Quote:
Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any different
|
Hmm...speculation? because most social research seems to counter this assertion.
Also, regarding the "simple minded nature" of conservatism, one of the icons of the Republican Party said it best "Pardon me for being lengthy, but I had no time to be brief. Four score and seven years ago....." None other than Abraham Lincoln. The point being that well thought out logical concepts can be expressed briefly. Thoughts put together with insufficient time and reflection tend to be wordy and complex.
This hypothesis is put to test time and time again in science, economics, religion and social theory. Albert Einstein once said while developing the theory of relativitiy that once he could explain it simply, he would know that he had demonstrated his theorem. Looking at Einsteins writings leading up to the publication of his therom, one senses a complex and multilayered argument. By the time he published his theory of relativity, it was stated so plainly that any famer could understand it (The train whistle). This was also true with Newton's theory of gravity.
The point, if it sound like common sense, it probably was a complex concept at one time. It has, however, evolved into commonly accepted theory. Concepts like free trade and low taxes seem simple, but their underlying economic arguments took a century of contorted research to demonstrate their benefits. Many people take these concepts for granted now, thus, their simplistic sounding nature.
Finally, as someone pointed out, conservatives are not nearly the cohesive group of people that some assume.
Social Conservatives acutually share little in common with mainstream conservatives. Actually, the libertarian, monetarist economic viewpoint of mainstream conservatives are abhored by many social conservatives. Social conservatives are actually more of a component of political coalition building than a tie in to an ideology that governs "Conservative" economic, social and foreign policy theory.
At the other end of the spectrum are Libertarians who abhor Social Conservatives and their agenda. The position of social conservatives is anathema to Libertarian ideology.
There are the Reagan Conservatives that represent some of the "poor conservatives" that someone referred to. Simply people who want to live the American Dream without government interferrence. Many of these people were once democrats. Some of these folks evolved into social conservatives, but most remain atttracted to the notion of strong defense, deregulation, and low taxes - quite a sucessful mix for Reagan.
The traditional Northeastern, intellectual wing of conservatives tend to have much in common with Libertarians, but acutally believe that government has some usefulness. These people also abhor social conservatives, view Libertarians as idealistic, and have little use for the broadening of the movement by the Reagan conservatives. This is one of the two intellectual pillars of conservatism that worships both Milton Friedman and Abraham Lincoln.
As on the left, there is an amalgam of special interests that align themselves with the group that will include them in their pluralistic coalitions (purely election, vote gaining maneuvering). On the right you have the anti-abortion activists, the immigration idiots, and the development dictators. On the left you have the eco-terrorists, the race baiting celebrities, and the behaviorial police.
All in all, to state that complex theories stated simply reflects simple mindedness is simple minded in and of itself. That does not mean that some simple sounding solutions are not pure demogougary, it sometimes is. But, simple, logical statements are sometimes the product of a period of complexity.