George Lakoff has argued that one of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives is in their relative perception of the scope of causality.
Liberals perceive broad causality, extending out to systemic causation and lines of causality that are not distinctly visible but exist nonetheless. A stereotypical example is the perception of economic effects beyond the power of the individual which may lead to such things as poverty, which are not the fault of the individual.
Conservatives, he argued, by contrast see limited causality, often extending no further than the individual, leading to stereotypical judgments in such things as the root cause of poverty being a character flaw in the individual.
The unfortunate thing about Lakoff's presentation is that the reader would get the impression that it's a matter of ability to handle complexity, something we tend to equate with intelligence. That interpretation is routinely proven false here on the Zone, where Conservatives on the Space/Science board evidence no problem at all handling complexity and even systemic causation. The parable of the butterfly flapping its wings in China etc. is not lost on Conservatives...in a scientific context.
That ability to perceive broad causation vanishes on Current Events, where Conservatives argue in stark black-and-white for limited causation and deny systemic causality. Why the difference? I think it boils down to an expectation of simplicity in human affairs, exactly as you expressed it:
Most of the big questions have simple answers. The reason things get so complicated is that the simple answers usually aren't the answers people want to hear.
That, to me, seems like an absolute reversal of cause-and-effect. I see the world as a complicated place, whether it's weather or human affairs or quantum reality. Attempts to impose simplicity on that complexity are doomed to tragic outcomes.
Like Iraq. OT isn't the place to once again argue the merits of Bush's war. What's relevant here is the undeniable fact that the Bush Administration expected simplicity in Iraq, and to our sorrow, it found complexity. Life would have been so simple if the Iraqis really had cheered for joy and tossed flowers at our troops, but in real life it was never destined to be.
To speculate a bit further, it seems as though Conservatives are vaguely offended at the complexity of life, and take it as a sign that something's wrong. If the world could be fixed, it would, no doubt, be a simpler place, with a strong resemblance to the world of Ward and June Cleaver, where everything is black-and-white and everybody knows their place and all questions of morality and right and wrong are settled and eternal, and of course nobody questions Authority.
Me? I've always grooved on complexity. I find it stimulating and endless entertaining. I value diversity because it creates a delightfully complex and ever-changing world. I like surfing the changes, and look forward to change with anticipation rather than dread. Authority puts its pants on one leg at a time, and I'll be my own Authority, thank you very much. I had no choice but to be a Liberal.
To each his own, I guess. How Conservatives think would be no concern of mine if they didn't get into positions of power, but they do. Moderate Conservatives are willing to factor in the complexity of reality and generally don't do badly, but dogmatic Conservatives reliably lead us into disaster when their expectation of simplicity collide with a complex reality.