North Western Winds has an interesting discussion

on The last Conservative value

One of the bloggers that he reads, or who reads him, has a cynical interpretation of what conservatives value: cruelty. Curt politely demurs:

That's torqued up a tad bit too high, IMHO. Note that I don't think it's entirely without merit. One can attempt to make an ideology of some elements of conservative thinking by fetishizing them: free markets, law and order, nationalism. To avoid this trap - one that is not unique to conservatives - one has to remember that we value those things because we think they can help people.

He goes on to cite a Foolish definition of conservativism:

G-Gnome's idea of conservatism is that should be:

a philosophy, not an ideology, that compliments Judaeo-Christian values and does not seek to supplant them; which holds that the life of the individual is sacred wherever it is found, whether it be in the womb , in the hospice or in the illegal immigrant; that holds it is possible to debate the negative aspects of immigration without resorting to race hatred masked as 'eugenics' or 'human biodiversity'; that holds that the possession of private capital is essential to the health of a society, and that the more people possess capital the better as opposed to its being hoarded by governments, ultra-wealthy individuals or legal entities like corporations; that holds that tradition and history should be taught correctly and not abused; that holds that the word 'trade' implies a two-way traffic, which must be of some benefit to both parties; that holds that the citizens of nations are entitled to make their own laws, which are always the best laws by which they could be governed; that holds that governments are only delegates of the people and not their rulers; and which holds that it is possible to recognize the dangers posed by beliefs already coursing the culture without the need to make war against shadow enemies.

This, in turn, reminds me of another definition of conservatism that I learned here:

Kirk, of course, quickly became the leading figure of the New Conservatism — a position which later received the appellation of “traditionalism” or “traditionalist conservatism.” While he himself was influenced by some of the currents of thought in the 1930s, and while The Conservative Mind purported to be a “recovery” of a pre-existing Burkean tradition in American political and social thought, it is difficult to deny that there was also a large element of invention in Kirk’s account of the conservative tradition. Kirk’s “canons” of conservatism begin with an orientation to “transcendent order” or “natural law,” a view that political problems are at bottom religious and moral problems rather than the other way around: whereas the libertarian conservatives of the 1930s usually understood themselves as heirs of various enlightenment dissenters from Europe’s Christian civilization, Kirk is a dissenter from dissent, striving to learn from the sidelined champions of orthodox religion. Kirk therefore rejects rationalism, utilitarianism, and egalitarianism. He ties freedom to property-holding, but there is no discussion of the “magic of the marketplace” or interest in economic efficiency. He is hostile to the experimentalism of the social scientific mind, and he defends the latent reasonableness of evolved social forms.

Perhaps Russel Kirk's "traditional conservatism" remains the closest idealogy that honors the Catholic Faith. Even then, I have reservations. As a general rule, political ideology is the product of humanity's reason, not God's revelation. If we're to follow any creed, let it be the Apostle's creed. Let doctrine be the Fool's "ideology". Surely Catholic Social Teaching will honor only those prudential applications that at root enact the principles of Christ. That people may disagree on the implementation of CST in no way gurantees that it belongs to one ideology or the other. Unfortunately, the practice in America for the longest time is to absolutize politics and economics. Unfortunately, many American Catholics have fallen under this erroneous worldview. Whether they argue such pretexts within the Catholic Church ("Cafeteria" v. "orthodox") or beyond it ("liberal" v. "conservative") matters little in the end. If either side continues to place a particular polity on the throne that ought to belong to Christ alone, it won't be long before some they dissent from a Catholic Teaching that challenges their politics. Sadly, Christ's body continues to be broken anew today, often by those that pledge to be a part of him.

I've made this mistake myself. Sometimes I hear myself say something as though I was somebody else, and I wonder, "where did this come from?" When I heard that the sergeant in Iraq had been accused of murder in the death of Captain Esposito and his executive officer, I said to my Father, "If they find him guilty, he should get the death penalty. If he murders his own officers, he'll kill prisoners." This was pure justification for my desire to see this man pay! I wanted vengeance on behalf of the Espositos, not justice according to God and the law. I'm not saying that anyone that calls for the death penalty in this case, or any other, acts out of a desire for revenge. I'm not God. I don't see into hearts very well. I'm speaking only for me. I ran conservative on this issue and placed my politics over the informed judgement of my conscience nourished in truth.

I am certain all of us have done something similar at some point. Hopefully, we'll level with ourselves and repent of it. This way Christ's body may heal. Through us, then, others may come to know him and heal.

Curt presents some intriguing ideas on conservatism and liberalism. Hopefully, neither of these competing ideologies will supplant a Fool's loyalty in the long run.