It’s All in the Family

Brian Frederking

June 21, 2006

            Uncle Sam. Big Brother. Founding Fathers. Homeland Security. We use family metaphors to discuss our nation all the time. But this is not an incidental metaphor. Recent research suggests that the metaphor of nation as family – the government as parent and citizens as children – may be the key to understanding the difference between liberals and conservatives.

            The standard way to define liberals and conservatives is by the goals each wants the government to pursue in both social and economic policy. Liberals prefer privacy in social policy and conservatives prefer order. Liberals, for example, support gay rights and abortion rights to protect individual rights to choice and privacy. Conservatives argue that the community has the right maintain moral rules and standards necessary for social order.

            In economic policy, conservatives prefer liberty and liberals prefer equality or a minimum standard of living for all. Conservatives, for example, support lower taxes and fewer business regulations to protect individual rights to property and liberty. Liberals argue that the community has the right to regulate the market to pursue a minimum standard of living for all (minimum wage, universal health insurance, etc.)

            What we do not quite understand is why so many people consider the liberal goals of social privacy and economic equality and the conservative goals of social order and economic liberty to go together. Why are so many people either liberal or conservative on both raising the minimum wage and banning gay marriage? What is the connection between social and economic issues that makes these positions coherent?

            The connection is NOT a consistent view of the appropriate relationship between citizens and government. Both liberals and conservatives sometimes want to emphasize individual rights and limited government (liberals in social policy, conservatives in economic policy) and sometimes want to emphasize community goals that require extensive government (liberals in economic policy, conservatives in social policy).

            So what explains the difference between liberals and conservatives? An intriguing new theory developed by cognitive theorist George Lakoff of the University of California-Berkeley suggests that we use our understanding of families and appropriate parenting strategies to shape our understanding of government and appropriate public policy. The connection is that conservatives emphasize a “disciplinarian” view of the family and liberals emphasize a “nurturing” view of the family.

            In the conservative view of the family, parents set and enforce rules. They instill in children respect for authority, moral strength, self-discipline, and self-reliance. Parental discipline is moral because without it children will only satisfy their desires and not survive in the world. In order to develop moral persons, parents must engender competition and hierarchy to reward the self-discipline needed to be a moral person.

            This view of the family influences conservative public policies. Conservatives prefer government intervention in social policy because there must be consequences for immoral action. Citizens must learn discipline and self-reliance. This also applies to economic policy, but for conservatives the market provides its own discipline on citizens. Government is not needed to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. The market already does it.

            In the liberal view of the family, parents provide love, empathy and nurturing. They instill in children independence, curiosity, and empathy for others. Parental nurturing is moral because children become responsible and self-reliant through being cared for and respected. In order to develop moral persons, parents must encourage children to develop their potential and provide help when necessary.

            This view of the family influences liberal public policies. Liberals prefer government intervention in economic policy because it provides a material environment in which all citizens have a chance to reach their potential. Government intervention in social policy, however, is the opposite of nurturing. Like parents encouraging their children, we should enable citizens to make private choices.

            A recent study published in the May 2006 issue of the American Political Science Review provides evidence supporting this theory. Survey respondents who prefer that children respect their elders, have good manners, and are well-behaved were more likely to support conservative policies, even after controlling for other well-known predictors of policy preferences. And survey respondents who prefer that children are independent, curious, and considerate of others were more likely to support liberal policies.

            Much more research is necessary to substantiate this theory. But it is intriguing and intuitive on many levels. Given the gender implications of the parenting models, it suggests that we vote for Republicans when we need Daddy and we vote for Democrats when we need Mommy. Can it really be this simple to explain American politics?