Conservatism is a reactionary ideology.

Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, and agency the prerogative of the elite. Though it is often claimed that the left stands for equality while the right stands for freedom, this notion misstates the actual disagreement between right and left. Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders. What the conservative sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension. For in that extension, he sees a loss of his own freedom.

-Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind

Conservatives are reactionary and that chart is not useful for much of anything. For example, the american conservative is technically a liberal. Liberal just doesn’t mean what most people think it does

1. Radical is simply a term meaning that something about the thing you are describing is very different from the status quo, meaning conservatives can also be radical.

2. reactionary is a term that is associated with many thing, but not the far right aka. Nationalsozialism.

Therefore, I wouldnt describe Trump supporters the same as I wouldnt describe this post and image itself: nonsensical pure idiocy.

I’m don’t love the chart and hate forced and false dichotomies.

Both ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are over-loaded terms, meaning that they can be used to mean too many things, some definitions almost directly contradict each other.

So I stick with the term ‘assholes’, which has a more universally agreed meaning.

People can be both, but generally it seems like MAGAs are more conservative-in-name-only while being genuinely and deeply reactionary. They will tell you they want smaller government (conservative) but then if you get into specific issues they’re happy to list all the things government should do, even if that makes it bigger, like tightly controlling borders and voting. However, a lot of them sincerely believe there are getting to be too many non-whites in their country (reactionary) and that anyone who’s poor deserves to be. Unless it’s them, of course; they’re just down on their luck.

They’re reactionaries, and deeply regressive.

What do you call it when your opinion conflicts with itself from one moment to the next?

I don’t think a single axis adequately models the system, nor does the US two-party system that attempts to cram everyone into just two buckets.

A mix of Amrerican exceptionalism, lacking education, cultivated affinity to cult personalities (or just propaganda for simpler term) and a political system that makes participation (outside the elite) very difficult.

Culturally very far from Europeans.

I think they’re on a different axis altogether. It’s not about policy, it’s a cult of personality.

Uneducated.

That’s the word you’re looking for.

Stupid if you don’t want to be nice about it.