Just want to make an observation. What you identify as “moral narcissism” has a striking similarity to the “faith alone” principle of most Protestant faiths, notably, following Luther and Calvin.

Luther denied that good works could save your soul, get you into Heaven. You had to Believe. Keep the faith, baby! Luther also believed that good deeds would flow naturally out of good faith.

Protestantism has been secularized. And I have noticed that that a lot of the “social justice” movement has emerged either explicitly out of Protestant denominations or from people who were educated in Protestantism.

What we see today is a Protestantism turned political, Protestantism turned into Progressivism. Once again, faith — both private devotional commitment and public affirmation — defines a person. And because we are all sinners, we must all feel guilty. And we must atone for our sins and confess our guilt. And the dogma may not be questioned, and heretics must be burned, and witches sought out and brought to justice.

Do you think it is a coincidence that Puritan / Congregational New England became the most Progressive part of the US?

You have noted how global warming seems to have turned into a religion. That is exactly right. I think it was Chesterton who said when men cease to believe in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. If the old Bible is rejected, people look for a new Bible.

However, we don’t know how the next couple years go and Trump might still ease into the job and be reelected as incumbents have substantial advantages.

1) Saying Democrats are all rich Bobos and poor minorities is awful Steve Sailer stats of mostly yesteryear or specific cities (say Chicago). There are a lot well off minorities and middle/working class whites here. Go to any tech company and they have a ton of diversity. (In fact, at my kids school, it is the WWC here that are inter-racial parents.)
2) Why are minorities voting more Democrat? Have you heard Steve King lately?
3) One aspect of diversity is if you grow up in multi-racial neighbors that becomes your reality. My High School and college were very diverse so it is perfectly normal to me.
4) The second term Obama economy minority real wages increased higher than white real wages. (Simply because more percentage of minorities in urban areas.)

Do I think it is stable Party affiliation on? Who knows and Party coalitions are never completely stable in the long run anyway. The Reagan/Clinton coalitions are broke down in 2016 and have to see if they do go.

Separately, Progressivism is starting to look more and more neo-conservative: through speech codes and Dear Colleague letters it is starting to sound quite Victorian; its opposition to economic innovation seems quite Luddite; and its efforts to define people as “employees” rather than “independent contractors” and to funnel more and more social benefits – healthcare, family leave, minimum income – through employers is more than a little reminiscent of Feudalism.

Where is the pull your pants speeches and its their own fault? Really what did HRC or Dems to cause Oxycontin? That is ridiculous utterly here. And HRC offered weak training stuff and drug programs if you listened to the tapes. (And investments of improved cell service.) Not strong stuff but at least something. And nothing is stopping them to move to Texas and in fact a lot young people did move there. Trump promised to bring all the higher paying jobs being tough on NAFTA and China, neither of which appears to popular with other voters and not happening on a large scale. So Trump told these voters he would bring back 1960 without any kind of plan
(I am not counting individual tariffs on soft lumber and selected products. Steel is still probably coming.) And HRC was terrible with these voters and has no ability to come back from a mistake like Trump or her husband.

And what is this grand plan of Hispanic Immigration? Hispanic-Americans were already 30% of the population in California, Texas, and New Mexico in 1990 and remember the Rs holding their chest out that Bush got 44% of the vote in 2004. Before 2006, this was not a Party issue. There is no Grand Plan and Democratic are stupid to assume demographic dominance in 2024 based on current party opinions. (Confident Yes, and Republicans should be concerned.)

But I think I figured out the more effective explanation. Whereas the Clintons perfected saying whatever got them votes what they really meant was somewhere between that and what they had to say behind closed doors to tell lobbyit’s to get money. In this, having actual beliefs is a detriment.

But Trump exaggerated his words, but his supporters still believe he meant the emotion and desires behind his words.

I considered his opponents highly likely to commit significant ground troops to third world hellholes. Trump hasn’t done so thus far. If he does I’ll change my mind on him.

Supreme Court justices were number one issue on the minds of people I know who voted for him. Most were Christians that were highly offended by his demeanor, but were correctely convinced that a Hillary court would have practically outlawed Christianity and turned PC enforcement up to 11.

Trump has one thing that none of the other candidates has though it’s not related to any legislation. He doesn’t hate most of his fellow Americans. Leftist and the GOPe loath at least half the electorate if not more. Voting for someone that hates you and wants you to die off is incredibly dehumanizing. Trump told people they had a right to be alive, that they aren’t the oppressor that brought all evil into the world.