American conservatism used to describe a set of “right” procedures as much as preferred social outcomes. Prudence, caution, skepticism, dispassion, honesty, humility and integrity were among those characteristics that informed the definition of conservatism. If the possession of the above character traits made someone a conservative, action in accordance with those traits could be described as conservatism.

Politics exorcized the methodology of conservatism out of the definition of conservatism and in doing so, destroyed its ability to generate positive outcomes. Usually, the quality of a result is determined by the quality of the process used to engender the result. American conservatives used to believe in moral behavior in the classical liberal sense–and in its essentialness to positive consequences. Now, thoroughly corrupted, all they seem to care about is tribal identification with the concomitant assumption of good intentions. They’ve dropped all pretense of being concerned with methods or outcomes.

Modern conservatives somehow convinced themselves that the good social results of personal, private moral behavior could be replicated en mass by vast amounts of reckless, irresponsible, inappropriate, immoral initiatives by the state. They gave into the temptation of power and statism, and now we’re reaping the consequences of their, and the country’s abandonment of actual conservatism over the past 50 years.

Conservatismâ„¢ is dead. Long live conservatism.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

It seems to me that your conservatism never conflated “is” with “ought” the way that movement conservatism has, particularly regarding the market. (”If credit is made available, it is by definition a good thing! Because the market is perfect!”) The mentality you describe applies to mainstream writers who have never been described as “conservative,” too, though, such as Thomas Friedman.

We do not recognize that means are always limited and resources are finite.

I’ve always said– if the US were omnipotent and omniscient, I’d be a neoconservative.

(Ah, but could we then be benevolent? That’s a pretty old quandary, though, which probably won’t be resolved on this comment thread).

Anyway, what a great, concise post.