Andrew Sullivan discusses the meaning of conservatism in this article. In short, he believes that the conservative temperament has been and should continue to be defined by super-pragmatism as well as a long term preference for expanding individual liberties and limiting the role of government. (Link found on MR).
I agree entirely with his definition of conservatism in the ideal, philosophical sense, but it is a very general designation. When I think of “liberals,” “conservatives,” “libertarians,” etc., I think of people who have specific sets of political convictions and whose approaches to public/governmental policy are shaped by those convictions. By Sullivan’s definition, pretty much anyone could be called a “conservative” in American politics. Think about it, how many members of Congress would disagree with this statement: “The government should act pragmatically and do what is right for the people, depending on what is necessitated by the current situation, while always trying to preserve personal liberties and limit its obtrusive rule in people’s lives.”? Very few, I would imagine.
Sullivan’s interpretation of conservatism is not inaccurate- I just don’t find it entirely useful. To win elections, conservatives must reunite around a set of values and policies. Figuring out what principles the two major ideological camps of the Republican party (socially conservative and more socially liberal/libertarian) agree on will be the biggest challenge for the next four years.