conservatism preserved

It's an understatement to say that there exists an enormous amount of controversy in this year's election over the ideal of conservatism. Should it be preserved intact? Should it change to fit new circumstances? What's special about it to begin with?

The general consensus among those of us who hold to the old school of conservative thought, however, is that conservatism will not be determined by party in this election, but by individual.
I think Russell Kirk put it best when he said:

If they are to lead this country, conservatives must appear to be, and in fact
must be, imaginative but reasonable people who do not claim that they will turn
the world upside down. Genuine conservatives know that man and society are not
perfectible; they are realistically aware that Utopia...means literally Nowhere.
It is one of the conservative's principal functions to remind mankind that
politics is the art of the possible."

That politics is the art of the possible must ever be the successful conservative candidate's message, that we do not operate in a vacuum, and that utopian ideals belong only in a utopia.

Everything from the war and illegal immigration to healthcare and tax cuts are encompassed in this category. If a candidate tries to put forward policies which do not meet the criterion of reality, then that candidate should not be a conservative's chocie.

We must first evaluate the choices set before us on the basis of our conservative ideas, and then determine the leader for the next generation of politics in Washington.