Some views are liberal. Some views are conservative. Some views are neither.

[Cary]

4. Meaning what?

Our minds can only process so much information. We cannot process every piece of information we encounter so we necessarily use generalizations as a shortcut. This strategy has advantages and disadvantages, but so what?

If you're interested in this I recommend Robert Cialdini's "Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion" http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=influence+cialdini&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1920&bih=910&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=16248036030475869643&sa=X&ei=Gf68T-viCeiK2gX2s8maDw&ved=0CGYQ8wIwAQ.

But in terms of our opposition, whom I label as "conservatives" (quotation marks necessary), I would first submit to you that they are to the right of real conservatives on the political spectrum. Real conservatives do not believe in reckless, radical change. "Conservatives" today are reactionary, reckless and radical so they cannot claim to actually be conservative IMHO.

I feel safe in that generalization, "antithetical" or otherwise.

Actually "conservatives" are not monolithic, if that's what you are getting at. I would say that you might want to consult Russell Kirk for a definition. I would temper Kirk's definition with the caveat that modern "conservatives" share a profound and irrational hatred of "Liberal", which is a large part of what makes them reactionary and fascist.

Of course there is a certain class of "conservatives" who may or may share this "value" because, with respect to this class, they are only really interested in playing to the fears of "conservatives" so that they can make money. And fear is a big part of "conservatism".

I will be reading Chris Mooney's book, "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality".