What Lindsay, who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, doesn’t say—or isn’t quoted as saying—is that he hates Paul’s old right and quintessentially libertarian opposition to our foreign policy of global interventionism. Senor Lindsay and his fellow ”modern" libertarians have made their peace with the Empire. As long as they can take drugs, abort fetuses, and sodomize each other to their hearts’ content, he and his Beltway buddies have no problem with the US rampaging over half the earth, regime-changing and taking out “rogue” states at will. As long as it’s a “free market” empire, they’re all in favor of it. (Justin Raimondo, at Taki's Top Drawer.)
So, on the one hand, we have the New Fusionism, which combines an evangelical moralism and social ethic with interventionist foreign policy, including the principle of preemptive war - and let it not be forgotten that the cash value of this fusionism is evangelical flirtation with the Guiliani candidacy - while on the other, we have the Other New Fusionism of the Cato libertarians, which combines the nihilistic creative destruction of globalist capitalism with the social ethics of the New Left and the democratist delusions of neoconservatism (this, of course, because they are utile toward the worldwide extension of The Market). Curiously, the first constant in this devil's brew of nonsense is the interventionist foreign policy. The second constant - though it remains a somewhat silent partner in the New Fusionism - is that same global capitalism which is intertwined with the foreign policy, which is why social conservative heavies are loath to endorse Huckabee, though Huckabee does not so much reject this as pine for modernizations not approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (This would be the Club for Growth, I suppose.) The current (grotesquely expanded) electoral season is a trial, not only of the soul of the GOP (snicker), but of the conservative movement (or what remains thereof) as a whole.
Update: It is worth noting that the Other New Fusionism has the advantage of coherence, which the New Fusionism simply lacks, inasmuch as the former combines a utilitarian/hedonist social ethic with a foreign policy utterly utilitarian in essence, wanting as it is for a moral warrant, while the latter attempts, vainly, to combine a substantive social ethic with that same foreign policy. At the meta-level, this is one reason why the social conservatives are not only dupes and suckers, often enough, but almost destined to witness the defeat of their ostensibly highest aspirations: their functional non-negotiables accept all the premises of their substantive adversaries. They have conceded 90% of the debate already.