> The U.S. is much more socially conservative than Europe, which has to do with being much more religious than Europe

Thats a misconception. The main conservative voting blocs in both locations have the same kind of weight and cloud if reflected in a proportional system.

> A multi-party proportional system would give this segment more independent political power and weaken liberals

Nope. Like the above, the main driving blocs would remain mostly the same in their talking points, while many separate parties would align, cooperate and make coalition with the main drivers.

You are also missing the fact that the reason why people coalesce in such big 'broad umbrellas' in the US is because they have to do it.

> Incorrect. The "east coast old money types" are among the most socially liberal of the subgroups of the U.S., and Harvard and Yale are extremely liberal on social issues.

The recent finance/media cliques can be said to be so. However we were talking about the traditional heritage of the US. And in history, it is as I described.

> Engineering schools like MIT and CalTech are actually more socially conservative than schools like Harvard and Yale. STEM workers in general are more conservative on average: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246

We were not talking about social conservatism. We were talking about anti-intellectualism, secularism. A MIT grad being more socially conservative on gay marriage or LGTBT rights does not mean that he or she will be tolerant to anti-intelectualism or will support anti-intellectual, anti-scientific policies of middle America.

> Roe was written by a Nixon appointee

Again, you are getting stuck on peripheral social issues while losing the gist of the argument. Anti-intellectualism is something that has a much bigger scope than the abortion debacle or LGBT rights.

> Not so. In my home country of Bangladesh, there hasn't been much of a "reactionary" movement since Islam was reinstated as the official religion in the 1980s.

My good man, if the islamism has already taken over, it means that you reactionary movements have already won. Which means that they existed way before that, and they were at work to achieve precisely that objective.

Which means that your secular society did not encompass everyone and did not try to bring all the amenities of modern science, technology and social advance to those people through education, social programs, employment and the like. They remained poor and destitute, seeking help from religious groups instead. Which is a perfect fit for Islam since Islam already has such charity/solidarity organizations built into the religion.

Again, its a perfect case that fits the pattern I described.

> You're conveniently forgetting the U.S., which was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that quite consciously distanced themselves from the European enlightenment

That's false. The leaders of the American Rebellion were followers of the Enlightenment, and some even were way beyond just being followers. Thomas Paine even served a few terms in French Revolutionary parliament as a MP. From Washington to Jefferson, the leaders of the rebellion were way too radicals for their time, even in the issue of slavery. The sole reason that the concept 'America is not founded on religion' exists is because of those radicals. And it was one of them who explicitly said that.

> Meanwhile, continental Europe has become so culturally decrepit that they have lost the will to perpetuate their society and are being replaced by Muslims

This sounds like your personal opinion fueled on your personal perceptions without any statistical or historical basis. The percentage of muslims in Europe is 6%, and this includes those who dont practice.

The reason Europe is faltering is precisely because the center-right conservative types are implementing Reaganism for the last 40 years and their projects of privatization, profiteering are finally having their effects visible.

> The reaction to that isn't some Bircher conspiracy, it's a natural cause-and-effect

Anti-intellectualism and gay marriage are not things that are in the same rank. Anti-intellectualism existed before anyone 'forced' anything on anybody and it wanted people to live like the Amish or Mormons then, and it does so even today. If the late 19th century seculars have not forced secular modernism on the society, they would succeed to do so, as can be seen from how backwards the Middle East remained due to rejection of science.

Your personal biases are causing you to make extreme extrapolations and lose sight of the core subject.