In response to Julian Sanchez's recent cri de coeur over at the Cato institute, Corey Robins just wrote a post that I think is a precise summary of his core argument in _The Reactionary Mind_:
http://coreyrobin.com/2012/03/07/when-libertarians-go-to-work/
To wit, why when conservatives say freedom is their first principle, they really mean freedom for the few, not for the many. And how that can be what they mean when they vehemently deny it.
I think the extremely limited scope here (not all of conservatism in every possible manifestation, but just this one guy's argument in this one post, measured against his very clear principles) makes clear the form of Corey's argument. It's not an imputation of unconscious motives, and it's not a conspiracy theory. The argument is rather that this is necessarily implied by the propositions and empirical observations that they explicitly hold. (And that this necessarily implied conclusion is systematically misrecognized.)
So if anyone who didn't have time to read Corey's book, but hated it, would like to have a clear argument over it nonetheless, I think this offers an excellent opportunity. I will be glad to fight Corey's corner as well as I am able. Perhaps with this clear focus you'll be able to make clear to me what is inherently wrong with such an argument, or I'll be able to convince you that he's got Sanchez's number.
Game rules: all argument must be focused on this article alone. And you have to read it first.
Michael