I'm not understanding.  Are you saying that the right wing has its own "non-market" solutions?

If I were to guess maybe you are talking about the right's social policies?  I like those x-y graphs that plot economic freedom on one axis and social freedom on another.

What we typically call the "right" is for economic freedom with more social control, and the "left" is for social freedom with more economic control.

... or maybe I'm missing your meaning.

I don't have much time at the moment.  Briefly, markets can be circumvented when necessary and/or when opportunity presents itself. One example would be the negotiations which began the petrodollar recycling system.  These actions were bilateral and secretive against all public statements by the US govt.  The myth exists today that the "markets" solved the problem.

I am reading "The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony" by David Spiro who makes this case.

I guess all I am saying is that both liberals and conservatives say they trust the markets and both seek at times to circumvent them when opportunity presents itself.  

How about the Texas Railroad Commission for a non-market solution to petroleum allocation, a non-market solution that undoubtedly had the enthusiastic approval of all the supposed free-market ideologues in the US oil industry?  (The TRR played the role of OPEC in the domestic US until 1971, when the Peak predicted by Hubbert rendered it moot.)

Does one have to be politically on the left end of the spectrum to note the glaring hypocrisy here?

I don't think anyone, of any party, "working a deal" or "putting one hand in the til" really disproves the general philosophical theme.

I didn't invent it, it's out there.

... and I think it plays into the parties' slow acceptance of some problems.

The Republican party is splitting apart between the socially conservative and financially liberal southern and rural faction, and the socially liberal and financially conservative high income faction.
Socially conservative means government control of reproduction, sex, religion, etc.
Financially conservative means low taxes and/or government spending (delayed tax increases and/or spending cuts).
Socially liberal means no government control of reproduction, sex, religion, etc.
Financially liberal means high taxes and/or government spending (delayed tax increases and/or spending cuts).
The Democrats are relatively uninvolved in this argument between the Republican factions. Most antiMiers stuff is coming from the faction who liked Roberts for his implied solib/ficon stance, and disliked Miers for her implied socon/filib stance.