13
perspective. In other words, Hunter was not really trying to explain the growth in ideological
constraint that has occurred over time, but rather the shift, as he saw it, away from economic
issues and toward social/cultural/lifestyle issues as the defining elements of political conflict in
the U.S. As such, perhaps his emphasis on moral absolutism vs. relativism was not intended to
extend beyond the realm of cultural issues such as abortion, gay rights, and women’s rights. At
any rate, the cognitive and psychological micro-foundations of Hunter’s theory have not been
tested empirically, and it is unknown whether this theory would complement or contradict that of
Lakoff. Accordingly, it is critical that our models address take account of this perspective.
8
Hunter’s thesis also implies a second possibility: perhaps the relationships described by
Lakoff, even if empirically accurate, spuriously reflect differences in religious beliefs or religious
intensity. That is, perhaps disciplinarian households simply manifest ardent Christian
fundamentalism, which may also coincidentally explain conservatism across the board. Indeed, if
Lakoff’s story is really just a restatement of the changing and increased role that religion now
plays in American politics (e.g. Layman 2001, Barker and Carman 2000, Leege and Kellstedt
1993), it would not add much to our understanding of political ideology. But while it may be easy
8
Since neither Lakoff’s nor Hunter’s theory has previously been subject to empirical scrutiny, the
reader may wonder why we have chosen to focus on the former in this paper. There are four
primary reasons: first, Lakoff attempts to explain more, addressing a question that has plagued
political psychologists for decades – the etiology of ideological constraint in the U.S. This alone
makes Lakoff’s theory preferable from a scientific standpoint. Second, and relatedly, the conflict
extension model upon which Lakoff’s theory builds has been revealed to be a more accurate
depiction of political change since 1960 than the conflict displacement perspective (e.g. Layman
and Carsey 2002). Third, we find Lakoff’s argument more compelling on its face; we believe that
Hunter’s model perpetuates an unfair but favorite caricature of liberals by the Right – that liberals
lack fundamental conviction.
Convention