You are talking about social conservatism, which follows fashions and a bunch of whishy-washy stuff like that. It really has nothing to do with political ideals.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

This is true. I forgot to parse it. But I still believe I am correct.
For instance; can't we say that, although it's no longer the case, Conservatives used to believe in smaller federal government, miserly spending, balanced budgets, and State's sovereignty and responsibility? Politcal ideals seem no more absolute.

__________________
"You'll Always Have The America You Deserve." Son Of Man

Political ideals are absolute. Political parties are not. Political parties exist to get elected, which means they do anything they can, including abandoning their principles. The principles, however, remain the same. Political parties don't even have to have principles (i.e. the populist party's silverite platform)

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

This is understand, but so I'm clear, are you saying that the current administration is in fact not a Conservative one, as they claim? Or are you saying that my understanding of Conservatism as a philosophy is flawed?

__________________
"You'll Always Have The America You Deserve." Son Of Man

I am fully serious when I say that Bush's "passionate conservatism", his belief in the fact that "government's gotta move when someone hurts", his faux economic policies, and his outrageous increase in government spending, is decidedly not conservative, if you take the meaning to be a belief in the principles of natural rights and the enlightenment. It will probably cost the conservatives the election in '08 as well. There really was no truly conservative candidate for the Republican nomination (though Ron Paul came closer than most).

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

On that we agree.
Now as for your signature, which suggests that the reasoning behind the Liberal philosophy is, at best, ambiguous; let me say this.
Liberalism is, by my estimation, as close as humans have yet come to the spirit and goal of the Torah. In other words, the understanding that we are all brothers (and yes, sisters), and are responsible to each alleviate the pain and suffering of the other as we are able. To not hoard, but rather to share, especially when there is need. And to esteem each as significant and important as ourselves. On these beliefs hang the Liberal philosophy.
Is it sometimes flawed in it's execution? Yes, as we are flawed in our humanness. But room must be allowed for adjustments, without a total abandonment of the principle.
There is no ambiguity.

__________________
"You'll Always Have The America You Deserve." Son Of Man

Yay genocide!

I agree, again. Religious principles such as "do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" are very liberal and fit with the socialist principles of liberalism. The ideological difference between those liberal principles and conservative principles is in the second part of your post when you say that we are sometimes flawed. Conservatives think that we need to calculate for those flaws rather than the goodness in human nature. It's because we have a view of human nature that isn't as good. The reason why signature is like that is because, if you try to show some people where the logic of that kind of human nature goes, they sound increasingly conservative, or they get closer to their principles and farther away from what I see as the truth of human nature. (The most basic evidence is "why did the Soviet Union, socialist communes, and Utopian societies all fail?")

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

Societies fail for varying reasons, but your point is taken. There need to be checks and balances in the execution of Liberal (not Socialist, which is an economic system) governance, or all will be lost. In a capitalist society, those checks and balances become all the more important, as we have seen through our history. There are those among the "haves" who would show no hesitance to crush the "have nots" to obtain more. Moreover, there are those who simply fall through the cracks in our system, and need assistance to climb out. Then there is the affore mentioned criminal element who prey on us all.
The Conservative philosophy, which appears to be, "Evey man for himself, and God for us all." Strict adhereance to it would, by my estimation, lend to chaos. The type we see in developing nations where the groveling and struggling of the masses in the streets is not a concern to those who live in well-manicured, gated communities. This would be unacceptable, and un-American.
Social scientists generally agree that human nature is neither good nor bad. The overwhelming majority of us fall someplace in the middle, and that's irrespective of race or class.

__________________
"You'll Always Have The America You Deserve." Son Of Man

I wouldn't say that the conservative philosophy is every man for himself, and God for us all, that would be more of the anarchist thought. I'm not saying that conservatives in America are as far right as you can get. I agree, anarchy is chaos. I would define the conservative thought in America as "life, liberty, and property for all, protected by the government." I have seen many places in third world countries where the masses are separated from the elites in gated communities, and it does seem cruel, but the people in those gated communities are contributing to the economies of those countries and giving jobs to the masses. This was quite evident when I went to Tanzania last summer, and it does actually work, and the people aren't that bad off (they are actually happier than Americans, who are some of the richest people in the world). Basically, conservatives want to protect people's natural rights, and liberals want to make slight allowances for the good of the people who are less well off. There isn't anything inherently wrong with this except for the fact that the government can get carried away, and become tyrannical.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises