[mannykannot]

As you recognize the simplistic nature of labels, you should not be surprised when a group goes against type.

I think the key to understanding the so-called neo-consrvatism is that it is not 'for' anything; rather, it is against a long list of things, and virulently so. They are conservative in that conservatives have generally defined themselves by opposition to whatever has been changing in the societies of their generation.

Its other feature is the belief that its ends justifies the means, including the incitement of irrational anger and even hatred, which they regard as a virtue. This trait is latent at all political extremes, but only gains traction when a significant number of the generally more moderate or uninterested members of the populace believe they are being cheated out of something they are entitled to.

[marksellers]

And yet what I struggle most with is identifying who, if anyone, benefits from this. Who, if anyone, controls this.

Or is it all just chaotic feedback?

[mannykannot]

I think we are seeing combination of short-sighted self-interest and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", together with a willingness to use irrational arguments to advance those interests.

There have been many historical precedents, but perhaps none more so than the French revolution, which went through several cycles of this. The Terror only ended when the surviving politicians all realized that they were more likely to be executed than hold on to executive power, if they carried on this way.

[kortex]

My money is on chaos. You take all these powerful and/or power-hungry people, who all want their way, but they are also influenced by other movers and shakers to want certain outcomes, and soon it's one giant spaghetti strange attractor.