The 19th century European term "bourgeois" and the modern US term "conservative" (and its euphemistic adjectives "religious" and "family") are both attempts to denote the same thing: herdÂ behavior, where the imperative is "do not offend Those Who We Must Not Offend". It's not even groupthink, because there's not even a pretense of think in it.
TorgoX is seriously lacking in our word of the day: perspective.
Historical perspective: the modern U.S. term "conservative" is primarily a reference to libertarian ideals of small government, and adherents are actually quite willing to offend and be offended, and there's nothing "herd" about the behavior at all.
Ideological perspective: one wonders how this description is remotely different from the liberal "herd behavior" we see on college campuses, in Hollywood, around tech circles in the Internet, and so on. Like the local guy at a college campus in WA who was asked to leave the teaching program because he believes in the right to bear arms. Have much myopia, TorgoX?
Cultural perspective: he obviously knows -- or at least, understands -- very few "red-staters." There's nothing euphemistic about "family" to them. They see the culture changing in a way that they do not like, just like TorgoX sees it changing in ways he doesn't like, and, like his quote of Michael Chabon, they fear the effect it will have on their children.
But somehow it is OK for liberals to lament about the evils they believe are caused by conservatives, but not vice versa. Because that would require, you know, perspective.
Why won't people like TorgoX simply say "I disagree with you" instead of trying to wrap up their analysis of those they disagree with in pseudointellectual bullshit?