I don't disagree with the right's purported ideals of self-determination, reduced government and rugged individualism. Except they don't actually believe in those things.
The right will insist that it wants the state out of its homes, churches and gunlockers but is ever-so-willing to place surveillance cameras in every bedroom, mosque and uterus.
The right's particular notion of "conservatism" is not a conservative application of state fiat, but rather a belief in conserving an entirely mythical golden age when man was free, strong-jawed and righteous.
I have always maintained that idiocy is evenly spread amongst races, creeds and sexes, but I think it's fair to say that certain groups of people do band together over a common idiotic cause. It's not fair (or even accurate) to call everyone on the right racists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, religious zealots, jingo nationalists, creationists, fascists, warmongers, reactionaries and philistines, but I do think it's fair to point out that most racists, sexists, homophobes, bigots, religious zealots, jingo nationalists, creationists, fascists, warmongers, reactionaries and philistines are in actual fact right wing.
The right believe that they are under siege from everybody who is not like them. Consequently, they blindly follow and excuse the failings of every political candidate who is "like them".
I suppose that it's surprising in retrospect that I never bothered to rant about the Bush administration now that it's finally, mercfully drawing to a close. Despite their spectacular incompetence and naked fascism, I don't find them particularly historically exceptional. If you want borderline democide and malfeasance from a US administration, Nixon and Kissinger are the fellows you're after. To be fair, there has never been a good president, and pointing out the particular failings of this particular gang of Nazis is, firstly: too easy, secondly: hackneyed, and thirdly: usually done in rampant ignorance of the failings of their competition.
George Walker Bush plays up his down-home, homily-chawing folksiness to appeal to ignorant, atavistic backwater hicks (I'm a snob) because US electoral law grants backwater hicks more power than they deserve. What's depressing is that it works.
Bush is the blue-blooded son of a New England, Mayflower-landed political dynasty that's already had a president in the family. His grandfather was Adolf Hitler's American banker. He's a spoilt, coke-snorting, dry-drunk brat who poisoned every enterprise he was handed by his festering brood. He has benefited from every privilege available to a human being, including a daddy-bought ticket out of the conscription the right so adamantly believe is a noble patriotic duty. I suspect - and have read things that confirm - that even his rural twang shifts depending on who's in the room. Yet all this oligarch has to do is pose for some ranch-wranglin' photo ops, mangle some English and he has the hicks in his pocket.
You can be sure that if any viable candidate ever rose from actual humble stock, bettering himself through diligence and intellect (this never happens; it's all dynasties), the right would decry him as an "elitist", as though their particular brand of plutocrat didn't regard them as means to a cynical end. Somewhat amusingly, the right - who distrust uppity intellectuals and the "liberal elite" - are quick to point out that their boy is a Yale graduate when his glaringly apparent mental retardation is brought up. I mean, if you're going to be deluded, at least be consistent.
Like I said: it's depressing that it works.