In that sense, it IS a system of principles rather than ideas, and its adherents measure developments not against Conservatism's principles, but USING Conservatism's principles. The developments themselves are judged in their historical context, that judgment itself being a Conservative process.
I guess I feared Kirk was equating "ideological" with "doctrinaire." Neither is pejorative in its own right, but each is ripe for abuse.
As the only answer to social and governmental questions was seen by them as a metaphysical, rationalistic, ideological magic answer, poof, all those terms began to take on benign, rather than revolutionary, meanings.
Certainly, adherence to Kirk's exact terminology would be a Stalinist party line which he would be the first to abhore. He has taken the broad look at all such views, accepting Jacksonians like James Fenimore Cooper as long as he could find the common First Principles.
Likewise, you and I are on common ground.