The New York Times has the David Brooks column The Conservative Mind.
… there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.
Who could argue with the definition of a political philosophy like that? If you want to label that a style of conservatism, then it is one to which I could subscribe.
Later on, he comments,
The two conservative tendencies lived in tension. But together they embodied a truth that was put into words by the child psychologist John Bowlby, that life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base.
That really describes something that I believe. I get frustrated with the really radical left that wants to throw everything out and start again from scratch. No system is perfect, but my hope is that a system can be improved to become nearer to perfection. If you have something that has worked pretty well for hundreds of years, you are taking a mighty big risk to throw the whole thing out and think you can replace it with something better. I don’t say for sure that it can’t be done, but at this point I don’t think it is worth the risk. At some point in the future things might get so bad that it does become worth the risk. Let us hope that the people currently driving it in the race to the bottom for the middle-class some how wake up and realize to what their drive will ultimately lead.
Thanks to RogerS for the link that lead to my initial reading of the article. And thanks to RichardH for urging me to get off my duff and post this.