Continuing my self-revelation, as it were, I will discuss my personal feelings about "conservatism." That means different things to different people, and exactly what conservatives believe or espouse necessarily varies somewhat by time and place. Here's how Wikipedia defines it (which is quite consistent with dictionary definitions.)
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, hierarchy, and authority, as established in respective cultures, as well as property rights.
If you've been reading the Bible along with me you can see right away that this definitely applies to our friend Mo. However, although it will be a long time before we get to the Gospels, you may already feel that it doesn't very well describe Jesus, which does make it surprising to many people that so many Christians in the U.S. are strongly conservative. Among those many people are other Christians, including the kind I grew up among, although I stopped being a Christian at about age 14.
So let's unpack this a bit. There are various kinds of tradition. Annual celebrations are one kind. They are often important to people because they bring together family and community, and just because regular, anticipated events are naturally soothing in an otherwise unpredictable world. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
But traditions may have elements that are objectionable or harmful to some people. For example, racial segregation in the south was a tradition, not to mention slavery before that. It was at one time a tradition that only men could be physicians, or business executives, or voters or elected officials. So I evaluate traditions on their merits, I don't defend them merely because they exist.
Same goes for hierarchy and authority. Some forms of hierarchy and authority are necessary in order for people to carry out complicated tasks. The school needs a principal and the school system needs a superintendent. It's just to inefficient and ineffective to put every decision to a referendum. However, as with tradition, I don't see any reason to defend existing hierarchy and authority just because that's the way it is. Who has authority, how we decide who has authority, how far authority should extend in a given case, and how it should be accountable, are all questions that again, I evaluate on the merits.
In the United States, hierarchy and authority are in substantial part inherited. The children of affluent, high status parents are very likely to end up as high status, affluent people themselves. Furthermore these privileges are highly unequally distributed because of historical oppression and discrimination. As another example, while the police must be granted some authority as a requirement of their job description, it is highly appropriate, indeed imperative to ask a) how far that authority should extend and b) how it should be held accountable.
Finally, let's consider the question of property. We take the nature of "property" in our society for granted, but it's actually a social construction of fairly recent vintage. The nature of property rights, and indeed of what can even be considered property, is historically dependent. The indigenous people of North America had no concept that land could be owned. There were territories that were mutually agreed to be the hunting, farming and fishing grounds of specific groups, but they weren't "owners" in the sense we understand. Of course, in many societies human beings could be property, but now we think that's an atrocity -- or at least most of us do.
Property rights are always restricted. Think about it. Just because you own a baseball bat doesn't mean you can hit me with it, you can't drive your car above the speed limit, and you can't use your house as a brothel. How you may dispose of your wealth upon your death is also a matter of law and convention in every society and the argument that it is your right to leave it all to your descendants conflicts with the moral principle that they didn't do anything to earn it, except maybe be sure to always kiss your ass. So as with tradition, hierarchy and authority I always evaluate property rights on their merits. And by the way a good proportion, if not the large majority, of great wealth is ill gotten in one way or another.
So the ideology that whatever tradition, hierarchy, authority and property rights happen to exist right now need to be defended "just because" makes no sense to me. And unfortunately, conservatives in the U.S. right now include a large number for whom tradition includes white supremacy, and who think their personal religious traditions should be imposed on everyone else. They also think that property rights should include the right to foul the air and water, rip off consumers, and exploit and imperil workers, among other purported rights to which I object.
How do I feel about conservative people, as people? As I said in a recent post, everybody is entitled to a modicum of respect, and there is a spectrum of conservative belief. Many people identify themselves as conservatives out of a kind of tribalism, but when you ask them about specific public policies it turns out they're in favor of nationalizing the oil companies and universal health care. Other people don't much like taxes but they're in favor of racial and gender equality, and call themselves conservatives. Those people aren't most of your Republican voters, however. And I find it impossible to respect anyone who would vote for our current psychopathic Resident. That's not negotiable so don't bother complaining about it.