Conservatism of Disconnection

I think there’s something that Pete Peterson is missing in his post about the “conservatism of connection” at RealClearPolicy:

What began with some contentious conversations about the president evolved into deeper discussion about these historic levels of alienation, and how an “invitational conservatism” focused on defending civic institutions — including a healthy patriotism — is the necessary response to this era of disconnection. Out of three days of deliberations, we composed a principles document titled, “A Way Forward,” defining a term we’ve come to call a “conservatism of connection.”

“Authentic conservatism is essentially about three connections.” The essay lists:

1. Connection to the Past: We retain from our heritage what is valuable and worth cherishing
2. Connection to Our Future: We innovate as conditions change to adapt inherited ways to new conditions
3. Connection to One Another: Through America’s famed mediating institutions, we connect to one another in achieving the common good.

This is the conservatism of Burke’s “little platoons,” Tocqueville’s “individualism rightly understood,” and also of Robert Nisbet’s “quest for community,” Russell Kirk’s commitment to “voluntary communities”, and, more recently, Rod Dreher’s “crunchy cons.” This conservatism of connection confronts radical individualism and exclusive forms of community on all fronts — from Ayn Rand’s “Galt’s Gulch” nirvana on the right to the left’s identity politics.

which is that not all people called “conservative” are conservative in any discernible way. Burkean conservatives, paleocons (William F. Buckley-style conservatives, mostly over 70), and social conservatives are. Anarcho-capitalist objectivists aren’t. Neoconservatives aren’t. And what to make of “Trump conservatives”?

Here’s the problem: those three latter groups have disproportionate influence.