OK, we’re obviously in for a lot of breathless hype about the new conservatism, as supposedly exemplified by Room to Grow, which self-consciously lays out what are supposed to be bold new conservative policy ideas. One thing you don’t find amid the hype, however, is much actual description of the new ideas in question. That’s because the ideas don’t bear too much scrutiny.

The truth is that conservatives have a big intellectual problem. Thirty-five years ago they really did have something new to say — basically, the claim that tax cuts and deregulation would produce widely shared economic gains, a rising tide that would lift all boats, etc.. That hasn’t happened, of course, although the Paul Ryans will never admit it and just keep pushing for more of the same. The new conservatives are at least aware that things haven’t quite worked out as promised — but they’re not willing to challenge fundamental assumptions. So what they write conveys a kind of desperate feeling — they’re trying to tweak the paradigm at the edges, but without straying over the invisible border that would make them basically modern liberals.

If you look at the health care chapter, for example, it does two main things. First, it tries to trash Obamacare with borderline dishonest claims — it will leave 31 million American uninsured! It will cost $2 trillion! If you look at the CBO estimates (pdf) these claims are based on, you learn that about a third of those remaining uninsured are unauthorized immigrants the law was never intended to reach, a significant number will be uninsured because Republican-controlled states are refusing to expand Medicaid, and the rest will be uninsured because for whatever reason they choose not to sign up. Oh, and it’s $1.8 trillion, fully offset by cost savings and additional revenue.

And the conservative alternative is the Coburn plan, which claims to cover as many people as Obamacare much more cheaply. But aside from doubts about the analysis — and would you really want to describe Douglas Holtz-Eakin’s operation as “nonpartisan”? — as far as we can tell the low cost comes from the fact that many of those who would be supposedly insured would have policies offering very little protection. The point is that the whole thing feels a lot like supply-side snake oil, promising something for nothing.

The chapter on tax reform does break some new ground, but some ground shouldn’t be broken. It suggests that the big problem with the welfare state is that people no longer count on their children to support them when they’re old, so birth rates drop — because nothing makes children feel loved and valued like knowing that their parents viewed them as organic 401(k)s. And the answer is tax credits — nonrefundable, of course, so only worthwhile to people with enough income.

There’s more. But really, this is all about conservatives trying to deal with the fact that their policy agenda has left ordinary families behind without challenging the mindset and prejudices behind that agenda. As you might guess, the results aren’t impressive.