Also in this article "Christian Atheists" will be discussed. It should be fascinating even if you don't trust this source. Republican Communism and Christian Atheism are not the same thing, although they have some points in common. Some readers (if we ever get any) will be annoyed that anyone is tampering with definitions or trying to categorize people in ways that might be strange to them. (There's a lot of that going around.)
Republicans, communists, Christians, and atheists all still exist very much the same way they always have, but some offshoots can develop over time, like "Christian Atheists" and "Republican Communists."
Many people use definitions that are established and found in dictionaries, and well they should. Most things do not change or require new definitions. In some cases however it can be a mistake to try to force reality to conform to dictionary definitions. Rather, definitions need to be written to conform to reality. Inexperienced students be forewarned. When those things that can change do change, it is important to develop new definitions that fit them. Sometimes people recognize they need new definitions and write their own. Sometimes journalists can help by informing them how they are polling and suggesting new definitions.
There was a movement in academia in the 60s that called itself "Christian Atheism" and had specially designed college courses. Copies of old magazines with articles about that are maintained by many public libraries in their usual comprehensive archives. There might be articles online as well. Christian Atheists were people who admire the philosophy of Jesus (as they interpret it), but do not believe in the divinity of the Trinity or any member of it.
The academic movement faded, there are no special courses as before, and there is no large organization. Nevertheless today quite many Democrats, some Republicans, some academicians and other people readily self identify as liking Christian "philosophy" to some significant degree and yet without acknowledging any divinity.
Almost no one self identifies as a Republican Communist. Quite many people do not use definitions properly and can drift off theirs unwittingly.
The terms "liberal" and "leftist" are often used interchangeably and without clear understanding of the usual differences. A common usage lately of "liberal" is one supporting a proposed change compared to a conservative who is supporting the status quo. In the United States recently both left and right often propose changes to the law in what might be described as a back and forth manner where the original concept is no longer clear.
A more established meaning of a "liberal" is one who believes for example the "original intent" of the Constitution is more open to interpretation. There "liberal" means "less literal" as it does in many areas outside politics especially scriptures. A person can well be a liberal with regard to interpreting scriptures and far less liberal, more literal, or perhaps "conservative" with regard to interpreting the Constitution. Legal writing is generally made as plain and literal as possible about things well known, while scriptures are often about the unknown and necessarily highly symbolic.
One who believes the intent of the Constitution can be changed through a process of interpretation is also called a liberal, but that is not a well established definition.
The difference between "communism" and "socialism" used here will be that communism is a more thoroughly political system while socialism is usually just an economic system.
A dilemma that has developed for some Republicans is that they are certain they oppose communism, but lately have noticed communists hold a morality more similar to their own regarding homosexuality, and for some Trump Republicans other policies are similar as well.
A significant contributing factor to confusion was that large numbers of Republicans (and other Americans) developed their world view by watching too much television during the Vietnam conflict. They associated "long haired males" with "communism" despite the fact there are virtually no "long haired males" in communist countries. Many such deluded people handed down their world view to their children and grandchildren. In fact following the communist revolution in Russia many long haired male Jews were driven out of Russia, but that was just before television.
Some people have difficulty sorting out opinions and facts. They also have difficulty sorting out causes and effects. Thus the political process in the United States has become a farce.
It can be obvious that there is a tendency in some people all over the world to blind faith in something or other. Some people prefer to just do what they are told without questioning it. They prefer not to think for themselves about what might be right or wrong and instead just agree with whatever their group does. For them it means not having to be responsible when things go wrong.
The hope that "science" would be better than such blind faith has failed miserably. There is just as much blind faith in "science" as anything else. It can create just as much or more trouble than blind faith in anything else. Then too, science is notoriously incapable of addressing moral questions.
Notice lately how much Republicans and Democrats do the same things, but it is only "correct" when their own group does it, otherwise it is "wrong."
It might be fair to say that blind faith is "working" in communist countries insofar as they have fewer struggles with some types of immorality. That could be the source of the new "Republican Communists." They want a society of blind obedience.
A reason communism has not succeeded in the West, especially the United States, is that western society is far more diverse in many ways. Western societies are typically far more stratified. That means there are more income levels. The highest levels are several times larger than the lowest levels. At one time the highest income level in China was only eight times the lowest. Western societies have had far more racial problems, and more serious racial problems. Troublesome attitudes still linger. It is not just a diversity of skin colors, it is a multitude of ethnicities also. It is far more difficult in the West to find one size that fits all. However benign the rule of the "simple folk," western society can strain their abilities.
It is rather unlikely that anyone even after reading this article will self identify as a Republican Communist. Why not? Would that not solve the problem of gender confusion?
No, it would not. Gender confusion is not the result of intellectualism. It is rather the result of blind faith in "science" to solve everything, in connection with the fact that science is incapable of addressing morality. Many members of both political parties, with both kinds of blind faith, need to be removed from their pedestals. Democrats are not the only people who have blind faith in science, many Republicans have too. The "religion" of the Trump base can be its own form of "Christian Atheism" (very different from Democrats).
Something that will definitely make more people "think twice" or break out of their simplicity is to acknowledge that evolution cannot explain the origin of life on a previously molten planet. Overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover will have a more profound effect on the country than overturning Roe v. Wade will. People will have to abandon their blind faith in science and learn actual science in order to persuade others of science. Abortion is beyond the purview of government, but overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover will make people "think twice" or put some fear of god in them. Some "Christians" did not see the advantage of putting fear, or perhaps a better word "caution," into people. It depends what is meant by "fear." If not having fear means being "incorrigible" then it is probably not a good thing. In 2 Timothy 1:7 the Apostle Paul was referring to Timothy and those of his family who had a long acquaintance with, and understanding of, God's laws. Paul was not referring to everyone. Some people who call themselves Christians are in fact incorrigible.
The Trump base is likely more "communist" than they realize or will admit. Some of them might admit to favoring blind obedience to something or other, perhaps even to Donald Trump, but they won't admit that's because they aren't good at thinking for themselves. This brings the question how do remarkably less intelligent people get their way on public issues?
There is the work of Dunning and Kruger that found people often perceived themselves as more intelligent because they are not.
Then there is the intelligence bell curve argument that the most intelligent people are in a minority.
Then also there is the observation that people whose arguments typically fail in the respective disciplines turn to politics to "win" their arguments. Some things should not be decided by voting and argumentum ad populum is considered a "logical fallacy" in those cases.
The "MAGA" Republicans are people who are "simple folk" who value blind obedience of some sort and thus might be prone to communism or the sorts of "nationalism" the communists have. They probably think "long haired males" are the problem, not being able to understand why, and not caring about understanding anything. It can be confusing when trying to identify males to require no facial hair whatsoever. Allowing some facial hair even if just sideburns can be one way to solve a problem identifying males if there is a problem. Very young males should not be in public without a supervising adult or older child capable of following instructions for them to avoid strangers. At one time some perhaps "low ranking" jobs had the word "boy" in their title such as "shoe shine boy," "paper boy," "copy boy," or "pool boy." The military style cut rules have the purpose of identifying the lowest ranks. Higher military ranks might be allowed 4 inches of top of the head hair.
Even under Trump they did not organize on critical issues. People who do not think for themselves have great difficulty organizing. Rather they need to be organized by others.
Another reason for the military style cut could be that women prefer the company of very small boys to the company of adult males because the women are genetically encoded that way. Cutting hair for that reason however would make family living awkward.
They do not know whether they should overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover. That is because the mathematics, chemistry and biology are far beyond their mental abilities. They would happily overturn it if they thought their party would get the credit. If they think I might get credit they balk because they think I am the communist in the room. They do not realize they are more communists than I am or ever will be. I believe in, and have always argued for, the personal responsibility of ownership. If you want to argue, please do, but spell my name right. Personal responsibility can be best for most people even on the left side of the intelligence bell curve. There is the advantage of "on site" decision making. Marriage in its original meaning was about taking personal responsibility for children. Parents make good "on site" decision makers, they are usually on site anyway.
There is still an attitude that overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover would fashion an unruly universe. Blind faith in science has already broken all the rules as people imagine a science capable of anything whatsoever.
Rather than blithering about hairstyles, an effective way to deal with gender confusion is to separate the facts from the opinions. The gender of the human body is a fact that cannot be changed. Mutilating the body does not really change its gender. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is famous for making that point, but in a different context. Their minds are one thing they can change, which should be especially clear when Kitzmiller v. Dover is overturned.
Despite their attitudes they do not have any idea when life begins. The exact time is beyond science because science does not acknowledge the existence of the soul. The soul cannot be measured with lab equipment in a dependable or repeatable way. Some MAGA Republicans believe the Bible says life begins at conception. The Bible does not say that. Unlike science, the Bible does acknowledge the existence of a soul, but does not say when that soul is embodied.
They failed to recognize, or their Supreme Court Justices failed to recognize, the 14th Amendment rights of women. Trivial adjustments to abortion laws might be possible, but not without recognizing those rights in state constitutions or eventually the federal Constitution. The so called "Equal Rights Amendment" failed ratification because it would have required equal numbers of women and men in military service and men and women to be awarded child custody in an "equal" manner in divorces. The "simple folk" in the Trump base apparently have difficulty understanding equal protection by the law is one thing, and the preference for different gender roles are another thing and yet can exist at the same time. It should be possible to protect rights equally of every profession without making them all the same profession.
Some Democrats assumed when the "red wave" failed it meant victory for their ideas. Their ideas are just as much blind faith as many others, and they have received no "mandate" from the elections. The Democrats are just as much a disaster as the Republicans.
In all of this it is important to remember that there can be "simple folk" with exemplary and admirable lives. They were just not MAGA Republicans. It is not necessary for them to have an affinity for communism.
There is some good news in that the results of the midterm elections might at last persuade the Trump base they are doing something wrong and stop their unnatural blind obedience to him. It is not likely that many individuals are as "stupid" as their parties or "herds" have behaved. It is just that they cannot control their herds. Rational discussion instead of Trump rallies should help guide the parties to wiser choices.
Shaving male faces, whatever people "think" about it (or not), is now and likely always will be very popular. That goes for hair cutting males as well. It sometimes does not make a good rule though. It does not have to, and should not, "mean" anything like a lower rank or blind obedience, except where expedient in the military. It is not necessary to have one size that fits all. It does not have to regard the history of beard prevention or removal or the ethnicities ("races") who do not grow beards at whatever age. It is probably best that it be just another option like so many other options, like women wearing pants. One thing to remember is that some people think it is far more important than it needs to be and they might have rather deep and strong emotions about it.
The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover is however definitely not a good rule ever. It is still suppressing a truth that eventually must break out. The people who still refuse to overturn it are severely mentally deficient, yet they still "succeed" where blind obedience does.