In general, the differences between American Conservatives and Liberals are usually more of degree, not of kind. Everyone agrees that government must be frugal, that the less of it there is the better, and that private enterprise should be free to control as much of the economy as possible without interference from the state. But there is also general agreement that some things must be overseen and regulated by government, and that it also has a legitimate role in providing social welfare (a safety net), civil rights and labor protections, as well as other safety, environmental, health regulations and controls to ensure the public welfare when it is not convenient, profitable or even possible for the private sector to do so. The problem is where to draw that line, and there is legitimate disagreement and debate as to where it should be drawn. I wish to make clear that in my opinion, much of Conservative philosophy is quite reasonable, and many of their criticisms of Liberal policy are certainly justified.

But in my opinion, the modern Conservative movement in the United States has abandoned any pretense of support for government as a guarantor to provide these controls and other public welfare institutions (except, of course, the military, courts and police forces that primarily exist to protect private property and privilege). Their position is essentially to be able to do anything they please without interference from any civil authority. They expect us to accept that somehow the built-in economic and political mechanisms of British economist Adam Smith and the American founders in the 18th century will automatically operate in some magical, unsupervised fashion to provide all the freedom, justice and prosperity a complex modern technological society requires.

Although they certainly would never characterize it in quite these words, (even privately, to themselves) the contemporary American Right instead favors the establishment of what can only be described as a gangster oligarchy run by and for the benefit of a managerial elite and ownership class that fancies itself entitled to do so because of its self-described and self-defined entrepreneurial virtues. Of course, they have convinced themselves they and only they are members of this noble caste. In their opinion, it is self-evident they and they alone have the courage, creativity, self-sacrifice, innovation and work ethic; everyone else is a freeloader and a parasite, too stupid or corrupt to be like them. They are willing to enlist the aid of a much-reduced middle class to assist them in administering their benign fascist meritocracy; but in general, they feel the bulk of the population is inherently lazy, larcenous and violent, not to be trusted to come to work on time, much less pay their bills. In their view, only the poor's fear of becoming impoverished and destitute keeps them docile and productive, and any attempt by the Liberals to pander to this lowlife scum and reduce that fear is only destined to bring disorder and ruin to the commonwealth.