There are tons of great insights in this piece, all woven into a coherent theme, making it one of the best political analyses I've read of these dark times.

I'd offer that the phenomena point to a deeper (although maybe less actionable) layer. A key aspiration of the left is bringing people together for social good -- hence the inclusive language. The key aspiration of the right is excluding those who are not part of the tribe.

I've read about sociological studies of how in liberal families, parents tend to include children in decision-making ("how can we make things good for everyone?") and how in conservative families, parents tend to be autocratic ("don't ask questions, just do as I say").

Trump embodies the child angrily and spitefully rejecting "elitist" family institutions. People support him because that's who they are inside -- and they see as Trump winning at the angry spiteful child's game.

A few small points. "Presidents" vs "presents." Also, one could argue Reagan eviscerated the American social contract, which so enthralled the country that people like Clinton felt they had to go along with it, or accommodate it, in order to survive as a political force. Also, the terms "neo-this" and neo-that" seem inherently uninformative, like saying a butterfly is a neo-caterpillar.