I recall some "not my president," one endless investigation of a political rival and another, well a campaign by a future president for an investigation. Obviously hats weren't a thing at that point. A "resist" part seems not exactly analogous to the Tea Party push, but some of the fiery sentiments echo.
To me, much of the tone was brought to light though the last campaign. We'd been brewing elements of all this for a while. Words had been heated from the left through the W era, but were mostly taken at pearl clutching and such. Through the 2008-16 run, I think a certain extra level of extreme tone was burbling, more effectively from the party not controlling the executive (we talked about a "war on Christmas" and people seemed endlessly triggered by "happy holidays"). Different sides employed different brass knuckled approaches, with some hard-edged realpolitik to grind things to a halt and then try to slow them down.
And then in all this, you had a looming specter of a party that had held the executive for so long in seemingly better shape on that front. The other side's field was weak. There was talk of demographic changes putting the squeeze on that side. And it allowed a crack for a person with nothing to lose to harness that extreme tone. That tone had always been powerful, but had been kept as the quiet part. Suddenly it was loud. Historically, that brashness created missteps and missteps were costly. But it turned out that tone was quite powerful. It bundled with the game theory that keeps us at two parties, that at a point, people have to put something aside for something else they want. And in the dark parts of ourselves, I think there's some satisfaction in indulging in that kind of extreme tone. The right use of that tone, the right appeal in certain sectors and the natural coming home phenomenon allowed for a big swing.
And when the electoral outcome fell, it made that tone not the impediment it once was, but made clear it's the source of strength it has slowly grown into. The left has long been more hamfisted in trying to harness such a tone. The right, more elegant and sharp, like a boxer tight in its movements. And we find ourselves in this spot, at least until someone can capture electoral wins with a different sort of rhetoric.
So, if I read you right, you're saying that "liberals" have been ham-fisted assholes while "conservatives" have been sharp, elegant assholes?
As someone who was very unhappy about the election of Barack Obama, I think I can safely say that some of the opposition to him was based on racism. It wasn't my objection--there were several black conservatives whom I gladly would have supported, as well as others whom I have supported in the past--but it surely was the main objective of some.
That was a bad thing for many reasons, one of which is that it allowed "liberals" to delegitimize all opposition to the Obama administration as being based on nothing more than bigotry.
But there was no riot (preplanned or spontaneous) on Inauguration Day in 2009 or 2013. Nor was there a follow-on "March" that blocked access to the monuments and museums for all the visitors and tourists. I was there that weekend, leading a student group. (I had agreed to do it a year earlier, before anyone knew who the nominees would be, much less the general election winner.) It was awful. Our trip (for which each student had paid over $1,000) was ruined. There was nothing like that to spoil the two previous inaugurations. (I'll add that the incoming POTUS' hugely self-referential inaugural address added to the spoilification.)
Bottom line for me: Things were bad in early 2009 in terms of the losing side refusing to graciously accept defeat and they were even worse--much worse--in early 2017. And, the way we're headed, they might be worse still in early 2021, regardless of whose turd of a candidate wins.
