[cornelis]

If so, when did it transition to the latter (and why)?

The tendency to shipwreck excellence for expedience is perennial. Historically, this can be seen during the last days of Socrates. And whenever since political theorizing has tried to shore self against the disturbance of a happy procedure, excellence must take the cut. For excellence as a political goal can disrupt, with severe consequences. So in that way, the political achievements that arise in following the starting points of Locke and Hobbes would mark another historical period where excellence is sacrificed for expedience. In this way, law, any law, inculind the constitution, is an expression of the political status quo, and functions as a limiting feature and inevitably sets the bounds of human flourishing.

[William McKinley]

So you would equate expedience and pragmatism (and separate them from excellence)? The reason I ask is that Kirk makes a distinction between the two; he cites backing from Burke and Adams and Calhoun (among others) for the conservative merits of expedience, but I am still left not quite understanding the distinction between expedience and pragmatism that Kirk (and, by proxy, the others) made.