Gulchnesia

Of the many indignities faced by being a 21st century human, having to place one's faith in expert consensus ranks pretty high.  The cold logic says that modern distributions of complex knowledge require a shared burden across society as no one can know all things.

Thus, the best laypeople have access to is a consensus formed within systems of knowledge, paying particular attention to the quality and accuracy of the consensus calculation.

In practical terms, this means outside our individual areas of expertise (which is 99.9% of things) we are forced to say "I don't know" and to rely on X or Y reference to established consensus view.
To argue against this logic is difficult.  Sure, many issues do not enjoy consensus.  In these cases, the best one could do is to be familiar with the strongest positions.
 
But putting that aside, it is too often the case that consensus views are challenged by non-experts.
This is modeling in popular discourse, and non-consensus views are routinely promoted, often for "clicks", as there is something titillating about presenting a narrative between two opponents, a David vs. Goliath, even. 

And when the two sides represent values laded with cultural significance, the event becomes a passion play.
 
I don't think it's new to say we've been witnessing an erosion in trust in expertise.  And maybe we can add mythmaking -  and identity reifying and taking up space within the void.

It's not hard to see how illiberalism thrives in this environment.  I've elaborated before on my understanding of the RW twin pillars of epistemic authority being traditional religious and secular cultural dogma, and the LW pillars being the diffuse tools of liberal enlightenment, such as reason, humanism, pluralism, empiricism, skepticism, etc. 
 
Maybe RW thought is basically ideations of a basic human inclination to caution & pragmatism at its best, and to domination and retribution at its worst.

If you are experiencing these impulses, what better narrative for them than a fundamentalist narrative about a harsh God that you must obey a strict interpretation of, or strict social traditions you must follow?

The problem is these narratives are incompatible with modern society.  Sure, if you want to carve out your sect, they can be tolerated within a larger pluralistic framework, but they cannot *be* the framework.
‪
As humans develop and technology advances, as we learn more and more about ourselves, the more and more obvious this becomes. 
 
I think the RW realized this at some point and had a decision to make.  What was that famous "split" a few years back - between the Catholic guy who wanted to retreat to a sect, and the guy who wanted to start a war to dominate the world?
 
The truth in these two paths is this: they cannot play the game.  They either destroy the game, or play by themselves alone. 

In practical terms, the religious among them don't want to work next to a lesbian and not be able to tell her she's going to hell.  The secular among them want to - I guess - be able to say retard and not pay so much in taxes.

And I get it.  They are constantly angry.  The cognitive dissonance of modern life drives them crazy.  Everything reminds them of how wrong everyone else is.  They are always scared, confused, angry, and sad about "the way things used to be".

So, if we get through this, we don't include them in the constitution.  It's better this way.  Better for them because they don't have to worry any longer. 

​They can maybe find a state somewhere.  Call it Gulchnesia or something.  They can't do a colonialism thought - even though, man would that be up their alley!
 
What about Antarctica.  It would be perfect.  They could be tough and rough.  Survive off fish and seaweed. Build houses out of stone.
‪
Meanwhile out constitution would have a global wealth cap.  Guaranteed equality for protected classes.  Guaranteed education, healthcare, daycare.  I don't know what else.  Some kind of socialist shit. I'm no expert.