I would contend that your first reason for disliking conservatives is the most valid. This is because ‘conservative’ refers to a collection of ideas, not a philosophy. You are looking for an underlying principle to attack when none exists. Also, the ideas are not uniform across all people who identify as conservative so it is no wonder you find them inconsitent. All you have to dislike about it are numerous specific examples and that is why disliking people who are associated with conservatism is about as close to a definition of it as you are going to get.

Your linking conservatism to lack of reason was a radical interpretation of the text. How about instead we interpret it as ‘New ideas carry risks because the thought experiments they are built on carry implicit assumptions that may not be accurate (people’s private stock of reason are limited)’. How about we use current methodology until we are absolutley certain the new one works is what would follow and suddenly instead of a rejection of sound practice, we have good practice. Since this was your central point, I feel you need to examine and strengthen it, because the presented argument was unconvincing.

I find it amusing that, on the one hand, you frown on conservatives for not using new methods yet at the same time deride them for not adhering to ‘accepted’ methods of ‘sound argument’. I’m not saying that you are wrong in this, just that it is something to consider, lest you come off sounding like a ‘sound argument’ is one with which you agree.

Having said this, I think the real problem here is that conservatives have tapped into people’s desire for people who are like them to be in power, not those most suited to rule (for want of a better word).