The author conveniently forgets to mention several, salient points:
1. More people consider themselves religious and attend a place of worship more regularly than they have in 50 or so years. Religious belief and participation is a hallmark of a conservative society.
2. More people have an ownership stake in their society thanks to 401(k)'s, record home ownership, increased upward mobility, etc., than at any other time in American history. People with property want it protected. This is also a hallmark of a conservative society.
3. Census data does not lie: within the next 50 years, blacks (iron-clad liberal voters) will become a staistically insignificant portion of the population. The WWII generation (wedded to the New Deal) is dying off. Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and they tend to be both conservative and Catholic or Evangelical Christians.
4. Slowly but surely, the entire leftist social agenda is being modified or phased out not by government fiat but by social pressure. Welfare reform, the elimination of abortion on demand, the defense of traditional marriage, etc., are all topics better left to the unwritten rules of society than they are to legislation. This is also a conservative hallmark --- it's called "self-regulation".
Put this all together and what do you have?
With the decline in the black popualtion and the dying off of the New Deal population, the Democratic base constituencies are declining. With the general increase in real wealth, more people now have more to protect and enjoy. With the increase in the numbers of people attending church and the increase of socially-conservative Hispanics, the conservative base is increasing in numbers. Social mores are on the upswing and pressing against the bastions of liberal thought silently, but relentlessly. If this doesn't make America a more conservative society than it was before Reagan, I don't know what does.
Where conservatism is failing, however, is in having to govern in a non-traditional (for conservatives) way (i.e. prescription drug benefits, increased education spending, increased social spending, etc). These are tactical retreats intended to make the conservative line more attractive to swing voters. This is what the author seems to have a problem with (i.e. Compassionate Conservatism). This is not what conservatism is, it's just the political enviornment it finds itself operating in these days.
However, we have to be aware that while republicans and conservatives are being elected in record numbers, we should not get big-headed about it and lord it over the rest of the population. A complete conservative victory in all areas of policy would be just as dangerous as a full-throttle liberal victory. If either side actually was allowed to impplement everything they stand for, there would be open revolt in the streets.
There will only be a conservative collapse when conservatives get it in their heads that they can just demand whatever they want and have it magically appear or be rubber-stamped by a conservative-majority government. We still live in a constitutional republic, you know.
I agree, and you said it much better than I could have.
You have some good points. I think the author made a mistake using the word conservative. He should have used Republican instead. The Republican Party can only be called conservative by comparison with the Democratic Party. Your strategic retreat is actually a rout with the Republican Party leaving its conservative base to fend for itself. Such tactics will not win you any support with the troops.
I think that, for the reasons you state, both current parties are going to be replaced.