That's the difference between American Conservatism and conservatism in other countries and that is what makes American Conservatism unique.
"That's the difference between American Conservatism and conservatism in other countries and that is what makes American Conservatism unique."
One of the problems with applying labels is that they are too broad, and the one that bothers me most is that conservatives are considered to be Luddites with respect to progress. Being a conservative to me simply means I accept the collective wisdom learned from the experiences of others who have conducted the trial and error experiments throughout history that have led us to the present. This does not mean I reject all change and experimentation. It means I look to the past for successes and seek to expand upon them rather than repeat failed experiments hoping for different results.
We Americans have had many successes in developing our political, economic and social institutions. Why shouldn't we seek to share the benefits of those successes with others around the world if the benefits will be mutual and substantial? In the historical context who did not benefit when Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the Union?
I'm not advocating political union with the rest of the world, although I see nothing magic about 50 states. I just happen to believe the ideals Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence have universal application, and promoting those ideals globally is in the best interests of humanity and Americans.
Is it still conservative, then? If those of radical temper back Bush and those of conservative habits and inclinations hold back, is he still conservative? If conservatism implies a feel for limits what to make of a conservatism that doesn't recognize traditional limitations? Maybe we should talk of "radical conservatism" or "conservative radicalism" or come up with another word to describe what we're dealing with now.