Yep. Hence the changes in my own positions as circumstances revealed themselves.
Though I'd argue that the slowness of Democracy (no change can be made until so many people sign off on it as right and good) is one of the weaknesses of democracy. Indeed, the the whole checks-and-balances system is based on the notion that the status quo will be preserved when tyrants get into power.
That was also a purported advantage of fascism when in the early twentieth century nations were openly considering fascism and soviet communism (lower case intentional) as the next step up from democracy.
Fascism has the advantage that projects get implemented fast. But it's highly susceptible to tyranny, including the common human biases that democracy is supposed to discourage (e.g. scapegoating).
As Churchill commented, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. (House of Commmons 1947-11-11, though it sounds like he was borrowing the phrase from elsewhere.)
While I can agree with you that the preservation of separate casts and established privilege is the outcome of conservatism, the philosophy I was raised under is that new law, especially law written without thoughtful consideration (which is the unfortunate common norm) is dangerous and will tend to make things worse.
Now I'm the first person to note that the status quo sucks, and for those who suffer under it (and in several other circumstances) it's really hard to go wrong with any change.
I'm also the first to challenge austerity. State debt is the only kind of debt that continues to be handed down from generation to generation, where children of children pay for the exploits of their ancestors. Furthermore, austerity doesn't really tend to reduce the debt since those that favor austerity still have programs (e.g. the military) that they still want to budget. It just makes everyone more miserable, except those who push austerity budgets, because they make themselves exempt.
Still, we have seen specific ways that good intentions turn into bad laws and worse agencies. For instance:
~ Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy by which law enforcement precincts across the land and the FBI and intelligence agencies have deteriorated from agencies to serve the public to agencies to secure their next budget and otherwise assure their continuance. Based on this, agencies and programs that no longer serve the public are difficult to retire, new or old, which indicates risk when considering creating a new one or expanding an old one.
~ Efforts to create natural law by tort. Old ones are rare and laughable, but currently efforts to mandate a secure backdoor to encryption for law enforcement purposes crosses into this territory. I suppose you can round pi to ~3 or G to ~10m/s^2 for elementary education purposes, but applied to actual engineering, that can cause problems. As our science and technology advances, the laity and our representatives will get further and further removed from understanding the science enough to determine what can or cannot be done. (They're already not very good at what should or should not be done.)
~ Policies enacted from the perspective of privilege, usually under the pretense that the position of privilege is the common norm, or that people commonly agree with those pretenses (e.g. most Faith-Based government programs that favor religious non-profits so long as they're Christian). It's notable that policies that identify minorities based on minority attributes (rather than circumstances) are used as precedent for later policies to focus privilege.
~ Policies that are emotionally driven, made in haste during panic following a disaster or war, or in are enacted in the state of national emergency. This is how we end up with our extrajudicial detention and interrogation program in which common civilians can be imprisoned and tortured without due process, just because. And now, an astounding number of people think this status is right or okay.
I'm no longer a conservative because I'm aware that the system is too broken and too many people suffer for it. I also was raised with some of the rhetoric that is still used today to justify privilege and have come to challenge not only notions such as laziness, but even merit by which to base benefits, or the right or need of a state to determine benefits by assessing a given recipient's moral character.
Still when I was raised conservative, any underlying interest in preserving privilege was not evident. Indeed, the notion of passing new laws to preserve or increase privilege was regarded as reprehensible. Instead, the arguments of conservatism focused on the caution of making change.
Instead, there was a lack of acknowledgement that there was privilege* at all. I wasn't even aware that what we had was a thing that others couldn't access. (Other than starving kids in China.) Ultimately, the conservatism under which I was raised was a belief that the system needed to be tweaked and tuned, rather than overhauled.
Of course, this is not to say there aren't conservatives that acknowledge the privilege they have, and seek to preserve it, get more of it and deny it to others. The conservative push from the eighties very clearly was aiming to consolidate power and benefits to white males in powerful Protestant churches such as the SBC. When corporations do it, it's called protectionism. It may even be that most conservatives are that way. But some of the conservative spectrum doesn't.
* I would still opine that white male privilege as I understand it is a misnomer, it's a compilation of behaviors and observances commonly afforded white males that should be afforded equally to everyone. So rather that a benefit white males shouldn't have, white male privilege is better described as a deprivation inflicted on everyone else. Not that this semantic difference solves the problem at all.
Feminism is a very large movement, and in that, like other very large movements such as conservatism, a great diversity of opinions, positions and agendas are held under the feminist umbrella. It would be folly to assess the whole feminist movement from even a handful of specific opinions, let alone one.
Secondly, changing pronouns in the letter of the law would not be enough to create degree of social change that would embody gender abolition. Even with racial equality established in Constitutional amendments, the US struggles with systemic racial intolerance, as, for instance, the whole Ferguson affair has shown.
You may be looking to discredit or dismiss feminism, but that doesn't change that sexual inequality is significant, and that many of the gripes expressed by feminists have legitimacy.
You may disagree with a specific feminist or a specific position (I often do.), but dismissing feminism altogether is a bit overgeneralizing.
I didn't say Hillary would be a good president or should be one. Granted, she's a better choice than anyone on the GOP side, but not by much. At least she's not going to close the abortion clinics, though she might give federal funding carte blanche to the intolerance-preaching churches.
I was saying that for those who are voting for Hillary based on her XX chromosome that it's not going to serve them in the long run. Not only is this not a time that presidents will have even the opportunity to serve the people of the US, but Hillary wouldn't even try. She's as much of a Skull-and-Bones insider as her husband.
If you want to suggest someone that might restore even a modicum of integrity to the United States, feel free. I doubt such a person could get elected, though.
If you want to suggested a means to change the paradigm, feel free to do that too. But so far there are no solutions that will instigate significant change in our lifetimes.
I'd really like to believe in Bernie, but I am entirely skeptical. I think we will see the same contrast between Sanders-the-candidate and Sanders-the-President as we saw with Obama.
Ladar Levision closed Lavabit after receiving a self-gagged NSL demanding nothing short of betrayal of all Lavabit's clients. Now Levisiob is an encryption activist in Europe.
The US economy is going to go gray as essential services and products become criminalized, and we end up moving utilities like encryption and private communications under the sink.
I wonder if there will be additional work for us techs from common smartphone users who've seen enough to develop a healthy paranoia of the establishment, but don't have the time / patience / knowhow to kit their own devices with protection from incrimination.
I suspect that it is impossible for anyone to be a good president in this clime. Whoever gets into office is is probably going to, at best, only slow our descent toward authoritarianism. They may not have a choice (or risk political suicide and contrived public disgrace) but to sustain torture and drone strike programs, extend the mass surveilance program, condone police brutality and judicial overreach, fuel the military, prison and intelligence industries and so on.
Considering the track record of political prejudice in United States, the next black candidate will have to suffer from comparisons to Obama, with overtones that the new guy will make similar mistakes and suffer from similar problems. It's not (very) true, of course, but it's an easy-to-swallow argument for common voters.
Hillary will set a similar stage for the next woman President. She doesn't even try to present herself as an outlier but really is a status-quo politician who may push for small progress towards civil liberties and social equality, but will not even acknowledge the authoritarianist agenda let alone dissent against it.
So those who want for women to be not only accepted but actually commonplace in the presidency will want a better forerunner than Hillary.
Granted, If such a thing is possible without taking a Dallas bullet.
Mr. Rumsfeld declared that waterboarding doesn't count as torture by redefining the terms of what is or isn't torture, which is how the Bush administration (and the Obama administration to follow) was / is able to waterboard detainees while claiming they don't torture them.
It appears people play these semantics games when they would really rather not discuss the meat of the matter: What they're doing transgresses unjustly on the rights of others, and is a despicable practice, no matter how they justify it to themselves.