Your contention is not well supported by the argument you’ve presented.
It is possible to want to conserve the economic liberty the Founders provided and thereby be a conservative. Nothing requires us to want to conserve all ( e.g.Slavery) of what the Founders gave us to be a conservative.
The question: “Why should I not do as I please within the law, so long as I harm no-one else?” would, at all earlier times, have drawn one or both of the answers: “Because it offends God” or “Because you will become a social outcast”.
The first of these has no force for our new elites, who do not believe in God; the second is not only without force for them, it is without meaning. To exclude a person from one’s drawing-room because their personal pleasures are aberrant would be “discrimination”.
John Derbyshire, Posted by Harrius Magnus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2029535/posts?page=1#29
The Soviets in Russia around 20 years ago could also have been called "conservative." The problem is that the word conservative has no well-defined meaning.
It would be more accurate if conservatives defined themselves in more concrete terms, such as saying that they support Christian society and morals or free enterprise economics or foreign policy interventionism, instead of the more vague terms like "social conservative," "fiscal conservative," and "foreign policy conservative."
You probably think so because you didn't well understand the argument I made.
It is possible to want to conserve the economic liberty the Founders provided and thereby be a conservative. Nothing requires us to want to conserve all ( e.g.Slavery) of what the Founders gave us to be a conservative.
Irrelevant. We didn't have slavery up until the late 1960s, which is what the numeric I provided calcs to. I realise that I didn't spend six paragraphs spelling out each and every last thing that I was implicitly referring to, but I rather thought the reader might use some common sense.