[rayiner]

You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians. To a first order approximation, conservatives believe in cabining government to functions it has historically performed in the American tradition. That includes defense and internal security. It includes the protection of human life. At the state level—remember, state governments are not ones of enumerated powers—it includes a pretty broad intrusion into “the public welfare and morals.”

[TulliusCicero]

> You’re attacking a straw man. Conservatives aren’t and don’t purport to be anarcho-libertarians.

It's not uncommon for prominent GOP politicians to portray themselves this way. And I've seen similar declarations from rank and file GOP members.

It's a motte and bailey fallacy: when progressives want some new regulation, conservatives declare that they're the party of the government not intruding into your business, of the government being hands off. When they want some new regulation, or to maintain a currently intrusive one, then suddenly they're the faction of balance after all.

[rayiner]

Motte and Bailey is shifting positions on the same issue. Regulating abortion but not corporations isn’t motte and bailey, it just reflects an ideology where some things are more appropriate for government intervention than others. Liberals are the same way—they talk a lot about “freedom” when it comes to sex, but not so much when it comes to participating in the economy. Neither party claims to be about “freedom” for its own sake as the highest value—that’s libertarians.

[TulliusCicero]

> Motte and Bailey is shifting positions on the same issue.

The issue in this case is the avowed principle, on which they have two distinct positions, while pretending they're the same.

That said, I don't disagree that you can find hypocrisy on the left as well. Just look at housing in California. You could make housing cheaper, drastically benefiting the poor and working class, through either zoning deregulation or massive public housing investment or both, but the Dems there choose largely to do neither.

[rayiner]

> The issue in this case is the avowed principle, on which they have two distinct positions, while pretending they're the same.

There's no "avowed principle"--and conservatism is more of a temperament than a principled framework anyway. Yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric about "freedom" and "small government"--but the conservative audience understands that that means and doesn't mean. Put differently, you're not dunking on a conservative when you say "you say you're for 'limited government' but you support a big department of defense!" The answer is, "well yes, defense is one of the enumerated functions of the federal government in the Constitution, but healthcare isn't."

> Just look at housing in California. You could make housing cheaper, drastically benefiting the poor and working class, through either zoning deregulation or massive public housing investment or both, but the Dems there choose largely to do neither.

Dems believe that government regulation of the economy produces better results. The fact that the principle doesn't really work in the specific case of housing isn't hypocrisy, it's a limitation of the principle.

[xyzzyz]

You are talking about GOP politicians and members. The comment you are replying to is talking about conservatives. Membership in these two groups is not exactly coincident. I hope that your comment is just based on confusion stemming on completely misunderstanding the right in the US, instead of deliberate attempt to identify the two groups as convenient for argument.