Republicans publicly champion the laissez faire economics of ‘classical liberalism’, but they don’t necessarily pursue such policies when they have power.

For example, the Bush administration raised tariffs for steel, and increased farm subsidies by 83% in 2003.

The administration could claim that this was done for national defense purposes.

But critics pointed out that the Bush administration seemed to have an attachment to the so-called Old Economy of agriculture and industry, and an aversion to the New Economy (e.g., Bush’s banning of stem-cell research).

So the Republican Party manifests various and contradictory ideologies, as I listed them. But what might underlie all these various ideologies is a consistent negative emotional attitude toward change. The conscious mind believes in certain values and ideologies, but the unconscious mind is motivated by a generalized fear of change.

This same attitude might be prevalent in Hawaii’s Republican Party. (I once walked past the office of the Republican Party on Kapiolani Avenue, and it was comprised exclusively of elderly white people sitting around a table whispering to one another in a paranoid fashion.)

But this underlying attitude might also characterize the Inouye faction of the local Democratic Party, regardless of its rhetoric and identity.

Beliefs are unique, because they refer not just to statements about the world (e.g., “The sky is blue.”), but also states of mind (e.g., “John believes that the sky is blue.”). Moreover, critical reflection reveals that all beliefs are of the second order (e.g., “I believe that the sky is blue, and I believe that John also believes this.”) But this critical reflection is rarely applied to the self, especially in terms of politics or religion (“I believe that I believe in equality and democracy.”) But, ultimately, we knowers are unkown to ourselves.

Most of today’s Republicans ARE conservative, not liberal. They tend to uphold political authority, religious authority and the domination of wealth over free individuals. In many ways, the embrace what classical liberalism rejected.

Where I think you go wrong is in attaching your analysis too much to a belief in capitalism. Classical liberalism DID arise in conjunction with the emerging middle-class and articulated their interests against the feudal, monarchist and religious hierarchs. It promoted science as essential to innovation and the development of industry. To some extent, this connection persists among those who are now labelled “libertarians” in the United States.

But capitalism gave rise to massive corporations and monopolies, who aligned themselves with politicians to use state power to enrich them further and enforce their privileges. And those who are now Republicans defend those corporate privileges against attempts by the people to regulate the excesses of the corporations.

The irony is, the Tea Party activists of today are aligned with the East India Company of today. The stresses and fears of the declining social status of white, formerly middle-income people, especially males, has provoked reactionary responses, not “liberal” ones. They are not tolerant, egalitarian, pro-science. They are more often authoritarian.

And if you want to turn to history to understand these people, look to the social pressures which gave rise to rightwing populism in post WWI Germany and evolved into fascism. Because rather than classical liberals, many Republicans are viciously anti-liberal, authoritarian and, if we are not careful, on their way to embracing jingoism, militarism, racism and fascism.

So please, be patient.