So it seems like there's a part of the right wing (some people say they're radicalize-able, I don't know) that talks somewhat like us lefties (or libs, like me)...i.e. "both parties are corrupt, that's why I voted trump". But I feel like I don't hear the same terms to describe the duopoly that we use, terms like "duopoly", "oligarchy", "kleptocrary", etc. Why does it seem like they don't characterize the system using those terms, given that it seems like they agree with the basic premise that both parties/the whole system is corrupt/rotten?
I think they don't have class analysis like we do. By definition they don't have class analysis. They don't have a problem with Arkansas land deals. Their guys have land deals too. It's not about wealthy people doing corrupt land deals. It's about Democrats doing corrupt land deals. Because Democrats hate white males and want to take away your hamburgers and are beholden to the (((globalists))). Where as a leftist will see that corrupt land deals are bad for everyone. We have a fundamental disagreement on the idea of private property to begin with.
Yes they think the system works it's just ran by the wrong people. They share this with liberals. They are liberals. They're all liberals.
Ooooohhhhh...this makes sense. So they supplanted the globalists mythology for the "bad guys" (Dems), but give a pass to the "right guys" because they're going to do good things like stop abortion or whatever. So, what's the easiest way to undermine their faith in the system? (Again, I don't know if I'm actually on board with the idea that these people can be radicalized, but let's say they can).
You just point out how their side acts against their class interests and you hope that gets through to them. You convince them that class based analysis is better than the neolib/neocon/fascist analysis of simple narratives involving good and evil.