I have a hypothesis that I think explains a good bit of how and why right-wingers act and respond to things the way they do. Obviously, this won't explain everything about every Republican ever, but I think it's a valid pattern that I've noticed. Make the jump and I'll discuss how Republicans tend to see everything only as personal attacks.
That's right. I think that the default mode of thinking for a Republican mindset is that of a personal attack. Take, for example, their virulently anti-tax stance. Most of us pay taxes willingly (if not necessarily happily), because we understand that everyone has to chip in if we want, y'know, roads and schools and courts. Republicans, though, I would venture, seem to take it as a personal attack, on them specifically. We think of it like so:
"the government needs money for things we all want, so we all have to pitch in."
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to see it like this:
"the government is coming to take MY money! It's a personal attack on MY FINANCES! Raaaar hatehatehate!"
They don't see it as contributing to any greater good. They see it as an attack on them and them alone. This also fits in with their inherent double standards, i.e. wanting to drive on roads without paying for them. They don't even consider that other people are paying taxes as well. They just see it as an attack on THEM.
Consider also many of the hardcore right-wing stances on gay marriage. A lot of them, irrationally, seem to take it as an attack on them and their marriages. We, the more rational people (oh noes, now they're going to smear me as elitist!), say "Sure, gays and lesbians are people too, and they deserve the same basic human rights." Even those of us, or more accurately those moderates, who have their own personal biases against homosexuals but don't have any problem with them having the same rights we do (a very small group, to be sure, but they do exist) understand that it doesn't have any sort of negative impact on them if gay people they don't know want to get married to each other.
The Republicans, on the other hand, let themselves get worked up into a lather over it, and they want to deny these rights to other people. We look at the situation and become confused as to why they get so worked up about something that doesn't affect them at all, but if you think of them viewing it as a personal attack, it makes sense. They seem to think, "teh gayz are coming to ATTACK MARRIAGE! If teh gheyz get married, that's a slap in the face to MY MARRIAGE, and we can't let that stand! Raaaar hatehatehate!"
I would go so far as to say that this explains, or at least partially explains, a lot of the underpinnings of racism, as well. The general mottoes of liberalism, as I see them, are "Help one another" and "Live and let live." Therefore, if "zomg teh brown people" want to, oh, live in our neighborhoods, or have lives like ours, or be treated like human beings, we're generally fine with that. We don't, as a whole, have problems with people whose only "crimes" (not that WE consider them crimes, of course) are "to be" rather than "to do." To people in the right-wing mindset, though, "to be" IS "to do." For a "different" person to simply be is, to them, a personal attack on them and their way of life. We say, "who cares if your neighbor or co-worker happens to have more melanin? They aren't doing anything to you. They're probably even nice people if you want to get to know them." They say, "These {vile racial epithet of choice}s are intruding on ME and on MY WAY OF LIFE. Their very EXISTENCE is an AFFRONT to ME! Raaaaar hatehatehate!" I know this doesn't seem rational to a lot of us, but that's because it isn't. Rather than trying to sympathize with this mindset, though, just try to look at it from an observational viewpoint... doesn't it fit with a whole lot of right-wing rhetoric?
This also explains why they always, immediately, leap into the ad hominem attacks. We try to explain this with, "they know they don't have any real defense of the issues, so they just go for smear," or "that's just their tactics of denouncing the messenger to obfuscate the message." I can see an argument, though, that this is just how they think. They don't think of these things in terms of wide-scale issues, they tend to think in terms of one-on-one arguments. They're never comfortable disagreeing with an idea, regardless of what they actually think. It's not necessarily true that they never, ever have any ideas (I don't think many of us would disagree that conservatism, while an awful basis for a system of government, is valuable as an opposition party); rather, it's just that they don't think that way. It's not a conscious decision for most of them to attack a person, it's just reflex. Think of all the discussions you've had with a right-wing acquaintance or family member, who responds to what you think is a reasonable, well-thought-out ideological point (the occupation is bad, children deserve health care, women should control their own bodies, etc.) with "Oh yeah? Well what about when Clinton did this?" and brings up some totally irrelevant issue. That's them just trying to wrap their head around the world; they think in terms of attacking people, rather than considering ideas. I don't know why they do this. I'm just saying what I see.
Oversimplification? Sure, I'm oversimplifying, but I still stand by my assertion that this is a pattern that Republicans have fallen into over the years. This isn't an explanation, just a recognition of a pattern. So, the next time that you are totally baffled by your natural "how can anyone hold an opinion like that?" response to some right-wing bluster, try thinking of it like this, and try to see where they twist it into a personal attack. I wager it'll help you make sense of it.