Here’s a list of political stances that cluster together in several populist European parties. Tell me whether you think they count as far-left, far-right, or neither.

admiration for Vladimir Putin;

higher taxes for the rich;

hostility toward immigration;

assertion of national sovereignty;

protectionism;

more welfare spending;

anti-Americanism;

suspicion of financiers;

obsessive hatred of George Soros;

mild dislike of Jews;

pronounced dislike of Muslims;

family values.

In Continental Europe, that cocktail of views defines you as “far-right.” And sure enough, you hear it often from, for example, the nationalist politicians affiliated to Marine Le Pen’s bloc in the European Parliament. But I’m not sure that “far-right” is an accurate way to describe them.

Many of these politicians see themselves as the authentic champions of industrialized labor. They march on May Day under red flags. They dislike kings and aristocrats and businessmen, and detest the liberal capitalism of the English-speaking democracies.

The reason they are called “far-right” is that “right-wing,” in modern European parlance, simply means “bad guys.” Since these guys are double-plus bad, the reasoning runs, they must be even further to the Right than conservatives.

But there is nothing conservative about them. An ideological ocean separates Anglo-American rightists from Euro-authoritarians. Or, at least, it did until very recently. That ocean has been narrowing since Republicans began taking up positions that they recently denounced as protectionist and autocratic.

Last week, for example, it was announced that CPAC, the premier conservative gathering in the U.S., had invited Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, who calls herself the political, as well as the lineal, heir to her anti-immigrant grandfather, Jean-Marie Le Pen. President Trump had been scheduled to address that same conference on Friday.

Try to imagine Ronald Reagan, a regular CPAC attendee, speaking at the same event as Jean-Marie Le Pen. The idea is too preposterous to entertain, even as an intellectual exercise. It’s true that Marion comes from the traditionalist Catholic wing of the National Front, and displays little enthusiasm for the far-left economics espoused by her aunt, Marine, the current leader. Even so, Reagan Republicans would not have countenanced sharing platforms with a party that was anti-NATO, anti-trade, and anti-American.

What has changed? There are, I think, three possibilities. The first is that conservatives are taking their cue from Trump, whether out of tribalism or personal ambition. While that explanation works for those GOP congressmen who have taken to fawning over the man they damned during the primaries, it doesn’t work for CPAC, always irreverent and iconoclastic.

The second is that immigration, especially Muslim immigration, has become such a vast issue for conservatives that it squeezes out everything else. Whenever I address an American conservative audience, whether on Obamacare or Brexit, I can pretty much guarantee that the first question will be about the supposed Islamization of Britain. In fact, the segregated Britain that haunts my questioners’ imagination bears little resemblance to the real country where I’m writing these words.

But let’s leave Britain to one side. Surely, no one thinks that the U.S., where Muslims are less than one percent of the population, is on the point of living under Sharia law. Are we meant to believe that the biggest issue for CPAC attendees is hostility toward Muslim immigration to France? That that issue trumps everything else — fiscal rectitude, the Western alliance, free enterprise, American patriotism?

The third explanation is the likeliest. For some culture warriors, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Leftists uncomplicatedly loathe the Le Pens, so some rightists, whether from contrarianism or ignorance, defend them. But the reason that the rivalry between “far-right” statists and left-wing statists is so fierce is that they are competing for the same kind of voter. Theirs is, as Hayek used to say, a quarrel between brothers. Both sets of socialists — national socialists and Leninist socialists — regard classical liberals, not as heretics, but as infidels, damned beyond redemption.

From time to time, the two sets of socialists have patched up their quarrels to stand together against Western free-market democracy. It happened in August 1939, when Hitler and Stalin signed their pact. The British writer Evelyn Waugh — a proper conservative if ever there was one — recorded the moment in one of his novels: “The enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off. It was the Modern Age in arms.”

That, surely, is the proper conservative response to authoritarians of any stripe. They have done enough damage in Europe. No American should want to copy them.

Daniel Hannan, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a British member of the European Parliament.