That shift should be a welcome development for conservatives. Yet it has also exposed a fault line within the modern Right between those who favor neutral, market-oriented reforms and those more comfortable using policy to steer outcomes. If that divide persists, it risks squandering a rare opportunity to enact reforms that would ultimately advance conservatives’ own stated principles.

Consider the current debate over permitting reform in Congress. Just months ago, major reform seemed within reach. A bipartisan bill led by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) aimed to overhaul the nation’s permitting process by narrowing the scope of environmental review, imposing enforceable review timelines, and limiting litigation — creating a faster, more predictable process for approving major projects.

But the effort has largely stalled, due in part to fractures on the Right. While Westerman pitched the bill as an all-of-the-above, technology-neutral reform, some Republicans objected that faster permitting might benefit not just oil and gas, but also wind and solar projects they oppose. Democrats, for their part, balked after the Trump administration ramped up efforts to cancel several renewable energy projects that had already been permitted. Though the bill advanced in the House, its prospects in the Senate have dimmed.

The dispute reflects a deeper disagreement over whether permitting should operate as a neutral set of rules or as a tool for shaping economic outcomes. In practice, some Republicans have treated regulatory reform as another front in the energy wars, seeking to streamline approvals for preferred projects while preserving obstacles for disfavored ones. At the same time, the Trump administration has shown a willingness to revoke previously approved projects, echoing earlier decisions by Democratic administrations to cancel oil and gas leases and projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.

This approach undermines one of the most important features of a functioning market system: predictability. The proposed permitting reforms would provide greater security for federal permits once they are issued, treating them less like political favors that are easily revoked based on shifting political priorities. Without that assurance, investors will be hesitant to commit capital to large-scale projects that take years to plan and build.

That kind of predictability and respect for the rule of law should appeal to conservatives. Yet in practice, some Republicans have been willing to abandon it when it constrains their ability to target disfavored industries.

In December, the Trump administration moved to pause several previously approved offshore wind projects, prompting Senate Democrats to block the permitting bill. Some of those projects may be ill-conceived. But a system in which permits can be revoked at will, depending on who holds power, should concern anyone committed to stable institutions.

To be sure, Republicans are not alone in this inconsistency. Pro-abundance Democrats often support deregulation in principle while resisting it in practice, especially if it benefits fossil fuels or other disfavored industries. But progressives have never claimed the same commitment to markets or deregulation. On one of the central questions facing the modern Right — when government should intervene in economic affairs and when it should step aside — conservatives themselves remain divided.

The consequences are significant. If the United States is to lead in energy production, advanced manufacturing, or artificial intelligence, it needs a permitting system that can support large-scale investment. That means faster approvals, clearer rules, and greater certainty. But it also means resisting the temptation to turn structural reform into another arena for picking and choosing among technologies.

THE RIGHT WAY FORWARD: THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN THE ECONOMY

The emerging politics of “abundance” offers a chance to do that. But it will require conservatives to recommit to the principles they have long espoused: neutral rules, market institutions, and respect for the rule of law. Permitting reform should not be about putting a thumb on the scale for particular outcomes. It should be about creating a system that enables a wide range of projects to move forward under consistent, predictable standards.

The alternative is a politics of selective abundance: support for markets and deregulation when they deliver preferred outcomes, and suspicion of them when they do not. That may be an understandable instinct in a polarized political environment. But it is also a recipe for continued gridlock — and for preserving the very regulatory barriers that conservatives have long argued need to be dismantled.

Shawn Regan is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.