I think it's an important point, but I think it extends far beyond and predates the Trump administration.

It happens all over the political spectrum to a degree, but the GOP and its supporters have really embraced it and have been using that kind of rhetoric for a long time (and it's worked very well for them in terms of framing and dominating debate): Consider talk radio, such as Limbaugh, which goes back to the 1980s or early 90s; Fox News hosts, such as O'Reilly and Hannity; and the Wall St Journal opinion pages. Look at the rhetoric used by Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Bush administration, or, for a specific example, the GOP congressman who yelled 'you lie' during an Obama State of the Union speech. Over-the-top, hyper-aggressive attacks on the other side is their common rhetorical tactic; they are demonstrations of aggression, for their supporters and for anyone who might disagree. (That's not meant to be partisan; I believe those are the facts and it would be false to say the politically correct thing, 'everyone does it equally':)

It's much broader than politics too. It's in reality TV, but by far the biggest example is Internet discussion boards. It's a continuing problem on HN, though my impression is that it's improved significantly here (thank goodness!). Certainly that predates Trump!

It's an obvious tactic in an argument: Act so aggressively and angrily that the other side is intimidated, and at worst no serious discussion is possible. It ends the discussion.

Consider The Onion's 2013 Point/Counterpoint article on the Iraq War:

* Point: This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

* Counterpoint: No it won't. It just won't. None of that will happen. You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

https://www.theonion.com/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entir...

That article was from 2003, not 2013.

I think you just summed up the political plan laid by Newt Gingrich in the 1980's when he brought the religious movements into the GOP and executed his 'Contract with America'. It was a plan of domination by all means necessary.

Back to basics and primate dominance behavior?

While I have exactly zero theoretical or empirical foundation for this, I've found that Kubler-Ross' 5 stages of grief model (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) works really well as a conversational compass in adversarial interactions.

Duterte just said something of the same formula to Trudeau when Trudeau brought up Duterte's human rights violations.

Trump handpicked these people to dismantle the Federal government's executive branch, and his base things it's gotten too strong. To them, regulations are overall an example of the problem.

Tax reform - less taxes

EPA - hired a guy who fought the EPA, authorized keystone pipeline immediately.

Betsy Devoss - privatizing stuff and slashing budgets

HUD - Ben Carson, neurosurgeon

Department of Energy - Rick Perry who didn't know what it does and wanted to close it, who isn't a scientist

And of course Ajit Pai, probably the best example of rollback of progress.

Jeff Sessions disappointed Trump when he recused himself.

You gotta understand... Trump's a fiscal conservative's dream. Short of Ron Paul no conservative would have the guts to sabotage the executive branch with crazy directors as much as Trump.

An alternative explanation is that Trump is making his best effort to bring back the spoils system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

A fiscal conservative’s worst nightmare you mean - slashing programs to fund bigger military, rich people initiatives and boondoggles. none of the policies enacted r dudes the size or spend of government, it just redirects it to benefit the elite ruling class.

Pai was nominated by Obama, and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

While true, this is not the full story. As I'm sure you know, the FCC is split between Republican and Democratic nominations by design, and Pai was nominated as the Republican option. It was Trump who appointed him as Chair, thus giving him the authority to carry out his (de)regulatory agenda.

Right, but Obama still picked him out of the universe of republicans. It’s not like the RNC told Obama who to nominate. Lumping him together with Betsy DeVoss is a misleading attempt to paint him as outside the mainstream. Yes, he’s pro-deregulation, but hardly to an unusual degree. The whole developed world is in a two-decade trend of liberalizing their telecom markets. The EU, for example, doesn’t have any media ownership rules similar to the FCC’s, not do member countries like Sweden. Many countries have nothing like our ponderous (about $8 billion per year) universal service fund. To pick random examples: Sweden got rid of its universal service fund in the 2000s, Germany in theory has one but it’s never been invoked, and Denmark never extended it to broadband (like Obama did here).

Ajit Pai was appointed to the commission (as a member) by President Obama, and confirmed in 2012.

President Trump placed Ajit Pai as Chairman in 2017.

Attempting to rhetorically preclude logical discussion is not even remotely new in politics.

GP said it's rampant among a particular group of people, not that it's new.