I dunno. The people I met and whom I consider conservative seem to be not concerned with guilt trips or problems that do not affect them or those they cannot solve or problems in general. They seem to be more fun-oriented, carpe diem types. While that strikes me as anti-intellectual, it is certainly free of any strong emotions and attitudes, especially negative ones. By contrast, the lefties, including myself, and left-wing publication seem full of negative energy: scare-mongering, muckraking, constant kvetching, guilt tripping, pondering over perennial unsolvable problems, self-depreciation. I find it quite depressing lately.
One can certainly find similar attitudes on the far-right, but I do not dwell on their websites too much - negativism cum rabid right wing views is more than I can bear.
The point I am trying to make is that I am really tired of bombast and emotionalism of the public discourse on the Left. Perhaps the far Right does it too, but it does not matter because I simply ignore them. What matters is that the mainstream political discourse, especially on the Democratic side, not to mention political discourse outside the US, seem to be free of such emotionalism, bombast, and drama - more reasoned and balanced. To illustrate: some time ago I met a banker from South Africa, a conservative Afrikaner. Of course, we disagreed on most political subjects, from policies of Mr. Mbeki, to crime fighting measures in NYC, but we nonetheless had a civilised and mutually respectful conversation - free of drama, accusations, and bombast. Another example - The New Yorker publishes the material that is at least as critical of the establishment as The Nation does. However, the New Yorker's tone is more reasoned, less scare-mongering, less condemning and accusatory, less emotional than that of The Nation. I thus found myself preferring the New Yorker to The Nation lately. I understand that this may be the age thing, but I never was a fan of bombast and high drama, I always preferred reason and nuance.
Wojtek