No examples, no evidence, just bridge-burning and nitpicking. Whenever you ask people what Haskell can do that other languages can't, their answer usually reveals that they simply don't know many other languages very well. For instance, you're very confident about English being better than Esperanto, but you don't speak Esperanto, you've never studied it, and you're just repeating what you were told second-hand and combining it with a made up heuristic of value. All of that lying and shoddy thinking, just to undermine an analogy that could've been any language. Russian and Arawak are far more expressive than English, but you don't speak Russian, you speak English, because it's the popular choice. Anything else you say is post-hoc justification, since you don't know much about the alternatives. you're just rationalizing your contingent decision.
Node and npm are superior to Haskell as an ecosystem for the backend, you can't run Haskell in browsers at all, and C++ is way more powerful for offline applications. So what is it you do again, other than have inadequate toolchains presided over by socially inept individuals?
Name something vanilla React takes from Haskell that isn't in Lisp, Clojure, Elm, etc. I don't think you'll be able to do it, because A) you don't know much about React and B) Haskell just isn't that special. There's nothing wrong with that since good programmers care about concepts, not syntax, but you seem to be really threatened by the idea that Haskell at this point is little more than an oddity, like learning brainfuck or assembly.
Functional programming is finally showing what it can accomplish, and the only people unhappy about that are people in the FP community who neither understand nor care what's happening beyond their fetid little pond.