I believe there are now four key independent political categories, and so I think it's time to rename the original sort of Conservatism of folks like Burke. He respected institutions and believed in incremental rather than extravagant progress. Let's call this sort of conservatism graduallist and/or incrementallist
Many sensible people are attuned to this sort of incremental progress. This idea opposes the notion of making great leaps into the dark, which is more in tune with the progressive idea of embracing change.
I am myself sympathetic to gradual methods of change, even if I think that new ideas often demand swifter reactions. So while I cannot call myself entirely a graduallist, in some matters I support features of that doctrine. It's why I think the US war of independence was more constructive than the French revolution. The founders were wise enough to value their inheritance. The French threw everything away.
The main other strand of "conservatism" isn't conservative at all. It is ideological and destructive of government. I will call such people reductionists. When a government is evidently bloated, then I can also be a reductionist. But I don't pretend it is bloated when it spends far less than one half of the economy's income.
So there are three of four categories. The other category is socialist. No explanation necessary. I can lean socialist when it comes to categories like healthcare and education. Some systems are more efficient when built from the top down, even if such structures are usually imperfect (eg they sometimes create a rationing culture).
Of course, the amount of government involvement in the operation of a society also has an impact on the quantity of the alternatives, such as market activity, church welfare and so on.
| 