DoD photo by Cherie A. Thurlby / Released

When the CIA torture report was released, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano said the perpetrators might be “war criminals.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he’d “do it again in a minute.”

After the Eric Garner decision, Rep. Justin Amash tweeted, “Clearly excessive force against #EricGarner.” Rep. Peter King thanked the Staten Island grand jury for “doing justice” by not indicting the officer.

During the unrest in Ferguson, Rand Paul called for demilitarizing the police, blamed the system, and met with local black leaders. Mike Huckabee said Michael Brown would still be alive if he hadn’t been a “thug.”

These are high-profile conservatives having opposite reactions to recent controversial events. Napolitano, Amash, and Paul can be fairly categorized as libertarian-leaning men of the right, while Cheney, King, and Huckabee can be fairly categorized as conventionally conservative or Republican. The conservative brands these two sides represent are far more contradictory than they are compatible on some key issues.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin agrees. In her column “The libertarian-conservative alliance frays” Rubin insists that despite shared opposition to certain domestic big-government programs, libertarians really don’t belong in the same category—or even party—with conservatives.

On the most obvious surface disagreement between libertarians and many conservatives, foreign policy, Rubin writes, “As foreign policy becomes more critical, the libertarian-conservative alliance is harder to maintain. Whether it is internment of enemy combatants or enhanced interrogation, libertarians line up with liberals—against conservatives.”

For Rubin, the conservative Republican position is to support Gitmo and torture (but not call it that), and since the left doesn’t support either, this essentially makes libertarians little different from liberals. Never mind that the otherwise hawkish 2008 Republican presidential nominee supported closing Guantanamo Bay and the most popular conservative of the last half-century vigorously opposed torture, including “enhanced interrogation tactics”—these are Rubin’s conservative litmus tests, and she’s sticking to them.

But beyond foreign policy, Rubin believes recent controversies have further demonstrated why libertarianism represents something separate and antithetical to conservatism. She writes:

But foreign policy is not the only issue that separates the libertarians from the conservatives. Recent incidents in the news make clear how respectful of authority conservatives remain… In their opposition to government power, libertarians are sympathetic toward complaints about the police, are quick to see that the police have used excessive force, want to “demilitarize” them, leaped to accuse the police in the Ferguson, Mo., killing and like to cite the laws that give pretext to police stops (cigarette laws in the case of Eric Garner) as a major problem. Conservatives, on the other hand, still give high marks to the police, did not buy the narrative that Michael Brown was an innocent victim in the act of surrendering, and want plenty of law and order. It was no coincidence that Rand Paul and the Rev. Al Sharpton sat down together or that Paul was the first (and only) potential 2016 contender to accuse the judicial system of being afflicted by widespread racism.

Rubin finishes, “To be blunt, conservatives respect authority and crave social order; libertarians instinctively recoil from appeals to both.”

Balancing liberty and security has been a concern since America’s founding, and certainly for generations of conservatives. Russell Kirk, no fan of libertarians, believed in the importance of authority and social order but always prescribed an “ordered liberty.” Conservatism as defined by political standard bearers Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan has represented a long history of libertarians and traditionalists joining forces for common causes.

Rubin seeks to strip the liberty factor from conservatism and behave as though what’s left over is conservatism proper—that the concerns and priorities of libertarians are somehow antithetical to genuine conservatism. If conservatism had only existed from September 2001 until the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, she might have a case, one in which many believe extremism in the defense of liberty devolved into extremism in the name of security.

Fortunately for conservatives, Dick Cheney’s definition of conservatism is not the only available model. If Reagan believed libertarianism was the “heart and soul of conservatism,” Rubin wants us to believe ripping out that heart is conservatism. That’s simply not true.

However, Rubin is right about stark differences between libertarians and many more conventionally conservative Republicans—there is a significant and perhaps even irreconcilable philosophical contradiction developing on the right.

But it is not between libertarians and conservatives. If looking for the most accurate and useful term to analyze this conservative dilemma, the opposite of libertarianism is not conservatism, but authoritarianism, and the current tension is between libertarians and authoritarians.

Libertarians distrust government. So have generations of conservatives. Conservatives have also long trusted and admired certain types of government—the military, the police, the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency—believing these bodies represent law, order, and safety.

Recently, ascendant libertarian Republicans have extended their skepticism of government to state agencies that the right is accustomed to giving the benefit of the doubt.

Have we now learned that the CIA crossed lines that threaten the ideal of American liberty at home and around the world? Libertarians say yes. Authoritarians say don’t question the CIA. Has law enforcement behaved in ways that threaten the liberty of citizens, and particularly African-Americans? Libertarians wonder. Authoritarians say don’t question the police. Has the NSA threatened our privacy? Libertarians say absolutely. Authoritarians say don’t question the NSA. Does our current foreign policy enhance or diminish or enhance national security and are the benefits worth the exorbitant cost? Authoritarians scoff at these questions, treating Pentagon spending in particular as sacrosanct.

Libertarians question government. Authoritarians, naturally, don’t question authority. That government agencies authoritarians like can be as inefficient and corrupt as the parts of government law-and-order conservatives aren’t so fond of simply does not enter the equation.

It is also significant that while libertarians favor smaller and more constitutional government, authoritarians advocate for bigger, stronger, and even unlimited government.

Last week, hawkish senator Marco Rubio said Rand Paul’s attempts to put definable limits on an Authorization of the Use of Military Force, or giving the president a blank check on foreign policy, was “micromanaging the military.” Jennifer Rubin’s headline on this showdown read, “Conservative Marco Rubio slams Rand Paul’s libertarian views.”

Note that the pro-executive power position is described as “conservative” and Congress attempting to rein in presidential overreach is deemed “libertarian.” Since when is asking to follow the Constitution anti-conservative? Since when is advocating for a limitless and unrestricted executive branch the conservative position?

If liberty is your priority, this is patently absurd. But if you lean authoritarian, it makes perfect sense.

If you prefer constant and prolonged foreign intervention, unrestricted intelligence gathering and law enforcement, this runs counter an agenda of constitutional protections, devolved power, and fiscal responsibility. The idea has always been to balance security and liberty. Authoritarians say liberty disrupts security and therefore libertarians aren’t real conservatives.

If you Google “authoritarian,” your first find will be “Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.” If Rubin believes “conservatives respect authority and crave social order” and that “libertarians instinctively recoil from appeals to both,” conservatives have also questioned authority, recoiled from government infringing on freedom and many have believed liberty is key to social order.

The reason authoritarians like Rubin and others become so incensed by Rand Paul, claiming he’s not really a conservative, he has no chance to become president, he’s overrated, etc., is because Paul represents the polar opposite of everything authoritarians hold dear.

Ben Franklin warned that if you trade liberty for security you would end up with neither. Jennifer Rubin believes that trade gives you conservatism.

It gives you authoritarianism. Whether that’s what most Americans, including Republicans, want these days is an entirely different question.

Jack Hunter is the editor of Rare.us and the former new media director for Sen. Rand Paul.