We can look at "conservative" different ways. The most literal way is temperament, a general reluctance or skepticism of change, in favor of what they know to work. Another way is worldview, beliefs about how the world works and a set of values they apply to situations. And yet another way is identity.
As I said, I think INGO is probably a fair representative of "conservative" in that you meet most of the diverse opinions within a conservative worldview. Obviously not the epitome, because I don't believe there really such a thing. Such a concept is theoretical. Any belief that it exists in concrete form is not much more than an instantiation of no true Scotsman, and the tests of purity that follow.
Is Bug a conservative? Yes. I think in terms of temperament, worldview, and identity, he is. Does he, individually, epitomize everything that a conservative should be? No. Was Buckley a conservative? yes. In all those ways, yes. An epitome? No.
So it's the representative diversity of views within the umbrella of what is conservative that makes up all the views necessary to understand conservatives. So I think that if a non-conservative wanted to understand conservatives, that person would be missing out if he or she or zhe, or it, didn't have the perspectives of INGO. It's impractical to chase the epitome of "conservative" to really understand conservatives. It's not all William F. Buckley. It's not all Mitch McConnell. It's not all Bug. It's not all GFGT. It's not all jamil. It's not all printcraft (though most of INGO wants more printcraft). It's not all HoughMade. KG1, chipbennet, BigRed, IndyIN, et al.
You take a given topic and the "sides" that argue switch players. Sometimes I'm arguing Bug's side of things. Sometimes not. Sometimes I'm arguing GFGT's side, sometimes not. Depends on the issue.
