Several people have brought to my attention the work of George Lakoff, and the six things that define being a progressive. Specifically, (and thought-provokingly) furryjester asked me to identify the types of conservatives. While I can't duplicate the scholarship and clarity of the Rockridge Institute, I will try to explain the mindset of the different types of conservatives I'm familiar with.
I will forget a ton. Your comments are welcomed, needed, and appreciated. Most of the stuff I post is 'battle-tested' and has been stewing in my head for some time. This has not, but it was entirely too fascinating a subject to leave alone.
Let's start with the Rockridge Institute. Lakoff reduces all of `progressive-ism' to six classes:
* Socio-economic: All issues are a matter of money and class.
* Identity Politics: Our group deserves its share now.
* Environmentalists: Respect for the earth and a healthy future.
* Civil Libertarians: Freedoms are threatened and have to be protected.
* Spiritual progressives: Religion and spirituality nurture us and are central to a fulfilling life.
* Anti-authoritarians: We have to fight the illegitimate use of authority.
I like this description, and I find it very telling of the types of progressives I've come across in the last year or so. But to look at it in the broadest sense the difference between `us' and `them' is how we view the role of government.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that of the six archetypes listed above we all have the same view: The legitimate role of government is to protect those who can not protect themselves. To me this is as simple as it is profound, and while I hate to use the buzzword, I think that this is our `core principle.'
It is very different from the conservative view of the legitimate role of government--to protect you from yourself. Conservatives are in favor of legislating anything that they consider self-destructive. Being gay is wrong. Doing drugs is wrong. Assisted suicide is wrong. And the role of government is to legislate and enforce laws to stop it, regardless of its effectiveness. Oh, and by the way, what they do is hideously ineffective, but it makes them feel good. Remember that modern day conservatism is about fear and emotion, not reason or results.
Republicans wouldn't identify the above view of government as their `core principle.' That, of course, is the notion of `Personal Responsibility.' I'll talk more about that particular schizophrenic notion in another diary. Because what `Personal Responsibility' really means is "you failed because you didn't do what we said."
Classically both parties have always been divided into two camps: social and fiscal. Social conservatives you already know: God in public schools, homosexuals back in the closet (or camps), abortion is murder, pro-death penalty. I think it's ironic that the "Conservative Christian" response to 9-11 is to become more like the Taliban. Stop teaching science to my kids! Take some of my civil liberties as long as you keep me safe! It's our God versus their god! How many CCs would want a biblical-based government, but don't think the Sharia should be the basis for Iraq's government? Hip O'Crit, you're table is now available...
The classic fiscal conservative has always been in favor of small government, low taxes, and socially "whatever results in smaller government and lower taxes." Fiscal conservatives believe in the primacy of the private sector, but understand that from time to time the government has to step in and stop things from getting out of control.
Once upon a time you could be one, or the other, or both and still be in the party. Nowadays it's not so simple. The time of the fiscally conservative Republican is gone in modern politics. They've been marginalized in their own party, and relegated to the status of `you're next once we get rid of the Democrats.'
This group represents the biggest `convertible' in today's Republican Party--people who have historically considered themselves to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal (or at least `socially apathetic'). These are the people who will respond to abortion as being `safe, legal, and rare.' These are the ones who don't really see a need for the FMA. These are the ones who read diaries like this and say `Yup...that was me.'
You may be asking if fiscal conservatives are gone, who has replaced them? It's been more subsumed than replaced, but the new kid in town is what we in the mutual fund business call a `Domestic Hybrid.' In equities a domestic hybrid is a fund that invests in both stocks and bonds rather than just one or the other. In politics I'm defining a Domestic Hybrid as a conservative who is about 55% fiscal and 45% religious.
Domestic Hybrids are typically smart, but lack much in the way of intellectual curiosity. That's what makes them so frustrating--they should know better. I'll talk a little bit more about them later. For now, let's go over the six basic conservative archetypes as I see them (and I fully acknowledge that I'm leaving out a lot. Give me a hand with this one):
1. Religious Political Conservatives--Want official government recognition of their religious beliefs.
2. Religious Social Conservatives--Want official government condemnation of anything they deem immoral.
3. Oppressed Majority Conservatives--Are tired of having their beliefs publicly impugned/questioned (like Montressor...we know they feel slighted, but we don't know why).
4. Foreign Policy Conservatives--America has to project it's power to protect itself (also known as the `Domino Theory' of Democracy...how well did that work for Communism, again?). .
5. Corporate Conservatives--Believe in lower taxes and the benign power of the private sector. Clearly haven't studied history...at all.
6. Fiscal Conservatives--Lower taxes, smaller government. Deceased.
Obviously Religious Conservatives fill out 1, 2, & 3. Fiscal Conservatives I gave their own category, because I don't think the `Bush Revolution' has anything to do with being fiscally conservative. Domestic Hybrids typically occupy 2, 3, & 5. If we were to break down their `political portfolio,' you'd find them to be about 15% #2, 30% #3, and 55% #5.
This mixing of conservative elements creates a sort of `worst of both worlds' Republican. Domestic Hybrids are self-righteous and judgmental, but lack the humility usually associated with being a `good Christian.' Domestic Hybrids have not sympathy, but contempt for those who `fall through the cracks' of society because they should take responsibility for themselves. And the operations of war should take place in a complete moral vacuum.
The idea of a balanced budget is perceived as being quaint at best, and `liberal' at worst. The government has a lot to do! Restrict marriage and adoptions, pay social security benefits today while letting us keep the money for tomorrow, fight x number of foreign wars, subsidize farmers (remember, the Red States are mostly Southern), and keep us safe domestically. Oh, and do all these things without raising taxes. Domestic Hybrids are "champagne government on a beer budget."
I've found a letter to my local paper that perfectly encapsulates the thought process of the Domestic Hybrid. You'll have to register to see it, but you might want to do that anyway as I am likely to point to other letters as examples of what I'm talking about.
The author of this letter is responding to a column written by David Waters, who writes `Faith Matters.' As the title implies, `Faith Matters' is usually a religious commentary piece. David made the unfortunate mistake of saying Jesus likes Social Security just the way it is, because it's doing the most for the least among us...just like Jesus instructed. David believes that Jesus would be pleased with a program that lifts up the impoverished and helps the misfortunate. Well, nothing so honks off a Domestic Hybrid like someone hijacking Jesus, and the letter writer decided to really give David the `what-for.' Here's the excerpt that I find most telling in the letter entitled "Nothing but a redistribution of wealth."
"...Take a look at what those impoverished in this community will do with their tax refund checks this year. How many lottery tickets, cigarettes, rims, hairdos and six-packs will be purchased in the next few months? How many 21 percent credit card bills or 35 percent payday loans will be paid down with that money?
The problem will persist as long as other people are blamed for the "misfortune" of destitute individuals. Stop demonizing the achievers in this society. Instead, hold them up as examples of the decisions and actions that are needed for those in poverty to rise up out of their situation and be able to use those deductions that Waters vilifies..."
Funnily enough, I guarantee you that this guy considers himself to be a compassionate conservative and a `good Christian man.' You can call him a `neo-con', or an `ex-urb', or even a `NASCAR Dad,' but whatever he is he bears no resemblance to the fiscal conservative of yesteryear. The Domestic Hybrid is a reactionary, judgmental, heartless creature incapable of recognizing that it's working toward its own destruction. In short, it's a monstrosity like that thing from Alien Resurrection, or Brundlefly. Deep down it just wants us to kill it. Hopefully Dean can help us oblige it.
I know that this just scratches the surface, but I think there's some good stuff to be developed here. Thoughts?