American conservatism is a house divided against itself. It applauds the radicalism of the economic changes of the past four decades -- the dismantling, say, of the American steel industry (and the job and income security that it once provided) in the cause of greater efficiency. It decries the decline of social and familial stability over that time -- the traditional, married working-class families, say, that once filled all those churches in the hills and hollows in what is now the smaller, post-working-class Pittsburgh.

Problem is, disperse a vibrant working-class community in America and you disperse the vibrant working-class family.

Which is how American conservatism became the primary author of the very social disorder that it routinely rails against, and that Republicans have the gall to run against.

So, just to sharpen Meyerson's point a little:

On the one hand, conservative billionaire capitalists make billions (and we make nothing) by driving down wages toward a subsistence level. (Wasn't there some 19th Century guy who predicted that?) On the other hand, conservative pundits make millions denouncing what the billionaires caused.

I'd call that a win-win situation! What's not to like?

Oh, and autocoprophagic?