Why the Right Keeps Shooting Itself in the Foot

I've recently noticed a pattern in right-wing thought and behavior. See if you can spot it:

There seems to be, in short, a recurring tendency to shoot themselves in the foot.

But why? Several obvious possibilities come to mind:

1. Stupidity—they just aren't bright enough to figure out that they aren't getting the result they want. 
   
   It's tempting, but in the end, I just can't buy it. I know too many intelligent people who would agree with the courses of action I've outlined above. I think they're wrong, but they aren't stupid.


2. Dishonesty—They don't really want the result they say they want.
   
   This has, I suspect, some truth in it. I do question, for example, whether Bush really believes or cares whether the government is solvent, as long as he can give his class a tax cut. But I don't think this is true for the average right-winger. The conservatives I know are honest people.


3. Repression—they don't really want the result they say they want, but on a subconscious level.
   
   I suspect there's some truth here, as well. The predictions from neocons that another terrorist attack would wake the country up, for example, makes it easy to believe that they might subconsciously be hoping for an event that would make Americans see the light. But I doubt that it explains the pattern as a whole. Here, as before, I don't think that reasoning can be applied to the average conservative.

So what is the answer?

One thing the entire group shares is the king-based, authoritarian, model of culture. 

(I've written in more detail about this model, and the alternative to it, here, here, and here. Also, George Lakoff describes the two models in a slightly different way in Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think, and Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives.)

If you see the world as a chain of authority, leading downward from God, then every situation consists of an authority figure and one or more subjects to that authority figure. It's the job of the authority figure to decide (sound familiar?) what the subject should do, and it's the job of the subject to obey. If the subject doesn't obey, it is the job of the authority figure to see that they are punished.

Bush sees himself as the authority figure for the world, placed here by God. Under Saddam, Iraq didn't obey him. Therefore, Iraq must be punished until it does. The less Iraq seems to be submitting, the more force must be used. This neatly bypasses the question of where the whole process is leading us. It becomes a matter of principle.

Bush and his fellow Republicans see themselves as representatives of the rich and powerful, who are the rightful leaders in this country. The government, by rights, is subject to the rich and powerful, and must be brought to heel. As matters stand, the government is an evil force, giving power to those who should be subjects. By cutting their own taxes, they also weaken the government, so that they can control it (some would like to destroy it completely). Because this is a matter of principle, it cannot, ultimately, be questioned.

The Christian Right sees teachers in sex education classes as the authority figures, and students as the subjects. It's not the teachers' job to simply give the students information and tools to make their own decisions. The teachers must tell the students what they should do—make the decision for them. In particular, they should not give them any information that would help them avoid any "naturally occurring" punishment for not obeying—such as pregnancy or disease.

And, in the case of terrorism, we had a chance to treat it as criminal activity, to have the countries of the world cooperate with us in eliminating the danger. But that would not have fit the model. We had to be the authority, and the other countries had to play the role of subjects—we had to punish those who did not immediately buckle under.

Remember the early stages, shortly after 9-11, when Bush asked Afghanistan to turn Bin Laden over to the U.S.? They said, "Show us the evidence first," a reasonable request, and exactly what we would have said if another country had ordered us to turn over someone under our protection.

And what was Bush's response? "You'll turn him over without any evidence, or else."

A bit authoritarian?