I've often had conservatives recommend that I read The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater (which I have read, back when Goldwater was running for president). As I recall, Goldwater himself was a bit fuzzy around the edges regarding the self-contradictory position of minimum government and authoritarianism. A strange mixture of "That government is best which governs least" and "Do as you are told. The government knows best."

It's ironic that so many folks who call themselves, and presumably think of themselves as "conservatives" object so strenuously when people question some of the more dubious actions of the Federal government. If one is dedicated, as conservatives claim is the very core of their position, to preserving the principles upon which the United States of America was founded, then how can one not question the Federal government when it indulges in problematic activities, such as invading another country that the United States has no reasonable quarrel with? It would seem unpatriotic not to do so.

The "Founding Fathers," whom American "conservatives" seem to hold in holy reverence, were certainly not conservative themselves. In fact, they were wild-assed radical liberals. They did not believe that King George III knew best and just shut up and did what they were told. Otherwise, the United States and Canada would now probably be all one country and part of the British Commonwealth. American conservatives suffer from a weird kind of schizophrenia:   holding up the Founding Fathers as ideals while at the same time reviling the very of people who currently espouse the principles that motivated the Founding Fathers.

It isn't rational.

The explanation for this disconnect may very well have been enunciated in linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff's book,Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think. The following is a fairly succinct account of Lakoff's suggestion:

The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness is a priority for government.

Thus, according to Lakoff, the different viewpoints held by American liberals and conservatives are not so much a matter of rational thinking as it is of upbringing and world-view.

It's always interesting to note that I whenever bring up this theory and speak of Lakoff's book, my conservative acquaintances insist that both Lakoff and I should be taken out to the woodshed and thoroughly spanked until we start to see sense. . . .

People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, who spew their verbal vitriol at those who are critical of the government and call them "traitors" (not to mention a few self-avowed "conservatives" here on Mudcat) are about as far from the ideals and principles of true conservatism as it's possible for people to get.

Don Firth