” ..... In cities where protests did turn violent—these demonstrations are “largely confined to specific blocks,” the report says.

93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project analyzed more than 7,750 BLM demonstrations in all 50 states and D.C.

time.com

I think that is such vague and generalized reasoning that it comes off as quasi apologism.

If the liberal reasoning about the violence is generalized and vague what shall we call the conservatives reasoning which gets all their facts from Fox, Breitbart, PJM et al.

I think the social factors such as poverty and racism have always been issues, but the way the colleges are teaching young people to frame these issues is toxic and one-sided. It's leading to social movements that are violent, unaccountable, and not really remedying the problems they claim to be trying to address. BLM for example is becoming old news in the activist community now. Their corruption and money laundering is well known. Did they accomplish their Marxist manifesto? Not really.

Colleges are not teaching students to address poverty and racism with violence. Most of the violence on campuses comes from campuses' Young Republican Clubs insisting that the university give a free venue to provocateurs like Ann Coulter, Milo Yannopoulos, Pamala Geller.

And I'm pretty sure I already said like 10 times now that both sides are doing it. I wasn't just blaming progressives. Again, your left lean is preventing you from seeing clearly what I'm trying to say. You want to go after the right, I am going after both the right and the left, and all you see is that I'm attacking the left.

Well we haven't heard any condemnations about conservative violence, but we have heard quite a lot of bullshit from Fox News making claims of liberal violence, corruption, and money laundering, so naturally you don't look very even handed.

 

[Northern Light]

We have had riots and protests before this current crop of college professors and its consistent among multiple societies and cultures. You are more interested in scapegoating then understanding human nature.

Not all riots have the same motivations. I'm the one being specific here. You are being too general.

"We've had riots in the past" yes but what is the reason for the riots and how are they analyzed in retrospect?

You're being totally dismissive of the fact that recent riots were fueled by liberal ideology. You simply won't have that conversation, it's obvious. Nor do you care about the connection between the far right and the far left.

This thread is just another liberal rag. I was foolish to think a nuanced conversation was possible.

 

[Northern Light]

I'd like to think my reading comprehension skills are just fine.
The "actual topic" of the thread is/are the characteristics of the far right. That you want to discuss something related, but different does not change that. Maybe you can have your own thread "Unhealthy characteristics shared by the extremes of both political spectrums." As I've willingly admitted, there's plenty of common ground.

But the "actual topic" of this thread is particularly more relevant in that at present, what would have once been considered fringe right wing ideologies are prominent amongst those actually running the republican railroad.

You're saying the same things over and over. It's boring and antisocial.

Sorry that nuanced conversations are lost on you. We're done here.

 

[weaver2]

You're saying the same things over and over. It's boring and antisocial.
Sorry that nuanced conversations are lost on you. We're done here.

Nuanced? "the fact that recent riots were fueled by liberal ideology." "colleges are teaching young people to frame these issues is toxic and one-sided. It's leading to social movements that are violent, " "the left in terms of sheer damage that can be measured in $$$." "the right wing's damage is ideological "

This is nuanced conversation?