As a counter-reaction to the clear leftist dominance in culture and the takeover of the apparatus of state, Conservative parties were now the opposition to "the man", by default. They revamped themselves in movements such as the Tea Party and Brexit, in the realization that their founding philosophies were indeed still worth fighting for. Many of these classical liberal beliefs were once shared by both right and left but now had been seemingly abandoned by the left for the more outward Socialist and Communist goals of the greener pastures of the further left. This in turn gave the right the fuel to embrace these values all the more as part of their heritage. To be fair, moderate leftists still hold these beliefs as sacred, or at least as semi-sacred, as any of those on the right, yet, in all of this, the far left was / is still convinced that they are carrying the torch of revolution and resistance to imagined enemies of a status quo that they actual control. Ironic, huh?
So this is where we are at now. A state of "Political Schizophrenia", as Vladimir Putin recently disparaged the state of political and societal affairs in the US. But, let's go back to the discussion of origins, shall we?
Socialists, particularly Democratic Socialists, often contest that any social services, such as police, infrastructure, road upkeep, and the care for the less advantaged are evidence of Socialism working inside the Capitalist framework, but I think not. Despotic Kings as far back as the dawn of Mesopotamian civilization financed roads, building projects, sanitation, and gave charity to the unfortunate. These are all essential parts of Capitalism, and keep the mechanism of commerce from stagnating. I contest that in respect to this line of thinking Socialists are looking for something they have already found.
Through the ages collectivism often reared its head, many times wrapped in the guise of religious movements, specifically those that embraced the utopian image of global equality as synonymous with the utopian premise of the religion or culture in which it was practiced. In its most zealous forms, this manifested in the "disdain of greed" motif often presented in various religions as a sin or vice. This pairing should be of no surprise since it still continues till today, and religious people of all faiths are often taught to downplay wealth and to praise the poor as somehow more in line with "God's plan". As if God, or the Gods, wish their human "subjects" to suffer. That is clearly not a plan a deity would concoct, but rather the temporal powers that be. Nice try, though.
In their true modern "canonized" forms, Socialism and Communism obviously start with Karl Marx in the mid-nineteenth century, and came into psychological existence as a rebuttal to the abuses of Capitalism and the inequities that Marx saw in the world around him. This entire line of thinking could have only been born out of a middle class mind born in a Capitalist society. Capitalism may be a competitive system, but it is a system that seeks to give everyone the chance to better their lives. As Capitalism creates social mobility, it destroys traditional class structure and forges equality based solely on success. This equality in turn encourages classical liberal values, which eventually lead to a counter reaction against Capitalism, most often in the form of Socialism. A full circle of sorts.
But, as we know, the ultimate goal of Socialism, according to Marx, was to set the stage for eventual national Communism, and thence, global Communism. Regardless of the protestations, Democratic Socialism, Marxism, and other forms of "Communism-lite", are designed to slowly entrench actual Communism, and if Socialists are honest with themselves, and others, in discussing their ultimate vision of what they think would be the "best future" for the world, I'm fairly certain that regardless of the terminology used, it reads like Communism.
Today, instead of working together to compromise on the road to improving society, the left has swung generally further left, and as extremists of all sorts often display, their lack of tolerance for those who they feel are impeding their progress toward this wonderful utopia has become more acute. We normally call that fascistic, but the left truly believe that they are immune to being fascist, and as I specified earlier, they are still convinced that they are holding the torch of revolution, regardless if their street-fighting Antifa Communist heroes are as much fascist as the fascists they claim to be so against. We must recall that George Orwell, the prime literary anti-authoritarian of the twentieth century, held Communists in special disdain, and viewed them as no different, if not worse, than from the rightist fascist dictatorships he fought against. Animal Farm was a metaphoric indictment of Stalin, and ask yourself, if you have read the "futurist" cautionary tale of "1984"; what is the political system presented in that work which rules over Winston Smith and the faceless masses of workers, and guides them through food shortages, universal surveillance, Stasi snitches, the destruction of religion, and the rewriting of their history and language. If your answer is not Communism, I think you may have read another book.
India flirted with Socialism for nearly a century, and China went Communist about 70 years ago. Yet, until their governments embraced Capitalism, they were incapable of eradicating the rampant poverty that plagued their nations. On the other hand, South American countries swung back and forth from authoritarian military dictatorships to Socialist and Communist governments, and the people suffered either way. Only the states that have embraced Capitalism have been able to approach the first world's standard of living. The more those nations relied on a Socialist economy the more fiscal problems they eventually suffered. The current mess in Venezuela stands as a stark testimony to that failed endeavor.
I think most Socialists are aware of this increasingly clear paradigm, at least on some level, but in order to remain true to their ideology, they are forced to be adversarial to Conservatives based on sociological concerns, which they tend to ply by stereotype. Ironically, the right has become highly diversified, and many fiscal Conservatives are socially very liberal. In some cases, I would suggest that they are even more so than classical liberals, and certainly more so than far left nanny-state scions. Psychologically this friction between perception and reality causes cognitive dissonance, and encourages leftists to try and depict those on the right as against what they stand for, even when they agree on an issue. Thus, they envision the right as against the social values they prize, even though those values are shared.
Meme "Magic" and comedic images like "Pepe the Frog", and the entire 4chan and Reddit liberal skeptic "shitposter" aesthetic, exists simply because it irritates those on the left, who think this all means something it does not. The more the left and SJW's are triggered by an image, the more shitposters will bang that gong, and the more that they contest that an image reflects fascism or racism, or what have you, the more this cyber-space banter will continue. This is literally button pushing 101 - a sad side effect of the culture war that is best left to the cancerous comment sections of Youtube videos.