It sounds like, from your comments, that you believe understanding these people is going to enable change. In my opinion, I believe this is unlikely when you cannot appeal to irrational voters (who google "who pays tariffs" after their vote and the election concludes, who don't want Obamacare but love their ACA insurance, who want immigrants deported but don't understand that directly correlates to inflation [wage pressure and labor supply]). So why are we going to waste time trying to pander and appeal to them? What will that change? Protect vulnerable people worth protecting, good luck to the rest while we wait for a bunch of folks to age out (~2M/year 55+ voting cohort).
You hope the forest accepts advice against the axe, but it doesn’t. The answer isn’t “let those dumb trees die off”. The answer should be “what about our message of peril is so easy to ignore” or “why don’t these trees respect our authority to advise them about the danger of the axes”.
You will always have an issue if you can’t communicate obvious peril in a way that is accepted or if you lack the respect and authority that prevents your advice being heard and accepted. That’s the problem, not the forest and trees.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/12/10-facts-...
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/13/what-trum...
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/there-are-a-...