I think you're trying too hard to argue that there's only one kind of Conservative, who takes different positions under different circumstances. There are different kinds of Conservatives who sincerely hold somewhat different beliefs, and what we've seen is the New Right pushing aside the Classic Conservatives. The CCs ought to be the natural allies these days of people who are concerned about what the New Right's doing on the same grounds: "Privacy, few laws, small government". The point of all those essays is that the New Right actually has nothing in common with Classic Conservatism.

I wrote another couple of thousand words before I realized I wasn't even halfway there yet, so I deleted them, for now. This is a huge subject, Bowser, and I haven't integrated my studies into politics this year into a result simple enough to fit into a post, even an SDAI-Tech1-size post.

Here's a stab at summarizing: Politics might make more sense when you distinguish between psychology and ideology. The strongest validation of that idea is authoritarian conservatism, whose true nature as psychology rather than ideology is demonstrated by history. The psychology of the Soviet Union was authoritarian conservative in the extreme, while its ideology was Communist. The modern New Right represents authoritarian conservatism unleashed by fear after 9/11, whipped into a frenzy by opportunistic politicians who are by no means themselves authoritarian conservatives.

I saved the paragraph on Neoconservativism because by contrast it represents a pure ideology:

Neoconservatives are a tiny splinter ideological sect which is concerned solely with geopolitics, and their heresy is to be expansionist rather than isolationist. They don't seem to care about any other Conservative concern except to the degree that they support their main focus: Capitalizing on the end of the Cold War to establish an "American Hegemony", "hegemony" being the modern enlightened form of empire (or "empire on the cheap", as some would say). Neos like Wolfowitz and Rummy gained power when the Bush Admin took office, and their fortunes shot up like a rocket with 9/11. They couldn't contain their glee at the realization that they'd be let off the leash to achieve their dreams, and even for a time dared use the phrase "American Empire" in public.

To wrap it up with a bow: Neoconservatives are the ones who benefit from turning the American people authoritarian conservative. They're cleverly arguing that the best defense is a good offense: An American Empire is the only path to security. That's the ideology behind Bush's seemingly mindless insistence that "Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror" and that establishing more America Inc.™ franchises in the Middle East will create a buffer between us and terrorism. Expansionism and military adventurism will keep the bad guys out there, "trust us".

But that's just the summary! Bowser, just because the New Right is using extreme black-and-white rhetoric doesn't mean that we should give up our vaunted ability to see nuance and subtlety. There really are sincere Classic Conservatives, and they're returning, not being born-again by changing fortunes. Don't make the mistake of accusing everybody of hypocrisy--it only turns potential allies into enemies. The Classics are the ones who share our concerns about "privacy, few laws, and small government", at a time when the New Right is building a vast police state. Don't alienate 'em, we need 'em.

More--much more--later...