I’ve often ranted on about conflicts inherent in the Republican party: the economic conservatives with a libertarian streak, vs. the social conservatives with a paternalistic streak. Both, I’m sure, fit into the model of strict-father politics as opposed to nuturing parent politics, but that doesn’t mean that they are in any other way philosophically compatible.
At any rate, your standard neoconservative line is to deregulate business, devolve power to the states and local governments, (in the EU this is called subsidiarity and in the US it’s more or less equivalent to “state’s rights,” although the term was used to defend Jim Crow and slavery). They feel that the government should get out of people’s hair generally, and the federal government should be involved only in matters of interstate trade, international policy, and defense.
But in certain cases, as I’m sure you’re all aware, we see those principles bent. The re’s a test you can take about the consistency of your beliefs, but I don’t know if we could get all our politicians to take it, much less apply its lessons to their daily lives.
I am told that the Republican party’s social conservatism has its roots in its original moral crusade: abolition. Republicans of those days wanted to abolish all sorts of other moral scourges, too– alcohol, for example. Oh, you say, so that’s why we’ve got hardline maniacs running the DEA and trying to keep medicine out of the hands of terminally ill cancer patients: it’s only moral to make sure death is as painful and miserable a process as possible.