Not so. This article is part of a long series I did in which I cover various kinds of conservatism (neoconservatives, populists, libertarians, theocrats, and so on). I do think there's a pattern there, but I give the conservative voices their due. I offer them the chance to justify themselves, and I submit my hypothesis as a way of explaining what they seem to have in common.

In any case, your inference is fallacious. Just because one kind of reduction is bad (the social Darwinian kind) doesn't mean all explanatory reductions are bad. You're assuming guilt by mere association. My criticisms of conservatism don't contradict themselves by presupposing the truth of social Darwinism.