Reshared post from Reason:

"Many or even most of the people who make a living working in politics and political commentary—even those who think of themselves as outsiders, such as nonpartisan libertarians—inevitably begin to view their field as one dedicated primarily to ideas, ideology, philosophy, policy, and so forth, and NOT to the emotional, ideologically unmoored cultural passions of a given (and perhaps fleeting) moment. Donald Trump—and more importantly, his supporters, who go all but unmentioned here (Ben Domenech is an exception)—illustrate that that gap is, well, yuuge."Matt Welch here well-describes the difference between what we might call "conservatism" and "the right wing."  The right wing supports certain policies we tend to place on the right, but they do not do so for strongly principled, let alone highly consistent, reasons.  They want what they want, and it doesn't matter why or how.Conservatism, though, is concerned with the why and how, because the what depends on the why, and they why implies a how.So for example, conservatism recognizes the fact that we have a right to control our borders, and an obligation to enforce the laws, including immigration laws, objectively.  The right wing agrees.  But where the right wing says, "fix the problem, and I don't care how," a conservative recognizes that you have to fix the problem in a way that is going to be consistent with the same principles that led you to believe it was a problem in the first place.Drug laws are another clear difference.  A conservative says, "recreational drug use can cause harm, but laws against that can cause more harm, and people have the right to cause harm to themselves anyway."  The right wing generally thinks that drugs are bad, so we need to make it illegal, and damn the consequences."Damn the consequences" could be Trump's overall political motto.  And it's something conservatives never say.