it may have been George Lakoff - observed that Republicans want government to be their daddy, while Democrats want government to be their mommy.
It was Lakoff; it's a central point of "Don't Think of an Elephant" and the more academic book that that's based off of. And it's "Strict Father" and "Nurturant parent;" the democratic (excuse me, "progressive") view is (as he says, at least) supposed to be gender neutral.
It's also an interesting case of Bullseye bias. He has a neat theory that sounds pretty good. Then he picks political positions that support that view and frames them accordingly. There's no particular reason we would expect the stern father vs. the nurturant parent to have a particular view on abortion rights (e.g. nurturant parent could value the unborn child; stern father could insist the child corrects her mistakes), other than he applies them to D's and R's, and we expect D's and R's to have particular views on abortion rights. Oops, I mean "Progressives" and Republicans.
In other words, it sounds like a good theory because it's framed effectively; it doesn't really offer predictive power. I can't see it explaining, for example, environmental attitudes, arctic drilling, ethanol subsidies, agricultural subsidies generally, tort reform, military spending, free speech, gay rights, or many other issues. More precisely, if you didn't know what the political views already were, and you were asked to tell the attitude of a nurturant parent vs. a strict father with respect to, say, agricultural subsidies, you could come up with a convincing explanation of why each parent-type would take both sides. The theory lacks predictive value, but it's framed effectively enough to sound convincing. There's not nothing too it; there's just a lot less than Lakoff wants there to be.
You don't think it explains environmental attitudes, military spending, or gay rights?
Between Lakoff's idea, and the idea that Republicans favor the rich and Democrats favor the poor, I think you can explain a lot of the attitudes of the parties. Neither idea on its own is sufficient.
Some people say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans are conservative in the sense of opposing change, while Democrats are liberal in the sense of promoting change. But this isn't true - both parties want change; neither especially cares how things were done in the past.
Some people say that Republicans are fiscally conservative, while Democrats are fiscally liberal. But this isn't true. Republicans and Democrats both run up huge deficits; they just spend the money on different things.
Some people say Democrats are liberal in the sense of favoring liberty. But this isn't true. Republicans want freedom to own guns and run their businesses as they please, while Democrats want the freedom to have abortions and live as they please.
Someone - it may have been George Lakoff - observed that Republicans want government to be their daddy, while Democrats want government to be their mommy. That's the most-helpful distinction that I've heard. Republicans want a government that's stern and and protects them from strangers. Democrats want a government that's forgiving and takes care of all their needs.
I was thinking about this because of singletons. Some people are in favor of creating a singleton AI to rule the universe. I assume that, as with party affiliation, people choose a position for emotional rather than rational reasons. So which type of person would want a singleton - a daddy-seeking Republican, or a mommy-seeking Democrat?
I think the answer is, Both. Republicans and Democrats would both want a singleton to take care of them; just in different ways. Those who don't want a singleton at all would be Libertarians.
Regardless of whether you think a singleton is a good idea or a bad idea - does this mean that Americans would overwhelmingly vote to construct a singleton, if they were given the choice?
And would the ideas about how to design that singleton break down along party lines?