Sure it is. It’s the most simple of all politics. The very definition of conservative means not doing every new feel good/hair brained thing coming down the pike.
Liberalism is complex. It shifts with the winds. You always have to check and see which color bracelet to wear and read up on which words are now verboten that were in wide use the day before...lest some be offended. Liberalism is mental gymnastics given form.
Conservatism is simple. When something has worked well forever...do that. That’s it in a nutshell. No need to fix what ain’t broke. When you compare that statement to any given conservative idea, you see it fits in perfectly.
Simply.
Not so simple. What you have there is a simplified statement of Burkes ideas. Thats something but certainly not everything.
Russell Kirk defined conservatism (grabbing from Wiki as I dont have his book handy at the moment) -
A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions;
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
And you can mix and match those, emphasize of de-emphasize as required.
In practice, as per Kirk and plenty of others, notably Buckley, conservatism is naturally heterogenous, being as it can come from many dissimilar and unique traditions; liberalism, etc. is by nature a matter of fashion which at any given time tends to conformity. As we see today.
We can cite conservatives as required and find huge differences between them.
Chesterton was quite a different fellow (even politically) from Churchill, who wasn’t all that much like Robert Taft.