Example of adaptive group social contracts breaking

 Here's a really good quote by Ace of Spades HQ on impeachment 2.0.  I'll reference it from Legal Insurrection's post on it.

Purge her.

They’re joining with the left to brand 75 million Americans Uncharged Terrorists. Every time the neocon liberal Republican establishment people lose a primary contest, they defect to the Democrats to make sure the insurgent loses.

That’s what Liz Cheney did. She doesn’t like the insurgent politics of Trump, so she followed the neocon/Rockefeller Republican pattern of joining with the far left to defeat an internal party rival.

That’s not how coalition politics are supposed to work. How it’s supposed to work is this: We argue amongst each other, we even primary each other. But, within our own coalition, we accept the results of majority rule. If an establishment candidate wins, fine, the insurgents’ supporters support the establishment candidate — reluctantly, of course, but they still support him.

And if the insurgent candidate wins, the establishment is required to accept the will of the majority and support that candidate. Again, reluctantly, but again, they still must support their coalition partners.

As many commenters always — rightly — point out: We’re always accepting the need to put internal party fights aside at the general election, and we always wind up voting for the Shit Sandwich we opposed, based on the promise that if and when our guy ever wins, the Establishment Corporatist Neocons will support our guy.

But this promise is a lie. They never do support our guy.

This is entirely a one-sided “partnership,” where we have endless obligations to the self-declared “elite” and they have none whatsoever to us

For this academically minded blog, I think the interesting point comes in the second to last paragraph. You can hear the sound of an adaptive group breaking. I don't think this is just normal politics. I think adaptive group sacrifices have been weighed and found wanting. That leaves smaller groups as the source to which commitments and benefits will be sought.

In this process, I suspect a lot of individuals will aim too low.  They will go for cult-like small groups (like Qanon) that just can't provide any meaningful return on investment.  Some small group cults, like ANTIFA, due to political machinations, will provide lots of return benefit. Thus, I expect the right will find their small groups searching for adaptive benefits. Thus they'll probably start to fuse around bigger ideological issues that will allow state sponsored support. Say, something like rallying around Texas free speech support. Or, starting to create political protection leagues that are analogous to unions.

But , some will go headway into martydom identity fusion. If they can't find a solution for external benefit gain, like BLM's inroad into post-secondary and BIPOC job bigotry, then they'll probably explore the territory of jihadi-like identity fusion.  Christianity did that to great success in the 1st and 2nd centuries.  I think twitter, google, and the rabid MSM better watch out here - free speech wins via violence are an easy win for this crowd. They might not get any material benefit, but they certainly will win honour amongst many free speech proponents.