I don't mean any of this in a mean way, but...

Gore Vidal was one of the truest conservatives I ever came across.  Certainly, he considered himself one.  It all depends on what you consider conservative. In many ways I too am conservative.

Besides his politician grandfather, Vidal had other connections with the Democratic Party: his mother, Nina, married Hugh D. Auchincloss, Jr., who later was stepfather of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. Gore Vidal is a fifth cousin of Jimmy Carter.^{[citation needed]} Vidal also may have been a distant cousin of Al Gore.^[46][47]

In 1960, Gore Vidal was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress, losing an election in New York's 29th congressional district, a traditionally Republican district on the Hudson River, encompassing all of Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Schoharie, and Ulster Counties to J. Ernest Wharton, by a margin of 57% to 43%.^[48] Campaigning with a slogan of "You'll get more with Gore", he received the most votes any Democrat in 50 years received in that district. Among his supporters were Eleanor Roosevelt, Paul Newman, and Joanne Woodward; the latter two, longtime friends of Vidal's, campaigned for him and spoke on his behalf.^[49]

On the December 15, 1971 taping of The Dick Cavett Show, with Janet Flanner, Norman Mailer allegedly head-butted Vidal during an altercation prior to their appearance on the show.^[50] Asked by a journalist what comment he had about Mailer's head-butting him backstage, Gore dead-panned, "Once again, words failed Norman Mailer." ^[51] During the taping of the show, there was a legendary on-camera feud between Vidal and Mailer^[52] over what Vidal had written about the latter, prompting Mailer to say: "I've had to smell your works from time to time."^[53] Mailer was apparently irate at Vidal's concealed reference to an incident where Mailer had stabbed his wife.

From 1970 to 1972, Vidal was one of the chairmen of the People's Party.^[54] In 1971, he wrote an article in Esquire advocating consumer advocate Ralph Nader for president in the 1972 election.^[55]

In 1982, he campaigned against incumbent Governor Jerry Brown for the Democratic primary election to the United States Senate from California. Jerry Brown joined the race after Mr. Vidal in order to gracefully exit the governorship, in spite of knowing that Vidal was the more beloved across the United States, a situation which likely still provides rancor. Mr. Vidal prophetically announced that their Republican opponent would take the race.^[14] This was documented in the film Gore Vidal: The Man Who Said No directed by Gary Conklin.

Vidal's favorite U.S. politician during his lifetime was populist Louisiana Governor Huey Long.^[56] Frequently identified with Democratic causes and personalities,^[57][58] Vidal wrote in the 1970s:

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.^[59]Despite this, Vidal said "I think of myself as a conservative."[60]

[ source: Gore Vidal's political views & activities ]

Not that my guru Jack Francis Xavier Xavier Xavier S.J. can be perfectly equated politically with Mr. Vidal, but now I understand what he meant by labeling himself a conservative at times.

However, too often this is the real nature of all too many on the Right: A fascist is nothing more than a conservative in a hurry. And we oppose & fight fascists because they are fascists!

This does not apply to those who liked Goldwater, Nixon or even Ronald Reagan. Or even to those persons themselves. The Bushes were just shameless opportunists.

Rehnquist & Roberts are conservatives I like. They are smart legal scholars. Scalia is another matter. Whether he's a proto or crypto only he knows in his heart of hearts. It can't be denied he is a legal scholar. But from where I sit his constitutional POV is virtually wholly incorrect. It’s too much of a "dead Constitution" theory. Nor do I think the Founders thought it a good idea for persons 200+ years down the line to interpret the US Constitution the way they themselves did.

By all means look to legislative intent of laws & keep close to stare decisis if you must but where not practicable go forward, not backward.

Going against segregation in public places, for example, was not a conservative idea! Where would some persons be today if Brown v. Board had gone the other way?

I think a correct analysis would be case by case, issue by issue. There was & maybe still is a Conservative Party in New York State.

But if being a conservative or not is just all about money then I pity those who are slaves to that elusive substitute for feces!

Even conservatives have the right to think. It might be best to think in terms of conservatisms (plural). Different schools.  There’s paleo, there’s post-modern, there’s obviously punk conservatism. Ted Nugent can be equated with A-hole (A for aging rocker…?) conservatism.

Interesting the “response” of  some brand of conservatives when called on their draconian positions. None whatsoever. Never explain. In fact, I believe they stand proud of their mountain of ignorance & utterly mindless defiance.

That’s pretty funny.

“Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend.”

See ya on the flip side...suckers...! "Hiho electric bew...Away...!"

====