A dynamic that I don't entirely understand but think is interesting:
When group A (in this case, Democrats) gets in power they promote philosophy A (Climate Change) and it probably gets more general acceptance, but the on the fringe, it promotes a growing movement that goes against A (Climate Change Deniers), movement B.
And this benefits group B (in this case, Republicans) and over time that growing movement gets bigger and bigger.
And so, what's interesting, is group B when it gets in power could decide to not combat institutional control of A, because then the movement against A would keep growing, but they don't, they attack institutional Control of A, then institutionalize belief B, thus reversing the process, creating a movement against B / for A.
Would it be strategically more advantageous for group B to let idea A stay in the institutions, to keep the movement against A growing?
A dynamic that I don't entirely understand but think is interesting:
When group A (in this case, Democrats) gets in power they promote philosophy A (Climate Change) and it probably gets more general acceptance, but the on the fringe, it promotes a growing movement that goes against A (Climate Change Deniers), movement B.
And this benefits group B (in this case, Republicans) and over time that growing movement gets bigger and bigger.
And so, what's interesting, is group B when it gets in power could decide to not combat institutional control of A, because then the movement against A would keep growing, but they don't, they attack institutional Control of A, then institutionalize belief B, thus reversing the process, creating a movement against B / for A.
Would it be strategically more advantageous for group B to let idea A stay in the institutions, to keep the movement against A growing?