[T]he situational definition views conservatism as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. The essence of conservatism is the passionate affirmation of the value of existing institutions. This does not mean that conservatism opposes all change. Indeed, in order to preserve the fundamental elements of society, it may be necessary to acquiesce in change on secondary issues. No person can espouse the conservative ideology, however, unless he is fundamentally happy with the established order and committed to its defense against any serious challenge. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.
(Samuel P. Huntington, "Conservatism as an Ideology," The American Political Science Review 51 [June 1957]: 454-73, at 455 [italics in original; footnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: Huntington distinguishes and discusses three theories of conservatism, which he calls "aristocratic," "autonomous," and "situational." I quoted the paragraph on situational conservatism because this is the sort of conservative I am. By the way, this essay by Huntington is one of the best things I have read on conservatism. If you'd like a copy, please send me an e-mail message.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 