Why some conservatives might dislike Austrian economics

[ag]

First, one has to define the terms. What these days is usually called the "Austrian School" is, basically, just a bizarre "Misesian" religious cult, which has very little to do with the historical Austrian school of economic thought. That school, of course, has been extremely important in formulation of the modern economic thinking.  Much of what one finds in basic mainstream economics texts these days, in fact, is, in fact, of undeniably "Austrian" (rather than "Neoclassical") origin and/or inspiration.

Alas, these days the word "Austrian" has become poisonous: nobody wants to be associated with a cult. The old "Austrian" economists (including, definitely, Hayek - and even von Mises himself) are not to blame for this, of course: they themselves were very much a part of the contemporary research mainstream.  

In any case, as preached by the cultists of today, "Austrian Economics" is a conglomeration of loosely thought through tautologies, formulated in a deliberately obscure language specifically designed to conceal the overall inanity of the discourse. This lack of content is viewed as a special virtue, as it is then used to provide rhetorical support to a pre-conceived ideological position.  Whether conservative or not, any thinking person - economist or otherwise - has nothing to like in it. In fact, if anything, for a good conservative it presents a special embarrassment: he may hold similar ideological views, but the superficial similarity with the Misesian cult makes them appear less intellectually respectable.

[ag]

... economics advances economics by studying human action,

Economics, by its nature, is a science of human behavior. All we study is human action. There is nothing "Austrian" about it.

[ag]

Austrian economics is for people who are too smart to get bogged down in the tribalism of neo-classical vs. neo-Keynesian.

"Austrians" being the only people in whose imagination such "tribalism" exists. The terms themselves, of course, describe only macroeconomists - and macro is not all of economics anyway (not even most of it). But even within macro these days there is a remarkable degree of methodological unity and a very active interaction and debate between different - rather loosely defined - "schools". The interactions and debate which the "Austrians" cannot even observe: for lack of common language.

[ag]

I don't think you understand Austrian Economics. The original Austrian was Menger who birthed Bawerk and a few others during that time. That transcended to Mises, and sadly, to Rothbard. Mises does follow the true Austrian tradition. It was those like Hayek that did not completely do it, and followed another person during Bawerk's era

It so happens that I am reading a book on the early Christianity right now. The story of the debates of which Gospels should belong to the canon is, indeed, fascinating. But they belong to the Religion board, not to Economics.