Much to respond to.
While not really a pure conservative myself, there are a number of obvious threats to a stable social order. Individualism and materialism are prime examples of this.
How come the most unstable social upheavals in modern history weren't caused by individualism or materialism? They were caused by political zealotry, particularly for some ideology or religious/nationalist cause. The U.S. has been one of the most individualist and materialist places, and it has been quite stable overall.
Even the most extreme liberals vis-a-vis religion, such as the ACLU, only target religion where they think it violates the first amendment's establishment clause. There is no attack on private churches' coequal right to do what they do. Many liberals are actually religious. I don't see patriotism coming under attack from anyone. I was at a Howard Dean rally in 2003 and the first thing we did was sing the national anthem. He never attacked America, only Bush's policies.
The state's share of the U.S. economy has been the same for the past fifty years, with variance of a few percent in either direction. It has really only increased in times of war.
A belated reply. First off, you're missing the point here. Upheavals of the sort you mention are NOT conservative, almost by definition. People like Hitler were a very long way from conservativeness. Secondly, one could easily argue that the reason such movements had to resort to violence was because the threats facing them were so grave. Thirdly, stable social order does not have to refer to being peaceful but more about how society works. The US for instance is not at all stable - people keep moving around all the time! Social hierarchies change around quite a lot as well.
On the second point: where did I mention Dean or ACLU? It is an obvious fact that many people are atheists and not particularly patriotic. Conservatives react to this. And didn't you ever stop to think about why Democrats do not call for a more openly anti-religious agenda? May it not have someting to do with conservatives' diligent work to protect the status of religion? In Sweden, where no party protects religion, it is made a mockery of to a much larger degree.
The third point bring up the same thing. You don't think the Reagan revolution had anything to do with the fact you cite? Nothing at all? There IS an obvious mechanism bringing power to the state. Actual out-comes depend on a lot of other factors too, I was not trying to claim that all states have always grown throughout the history of man-kind, I know better and I thought you knew that about me too?
