What I mean is, do you essentially picture your vision of an ideal society, and then work backwards and ask what rules or principles would be necessary to make that the outcome? Or do you imagine your ideas of right and wrong, the role of government, the role of social norms, etc first, and then 'press play' on them in a sense, and see what society comes out and just accept the result as the byproduct of those principles?
Are right and wrong, the role of the State, the role of cultures, the responsibilities of the individual, and so on ideas you can imagine in their ideal form in abstract, independent from any specific implementation, or are they tools one uses to get the outcome they want, and if they do not achieve that outcome, you change or modify the tools so that you do get the outcome you want?
Agreed; the problem with "conservatives" is not that they try to live by their principles, it's that they've completely failed to conserve their own tradition of principles. Don't tell me you have values when you're fine with soddomy "as long as it's legal".
Frankly, they're more focussed on outcomes, anyway. Look at literally every single "Right wing" party in the world, right now. They throw every principle under the bus to try to appeal to more voters, win seats, gain influence, etc: outcomes. I just heard Rupert Lowe, of Restore Britain (their third attempt at a break off conservative party) say that Britain was a multicultural society and that he wouldn't support race-based deportations. That's the only reason he's popular at all and, even though he hasn't won a single seat yet, he's already prepared to throw his own base under the bus for the outcome of more personal success.
For fuck's sake... So he was a stooge too huh...