" This looks like you threw a bunch of terms at the ' literary wall' in hopes they'd stick and make sense. Some do, some don't."

Not really, seems like a pretty good description to the origins of conservatism, and then a further bridge into modern politics via this historical context. As I stated in the article, conservatives shifted their views to traditional liberalism. The label of conservative did not even exist for much of The Age Of Enlightenment....

" That's kind of an odd definition."

What? This is literally the only attribute that was used to label them as conservative.

"

So opposition to revolution under monarchs makes him a conservative yet the fact that he favored stripping powers from those very same monarchs and giving that power to the masses means... nothing?

Is it opposition to war that makes a conservative? Opposition to monarchs? Or simple opposition to changes in the social order of the era?

"

Yes, what constitutes Edmund Burke to be considered a conservative in this historical context is that he was for constitutional monarchy as opposed to stripping all powers from the monarchs.

What makes a conservative, even in the modern United States, is wanting to uphold traditionalist power structures. Thus, conservatives will not argue against the power of corporate entities and private profits while every monetary input is subsidized by tax dollars.

Saying something like " he wanted to strip most of the power from the monarch" still illustrates the difference between someone who wants someone with a lot of power -- but not too much -- and someone who wants everyone to have relatively equal power.

The third is the answer, opposition to social changes in an era. Settling for power structures that are already there because they are good enough to fit the needs of some people and not all people. Settling for less than freedom and liberty when freedom is the default. Freedom is, in fact, free. Freedom is the default state of all beings.

"

Not really. Again, you're throwing things at the wall but you are picking and choosing what to throw. And then you make claims that something has been proved when numerous arguments paint a very different picture.

The four "Great Thinkers" of the enlightenment were Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau.

Between them they had radically different ideas that opposed each other.

So if "Conservatism seeks to hold and perpetuate the ideas brought about in The Age Of Enlightenment" then conservatism covers pretty much the entire range of political thought and there is no room for anything but conservatism.

The Age of Enlightenment was significantly more than the thoughts of Burke and Smith.

"

Of course, but what are the values that we saw come out of the Age Of Enlightenment. Google " The Age Of Enlightenment." Every idea discussed is not important to this conversation, but rather the broader ideas and social effects. E.g. the first economic structure, liberalism, and neoclassicism are probably the two most prominent and propagated ideas from this era. Thus, these are the ideas perpetuated by conservatives; it really is not that hard to understand, and seems a lot more straightforward than " throwing words at a wall," as if there is no consistent theme and topic being discussed.

"Yeah well, keep in mind that NONE of the people on that graphic actually took that Political Compass test. I could go take it using their names and produce whatever I want it to show. So the graphic is pretty much worthless."

This is a really asinine misconception of the purpose of the test versus the purpose of the plots that are already allocated for world leaders. The purpose of those plots are for reference, so one that takes the test can refer to political leaders with a common ideology. The plots are based on the actual policies that the politicians implement, so probably a pretty valuable graphic -- not too worthless if you ask me.

You have the right idea, but I don't know it kinda seems like you're dying on an empty hill here.