On the instinct that Fascists are bound to lose in America.

There is a historic thread in American culture that is, I think, also a basic human instinct, which could be called anti-authoritarianism.

It's the instinct against allowing any one group or person to gain too much power.

It's also the instinct that we're all in this together. When one person's life improves, others do too. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and all that."

Broadly speaking, in America both political and cultural conservatives and political and cultural progressives feel this instinct at times, but I think it is a core spiritual energy behind progressivism. It's why universal healthcare, economic equality, and racial equality are generally seen as progressive ideals specifically. Progressivism, or leftist politics, is driven by the idea that creating a better world means leveling the playing field.

That's the instinct a progressive will fight for, and it's why Antifa, for instance, is considered a leftist group. It's also the ideal that, in its more extreme forms, a conservative/traditionalist will attack, or make fun of.

I think this is because there is another American cultural trend that is also a basic human instinct that creates conflict with, and often overrides, the anti-authoritarian instinct, and we could call it tribalism.

It's the instinct towards giving power to the group, or people, that are seen as being right.

It's also the instinct that tells us there are people and groups that don't have our best interests in mind, and that sometimes people improve their own situations by taking from other people. It's also the instinct that allows us to function (at least marginally) as a representative democracy.

Like anti-authoritarianism, the tribal instinct is felt by both progressives and conservatives, but I think it is a core spiritual energy behind conservatism. It's why "Constitutionalism" is seen as a conservative idea, as is American exceptionalism, and why "proud to be an American" rings as a conservative statement but not necessarily a progressive one. Conservatism, or right-wing politics, is driven by the idea that creating a better world means empowering the groups that have "made America great".

It's an instinct that conservatives will fight for, and it's why Nationalists are considered right-wing groups. It's also an ideal that, in its extreme forms, a progressive will attack, or make fun of.

Broadly speaking, neither of those instincts is bad, per se, and both can be used to good ends. But both can be problematic, and can be manipulated by leaders with power. The anti-authoritarian instinct can be used to undermine trust in those who deserve to be trusted, and the tribal instinct can be used to empower those who are not "right", assuming they can convince the population that they are.

The tribal instinct is most powerful in a starvation context, were multiple groups are fighting for survival.

And the anti-authoritarian instinct makes the most sense where there are plenty of resources. Where everyone can conceivably have a good life using what's available.

Ideologically speaking, I'm optimistic that the fascists are bound to lose in America, because the starvation narrative here is a false one. There's actually plenty to go around, and the issue with resources here is an issue of distribution, rather than availability. Ultimately, the anti-authoritarian instinct is more true and functional in our context, so I think on the whole it will win (and is already winning) as a political philosophy.

As a movement, Trumpism has employed tribalism as a primary motivating energy in a situation where plenty of resources are actually available to go around. He's stoked a sense of fear and threat that was there already, but that was being tempered by anti-authoritarianism to some degree. But a place like America isn't tribalism's natural habitat - which is why historically we've generally made progress towards greater equality between groups. Trumpism relies on the ability to sell the narrative that there isn't enough to go around - that the "others" in your culture represent an existential threat.

This sense of threat is instinctual and cultural, so it's maybe no surprise that the right has been successful in drumming it up. But the problem they have in continuing to sell that idea, I think, is that the actual tribal threat in America is the rich vs. the poor, and the powerful vs. the powerless. Most Americans see, I think, that majority groups are a much more serious threat to minority groups than vice versa. Stated simply, it's hard for the tribalists to sell the idea (at least to the majority) that the Mexicans or the Blacks are the problem when their prime representative's ass is sitting in a literal throne in a literal Gold Tower.

The tribal instinct is good to the extent that it encourages a society to give power to people and groups who are right, and that's when people generally feel comfortable with following it. The basic situation is that the tribal instinct has been employed to put people in power who are not right. Who are exploiting the population, and are doing harm to the community. (This is generally, actually, what we think of when we hear the term "authoritarian".)

The type of tribalism with actual moral authority is the type which also satisfies the anti-authoritarian instinct: the tribalism that organizes those for whom the system causes harm against those who exploit, or even alter, the system for their own benefit. It's what is meant when we talk about "Being on the right side of history". In an environment where there's plenty to go around (and I should be clear that I think there's plenty to go around on the entirety of the planet), there's no moral justification for those with plenty to prevent those without it from getting a bigger piece of the pie. And eventually, I hope, the fascists are bound to lose.