The Fundamental Fallacy of Free-Market Libertarianism

R R Reno of First Things reads the WSJ editorial page.  What he sees there is problematic, specifically in its slamming of Santorum's increased child-credit which echoes a Strassel position.

Cutting to the chase:

...Take will-to-power and domesticate it as economic self-interest, and you pretty much have the political and social vision of free-market libertarianism. I see little future for what is today a very modern social philosophy in American conservatism. Yes we’d like to be richer, but that’s not all we want. We want to live in accord with our nature as human beings, and that includes contributing to and enjoying the primitive community of the family. If free market libertarians can’t get their minds around that fact—and the fact that as we make personal choices about marriage and children we’re influenced by a manifold of social and economic incentives—then I can’t see how they will be able to formulate a governing consensus. Over the long haul people won’t vote for politicians who won’t work to implement policies that help them live the kinds of lives their nature desires.

None of this is surprising to any Conservative.  The REAL significance here is the growing division between the Libertarians and Conservatives, and for that matter, Libertarians and Reagan Democrats.

Word to the wise:  TEA Party people are not "libertarians" by nature.

What we do see is a fusion between the Reagan Democrats and actual Conservatives--named Rick Santorum.