Richard Cohen comes out against hate crimes laws, sort of. But in so doing he asserts:

Hate-crime laws combine the touching conservative belief in the unerring efficacy of deterrence (which rises to its absurd and hideous apogee with executions) with the liberal belief that when it comes to particular groups, basic rights may be suspended. Thus we get affirmative action in which certain people are advantaged at the expense of other people based entirely on race or ethnicity. This tender feeling toward minorities must account for why civil liberties groups have remained so appallingly silent about hate-crimes legislation.

Seems to me that Cohen, being a man who travels in liberal ciricles, has the liberal belief pretty much right, but not so much the conservative.

What conservative has ever expressed confidence in the "unerring efficacy of deterrence"? When it comes to the death penalty, most people who support it do so out of a sense of justice, not so much because it unmistakeably deters. Nevermind, that the death penalty, as imposed in this country, is something of a cruel joke. But this is thanks primarily to liberal lawyers and judges who have created a legal system that makes it so. A consistent, quick, and fairly imposed death penalty might marginally (not unerringly) deter some killings.

Cohen's falsely characterizes the conservative view for his liberal readers to make them feel better about themselves. There is nothing "conservative" about hate-crime laws. But many Republicans don't challenge them or end up supporting them out of fear of being labeled racist, sexist or homophobic... by liberals, of course.

Cohen deserves credit for seeing hate crime laws for what they are; wrong-headed, ineffective, and illiberal. But being illiberal and conservative are two very different things. Cohen is smart enough to know that. Hate crime laws are an invention of the liberal left. Blaming conservatives for them in any way is wholly disengenuous.