> commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
I've never known conservatism to be anything except opposition to change as that's the most conservative thing you can generally do: nothing.
The more charitable one is called "progressive conservatism". Progressive conservatives believe, among other things, that "instant change is not always the best and can sometimes be damaging to society, therefore cautious change that fits in with the nation's social and political traditions is necessary." [1] Progressive conservatives were the driving force behind abolition in Britain as well as natural conservation and the national park system in the United States, for example, so it's hardly a philosophy that resists all change.
A few presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower have called themselves progressive conservatives but in reality, the philosophy underpins the entire US Constitution and system of government going back to the founding fathers. It's the checks and balances that keep our (ostensible) democracy functioning. It's the court systems that can delay or outright kill hasty legislation. The conservatives want to let the progressives leap into the future while they focus on conserving the good things about the present so that they don't become casualties to progress.
To be clear the GOP is neither conservative, nor progressive, nor progressive conservative. They're just the elephant in the room.
> It's the checks and balances that keep our (ostensible) democracy functioning.
I'm a fan of TR and Eisenhower to a lesser extent, so this isn't exactly a criticism. The US Constitution was definitely founded under the model you describe, but those things aren't necessarily indivisible from each other. The progressive conservatism you defined is a commitment to a hierarchical model of liberalism. Many of the achievements of both Roosevelts and Eisenhower were in the name of warding off Socialist and Communist movements in the early and mid 20th century. They were progressive in giving more rights and services to the common person (well, some of them, some of the time) and conservative in maintaining the ability of the wealthy to continue on with their necks and bank balances intact.
Although some of the critiques of conservative liberalism (as opposed to the historical, royalist conservatism) can be waved off as "the Republicans aren't actually conservative any more", there is a still a valid critique to be made if you believe that 250 years is more than enough time to embrace a more egalitarian model.
Whether this is actually what Conservatives believe (or rather, what percentage of them believe it) is debatable, but I could see this sentiment actually being widespread enough to be the main source of resistence to Progressive political movements.
After all, isn't the whole goal of Progressivism to create a society so good that one wants to Conserve it?
This sounds like a position that a conservative would take, because it paints them as eminently reasonable (and progressives, by comparison, must be unreasonable).
They are both right for their own reasons, but they both appear insane to the other at first glance.
In my experience, the main source of political conflict is direction, not speed.
These gradients feel more armchair philosophical than things that speak to the actual problems and patterns of the world as I, at least, know it. I can't imagine getting so hung up on some naturalistic sociological question of consensus, with the idea that would actually change our general trajectory. It all very much reeks to me of a history walking on its head.
Yeah, many people with very different ideas call themselves conservatives.
> I've never known conservatism to be anything except opposition to change as that's the most conservative thing you can generally do: nothing.
Have you never known conservatives wanting to lower taxes, deregulate the economy, and decentralize decision making?
I know its not conservative or liberal, it depends how you look at it. Deregulation of markets was seen as liberal at one time, devolution is pretty well supported except by some that support strong central government control, and lower taxes is often seen as American conservative, instead of offering services that they skim, or taxing you and giving you back more money (lol) they just won't take it in the first place. Milton Friedman's negative income tax is a beautiful way to help the poor without sudden cutoffs for when they try to become wealthier too.
I would say that these labels aren't as useful as top down control (big government, tell people what to do) or bottom up control (power to the people, let them do as they want to). Both can be useful for different reasons. The ozone hole and banning freon was top down but the tragedy of the common would mean it would never get fixed. The federal government also shouldn't raid dispensaries and prevent weed smoking.
I know that's the case for every conservative I know, at least. They stand for those values in the abstract, as an ostensibly philosophy to undergird their politics... But oppose those values in practice.
Republicans want to decentralize this to democratic decisions in each state.
> commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
Trump was not traditional, and Obama was very moderate, even stating he did not support gay marriage. Don't trust general labels!