"These examples of Conservatism are all consistent in an important regard: failure."

Maybe, maybe not.

Can a conservative sees his role not as a wall but a headwind? The problem with radical change is that it must be done violently or via institutions that permit it. But institutions that permit radical change permit radical counter-revolution. Thus, conservatism may mean creating a cumbersome mechanism for change and fostering respect for that cumbersomeness. (Thus, a conservative may be for a law that a filibuster blocks and also support the filibuster as an institution, in at least some form.) Thus, by limiting change to that which can clear conservative hurdles, the conservative may claim "success" in assuring that change is adequately vetted.

I like to think of the issue in terms of physics. Change can occur at several levels. Change of location, change of velocity, change of acceleration, and so on. It's difficult to attach a binary designation of "conservative" or not to someone who seeks to conserve the rate of change, or the rate of change in the rate of change (future shock), But anyone who thinks about public policy may decide to attack or defend one of these derivatives. More important in this context, in failing to defend one level, one may succeed in defending its first derivative, so "failure" may not really be the best word to describe the outcome.

None of this is a defense of the current Republican party, which does seem interested only in preserving the advantages of the advantaged, by any means necessary. But to attribute their character-free awfulness to "conservatism" seems to me a bridge too far.