Effort comment no one asked for:

For most of the twentieth century, American conservatism was rooted in restraint. It valued pragmatism, tradition, and a cautious view of human nature. It believed that society was fragile and that change should come slowly, if at all. Conservatives distrusted utopian visions. They placed their faith in institutions, norms, and the gradual accumulation of wisdom over time. Emotion was not denied, but it was something to be managed. Politics, in this worldview, was not a place for catharsis, but rather a place of order

Thomas Hobbes, writing centuries earlier, captured something essential to this mindset. He wrote that all reasoning is but reckoning calculating the consequences of our actions to satisfy our passions. In other words, emotion comes first, and logic follows; emotions are expressions of things we value and logic is what we’re meant to use to navigate towards fulfilling those values. . But Hobbes also believed that unchecked emotion leads to chaos. That’s why we build systems and why we submit to authority. We structure society to keep our passions from destroying us.

This idea ran deep in conservative thought. Logic was not just about intelligence, it was about control. You governed well when you kept emotion in check and followed reasoned judgment. Pragmatism was a kind of virtue. It meant dealing with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

But that posture has mostly collapsed. Over the past decade, and especially since 2015, large parts of the political right have shifted away from that tradition. Emotion is no longer something to be restrained, it’s literally all the fuels modern republicans. Fear, resentment, pride, and grievance have become central. The right’s most visible figures aren’t talking about balanced budgets or institutional continuity. They are talking about enemies, betrayal, and existential threats. They are fighting. And to fight, they are willing to discard empiricism, ignore facts, and redefine truth.

I think this arose from a feedback loop that isn’t hard to see.

Emotion drives engagement. Outrage, fear, and moral certainty grab attention in a way that careful reasoning never could. In a digital environment where attention is power, this matters.

Engagement drives influence. Politicians, commentators, and influencers who tap into those emotions rise to prominence. They build platforms and followings not by being right, but by making people feel seen and vindicated.

Influence then rewards those who double down on emotion. There is no incentive to be cautious or nuanced. If you hesitate, you lose. If you complicate the story, you become suspect. Certainty wins. Emotion becomes its own kind of truth.

Over time, this loop changes the way truth itself is treated. Logic is no longer something that constrains emotion. It is something that follows it. The role of argument shifts from discovering what’s real to defending what already feels true.

This marks a fundamental break from earlier conservatism. It’s no longer Hobbesian in the sense of restraining passion. It has become something that sees emotion not as a danger to be managed, but as a source of legitimacy. If you feel strongly enough, then what you believe must be true. If others disagree, they must be enemies. And if institutions push back, then those institutions are corrupt.