Throughout the 20^th century, conservatives were as diverse and subject to infighting as liberals. Just in the last half of the century conservatives often split into Free Market activism, Libertarianism, small-town conservatism, religious conservatism, southern segregationists, militia separatists, military jingoists, and advocates of corporatism, all with their own idiosyncratic interests and agendas. Those groups still exist today, obviously, but any infighting between them seems to have dropped out of the public eye. So why did that happen?

The short answer is that beginning sometime in Clinton's second term Conservatives gave up on trying to balance different policy agendas — they gave up on policy entirely, in fact — and shifted to an entirely media-centered strategy. Karl Rove style attack ads, swiftboating strategies, scandal-hacking, fear-mongering and rabble-rousing, all backed by the (then new) FOX Network with its strong conservative propaganda arm obscured under a pretense of straight news. They created an echo chamber of people who repeated the same talking points while steadfastly refusing to discuss anything of material substance and constantly shifting blame to others, all to present an image of power and unity. Anyone who broke ranks was ostracized and punished as disloyal; anyone vocal outside the group was demonized as bad, or traitorous, or dangerous.

They became a faction in Madison's sense — read Federalist 10 — with all the negative weight that term carries.

Don't think the lack of infighting is real. As we saw in the Trump administration and in McCarthy's troubled speakership, as soon as conservatives gain power they all begin to privately squabble over their differences, rendering them almost incapable of governance. They act more like thieves divvying up the spoils than representatives serving their constituents because that factional emphasis on a facade of unity selects for the worst kind of candidates: those most shamelessly willing to lie for the party's benefit. It's not conducive to real leadership.

Throughout the 20^th century, conservatives were as diverse and subject to infighting as liberals. Just in the last half of the century conservatives often split into Free Market activism, Libertarianism, small-town conservatism, religious conservatism, southern segregationists, militia separatists, military jingoists, and advocates of corporatism, all with their own idiosyncratic interests and agendas. Those groups still exist today, obviously, but any infighting between them seems to have dropped out of the public eye. So why did that happen?

The short answer is that beginning sometime in Clinton's second term Conservatives gave up on trying to balance different policy agendas — they gave up on expressing policy at all, in fact — and shifted to an entirely media-centered strategy. This involved Karl Rove style (i..e., ad hominem) attack ads, swiftboating strategies, scandal-hacking, fear-mongering and rabble-rousing, all backed by the (then new) FOX Network, with its strong conservative propaganda arm obscured under a pretense of straight news. They created an echo chamber of people who repeated the same talking points while steadfastly refusing to discuss anything of material substance, and who constantly shifted blame away from the party to others, all to present an image of power and unity. Anyone who broke ranks was ostracized and punished as disloyal; anyone vocal outside the group was demonized as bad, or traitorous, or dangerous.

They became a faction in Madison's sense — read Federalist 10 — with all the negative weight that term carries.

Don't think the apparent lack of infighting is real. As we saw in the Trump administration and in McCarthy's troubled speakership, as soon as conservatives gain power they all begin to privately squabble over their differences, rendering them almost incapable of governance. That factional emphasis on a facade of unity selects for the worst kind of candidates: those most shamelessly willing to publicly lie for the party's benefit while privately pushing selfish aims. It's not conducive to real leadership.