The entire idea of an "actual" conservative is largely .....well, misconception of intellectual history.
In a way. A principled conservative would be a person who recognizes ancient sources of power (behavior, ideals, etc) of his civilization that ought to be maintained or restored because they could continue to serve as sources of power in contemporary times. In all likelihood, the degree to which such sources of power truly existed or can exist is overstated, but even if they existed to only a tiny extent, that can still make all the difference between whether society succeeds or fails.
For example, at the onset of the Roman Empire, Augustine used his new found authority as emperor to restore long lapsed religious rituals and festivals from the Republic Era because such policies had a demonstrable civilizing (strengthening) influence on a culture long exposed to the chaotic influences of excessive populism, partisan politics, and civil war, in the same way modern prison conversions have demonstrable deterring influence on future crimes. In both cases, a religious imperative is instituted that compels less overtly aggressive and socially dividing behaviors than existed previously, whether among American criminals or Roman citizens. Fact is, reviving these religious institutions tied directly into centuries of Pax Romana.
As a rule, social elites (like Augustine) tended to be most conservative partially because their vantage point offered them a commanding view of the advantages of pursuing such policies, both for themselves and for society as a whole. As a rule, the extent to which their exercise of conservatism was legitimate was the extent to which "themselves" aligned with "society as a whole" -- that is, they supported the maintenance or restoration of policies that ultimately provided the necessary benefits for society as a whole to flourish and grow, not just for their own standing or power (which ultimately must be incidental to the exercise of true conservatism by elites).
The only place where American social elites live up to that lofty ideal is inside their own heads, if they bother to think about it at all. As practiced, their standing and power doesn't depend on the success of the United States so much on their ability to exert multnational influence through globalism, which
as administered is not beneficial to the American people, or really, almost any human being who is not one of the 10% wealthiest Americans.
They are mistaken to believe the source of their lasting power ought to be invested in non-American sources, but multinationalism can be a misguiding influence.
