Gun Control

Liberal support for gun control is a consequence of the nurturant parent's view of painful corporal punishment – that it contributes to a cycle of violence. Guns are not intended just for target practice or sport. They are intended to hurt or kill people. The very presence of a gun evokes scenarios in which guns are used. These scenarios (self-defense, retribution, or revenge) all share the property that violent punishment is seen as the natural response to wrongdoing. That very idea, the Nurturant Parent model claims, leads to further violence. And further violence with guns means more killing.

Conservatives' support for the right to bear arms – even the right to bear machine guns – comes from Strict Father morality, which says that it is the responsibility of everyone to protect himself as well as he can and it is the responsibility of the Strict Father to protect his family. Guns are seen as the individual's form of protection in a hostile world and they are symbolic of the male role as family protector. They are an instrument of moral strength and a symbol of the power of the Strict Father. As such, they also uphold the moral order. There is thus a very good reason why it is conservatives who support the right to bear arms at a time when conservatives are down in general on rights as liberals have defined them, e.g., the right to a decent standard of living, the right to an education, and the like.

There is also a good reason why very impassioned opposition to gun control often goes with survivalism. Survivalism is about self-reliance through self-discipline, the hallmark of Strict Father morality. And there is a good reason why those who are impassioned about the right to bear arms and about survivalism are also against the income tax. As we have seen, opposition to taxation fits Strict Father morality. And there is a reason why advocates of the right to bear arms are often violently anticommunist. The Strict Father model provides the link between the protective function of the father and the principle of the Morality of Reward and Punishment, the very basis of all morality in the Strict Father model.

This is by no means to say that all conservatives are gun nuts, survivalists, antitax activists, and strong anticommunists. But there is a good reason why those values fit together and why people with those values tend to be conservatives.

Crime

Why do conservatives believe in spending money to build more prisons, and in tougher sentencing laws even for nonviolent offenders. Why do they support the Three-Strikes-and-You're-Out law, mandating twenty-five-year-to-life sentences for repeat nonviolent as well as violent offenders? Why do they do so in the face of evidence that having more people in prison does not reduce crime?

The state of Minnesota's Kids First program, which stresses day care, education, and community involvement, has succeeded in crime prevention at a much lower cost than running prisons. Why has this model not been supported by conservatives?

The answer comes out of Strict Father morality, in which the Moral Strength system of metaphors is primary, with Moral Self-interest right behind it. Strict Father morality thus includes Retribution, Moral Strength, Moral Self-interest, and Moral Essence. Retribution sees punishment as defining justice. The priority of Moral Strength entails that a show of strength is the best protection against evil. It is a consequence of Moral Self-interest that people act in their own self-interest; hence, people will commit crimes if it is in their interest (that is, if punishment is lenient) and won't commit crimes if it is not in their interest (if punishment is harsh). And according to Moral Essence, past behavior is a guide to essential character and essential character predicts future behavior. Therefore, a repeat offender has a bad character, which means he's likely to commit crimes again. To protect the public, he should be imprisoned for a long time.

By Strict Father morality, harsh prison terms for criminals and life imprisonment for repeat offenders are the only moral options. Programs like Minnesota's Kids First are social programs and are, as such, immoral to conservatives for reasons given above. The conservative arguments are moral arguments, not practical arguments. Statistics about which policies do or do not actually reduce crime rates do not count in a morality-based discourse.

Liberals, following Nurturant Parent morality, point to Minnesota's Kids First as an argument that prevention programs can reduce crime, while pointing to statistics indicating that putting people in prison does not. Liberals see crime as having social causes – poverty, unemployment, alienation, and lack of caring and community – and argue that social programs are needed to address those social causes. Conservatives don't believe in social causes of crime or in any other social causes. Let's consider why.