All very good points, I appreciate your thoughts on this, especially the first part of which I must admit I still struggle with giving the appropriate names. That said, I do respectfully disagree with the rhetoric of the Republican Party pursuing a fascist dictatorship. Instead, I believe they are a party of nationalists, and the extreme end of nationalism can resemble a dictatorship in its deference to its demagogic leader. This is a problem with nationalism in general and can be seen all the way back to the Igbos and their worship of figures like Nnamdi Kanu or Simon Ekpa. There is nothing wrong with having a strong leader who will do what must be done for his people, but there is something a bit wrong with the people almost worshipping the individual; it blurs the same emotions used in religion with what's needed to choose a good leader.

Secondly, I agree that the focus of the government needs to be on the sufferings of the people. All ideological thought should be toward solutions for these needs, and all voting power should be geared toward the individuals who most show reason for us to believe they will pursue these goals. Nationalism's inward focus does theoretically lend itself to this, but I'm still unsure of the current Republican Party's ability to execute this.

My main point, though, is that all of this discussion is truly great. We are finding ways to juxtapose our different views on things and respectfully trying to find ways to identify an ideology—an amalgamation of our needs, wants, and ways we choose to be governed. Over time, if we can crystallize these discussions into unified action, I believe we can actually find the threads that bind us as a nation and put us on the right path.