I'm really confused as to what you speak.

I have little respect for the politicians that say they are Republicans and act with little respect to their principles.

Eric Johnson and Glenn Richardson are both on my short list of morons.

So I know not of what you speak.

Do I believe in school vouchers. Certainly.
Do I believe that Clayton County should be allowed to move their kids into Fayette, well obviously not.
Do I think our Republican Representatives do a good job protecting Fayette, or do I think they got caught with their pants down in the Airport bathroom tapping their foot under the stall, yes.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Some very slick Fayette Representatives can blind you with the gleam from their smiles as they shake your hands during the election cycle. So many are extremely good at getting elected.

Learning how to govern, appears to be something many of them are still trying to figure out. Sadly, I think its not because they are not bright enough, but either too lazy, or too interested in developing future political allies for their hoped for future in D.C.

My two cents of wisdom to our local reps. Do whats right for your voters, even at the cost of your personal goals of future elected offices in D.C., when Westmoreland moves on, or Saxby or Isaackson decide to retire. If you do your jobs for us, do it right, examining every bill before you vote upon it. Consider our needs instead of what Eric Johnson seems to want, then your political future will come. Perhaps not as fast as you want, but it will come.

Political Karma. Its real.

I wasn't quite so critical of his opinion paper. In fact, I believed it was a unique way of looking at things. A simple way. Which is why I believed it might help explain the differences in how conservatives and liberals view the world.

Sure, its not perfect, but the examples seemed appropriate enough in which to explain to my fellow political junkies from the left, how we might relate.

I see liberals as wanting to run a nanny state. Mother Government, looking after us in our cradle, caring for us through all of the years until our grave. Sure mother's love their children and want the very best for them. But when mom's do everything for their children, the children learn nothing of individual responsibility. Nothing of personal growth, and end up living in the spare bedroom that mom provides to them, rent subsidized, food subsidized, health care subsidized.

I see conservatives being strong father figures. Teaching their kids about integrity, personal responsibility, right from wrong, and then kicking their asses out the door to become participants in life, rather than being air breathers. To play in the game called life, rather than in watching it on their T.V.s, locked away in their back bedroom that mommy cleans for you, every other day.

Liberals "feel" for their children. They really do "feel" like they want to help. I believe that. I truly do. Its just that a smothering mother governmental policy does little in encouraging a strong community of individuals. Instead it creates the 40 year old kids, tied to their mommies with a very long umbilical cord.

Its time to cut the cord you liberal mommies and let American be responsible for themselves. This is a metaphor, sad to say, I know of real examples of supposedly intelligent people who have 40 year olds living with mommy even now, who call themselves Conservatives. Strange how politics effect us in different ways.

Perhaps.

I confess a default distrust of discussions of philosophical and ethical topics by people in the cognitive sciences. There is a tendency to "psychologize" topics that are inherently rational and to reduce the normative to the merely descriptive.

But maybe much of the conservative/liberal difference is more philosophical. Here are some issues that seem to me to be fundamental:

Are there such things as POSITIVE rights?

Consider the right to life. Viewed as a NEGATIVE right, it is simply the right NOT TO BE KILLED. But if it is also a POSITIVE right, then it also includes a RIGHT to whatever are the essentials of life (food, shelter, medical care).

Wherever there is a right there is a corresponding moral obloigation upon someone somewhere. If you have a negative right to life, then I have a moral obligation (all else equal) not to kill you. If you have a POSITIVE right to life, then someone, somewhere, has a moral obligation to see to it that you receive whatever you need in order to go on living.

You can readily see that the idea of a welfare state presupposes positive rights.

The debate over universal health care is, I think, best framed in these terms.

I think that it is a very good thing if people have access to health care. But do they have a RIGHT to it? And is that right ABSOLUTE?
May I spend my days drinking rather than working and, nevertheless, be entitled to some sort of financial assistance paid by tax dollars? And, when my lifestyle begins to ruin my health, am I morally entitled to whatever tax-supported assistance I need in order to survive?

Conservatives tend to balk at such ideas, and, I think, for good reason. How would one begin to argue for this?

When they balk, liberals view them as heartless.

But it is possible to deny that the state has a moral responsibility to provide such things while, at the same time, thinking it a good thing when charity and grace are exercised. In this case, one might help out of a basic respect for the person's humanity, and the help is grace precisely because the person is not ENTITLED, by right, to the help.