That's a good thing and a bad thing.
It's a good thing because it permits a broad range of viewpoints and interests. Birchers and protectionists to neocons, pragmatic deficit hawks and those in the Christian coalition can call themselves conservatives on a macro level but they might disagree strongly on individual issues.
On the other hand, that's a bad thing because no one who considers themselves a conservative can realistically define conservativism for others. They will either be accused of being inordinately broad minded or incredibly narrow.
Unlike liberalism, conservatism is not an ersatz religion. Religions require adherence to an unchanging set of beliefs and doctrines. Conservatism can and oftern does mean different things to different people.
That may be helpful if one is trying to win elections or assemble a governing coalition, but equally exasperating if one is trying to maintain that static set of principles in order to articulate or define an ideology.
As long as we can recognize the difference between conservative politics and conservative ideology most of us can live in harmony. We can allow others to operate under their own ideas of what conservatism means. And that's not a bad thing.
Well, I’m sure you are correct, but FR has a stated purpose. I’m trying to attract the kind of conservatives that agree to our core conservative values and or to conservatism in general whether they believe in all of our values or not if at least they don’t attack us for our beliefs and or run counter offenses against us. Running an abortionist, gun grabbing gay activist as president from the GOP is totally offensive and unacceptable. Campaigning for him on FR would be like allowing liberal trolls to come in and campaign for the abortionist, gun grabbing gay activist Hillary Clinton, only worse. Because Giuliani is like the enemy within.
I like that. thanks.