Perhaps it's a Canadian thing, but from the perspective up here there is still a solid difference between formal or "high" theonomy (a'la Rushdoony & Bahnsen) and the social conservatism trumpeted by the hoy polloy of the American religious right.

While there is a good deal of American nationalist rhetoric among writers like Gary DeMar and Gary North (who have a distinctly young-activist "Franky Schaeffer" tone about them, don't they?), American Reconstructionism is not the same political and polemical stuff of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell....though on the face of it the difference may be hard to spot for many. In fact, some even label the polemics of the fundies as a kind of "theonomy" but it's just a cultural knee-jerk reaction to the abhorrent evil wrought by secular man since the running of the fundies to the sounds of J. Vernon McGee's 1950's call to retreat: "You don't polish brass on a sinking ship." You see the subtle view in that notion that America was once entirely afloat. Yet America was never a theonomy and it's still not what the dispensational right wants.

I'm not saying it's wrong to have a nationalist "flavour" to your own tribe's theonomy, but I must step up on my soapbox and holler that 20th Century American Reconstructionism IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THEONOMY! Ahem. (he dismounts his soapbox).

And so if there happens to be inconsistencies, if pretribbing,right wing American dispensationalists are trying to be 'theonomists', if postmillenialists are theonomist because of some dogma of eschatological extension that may or may not involve the wholesale conversion of the American states, then I say there is no accounting for that in my view of things except to say it is an inconsistent theonomy.

Only a theonomy that can fully apprehend both a King in heaven ruling ALL nations and a 'narrow way' where 'few enter' in ANY nation is one that comports with Scripture. (or maybe that's a Canadian thing, too ;-)