By the time I reached this paragraph, the idea firmed in my mind: "this writer is a solid conservative."

Imagine my surprise when you then tell us your image of conservatives.

Ask thoughtful conservatives today and they will admit to being a "classical liberal." Liberal according to the old definition. For example, everyone has the same rights as everyone else. That means there are no such things as "minority rights," (because there is no such thing as "majority rights." Rights being something that applies to everyone. If a "right" applies only to certain individuals or groups, then it is not a right but a privilege.

So let's examine some of the characteristics you claim to be conservative.

* Liberals are communists. I admit that sometimes, a conservative will blur the line in the heat of the moment and use "liberal" when he actually meant "leftist." But few leftists admit to being leftists, labeling themselves as liberal. Add that to the fact that communists/leftists find a welcome home in the liberal camp, the distinction can become blurry from a distance.

* Progress is pointless and reckless. I guess this all depends of the type of "progress" being discussed. If your talking about the advancement of societies and technologies, there is no greater proponent and advocate than a conservative. But today's "progressive" movement has a different definition. It is concerned solely with cultural advancement, and by advancement, they mean the manipulation of most or all of the cultural norms that have grown through centuries of societal advancement.

Here is the (from memory) order of ranking of importance of the human social hierarchy.

1. The individual

2. The family

3. The local community (neighborhood, town)

4. The wider community (state/province, nation)

5. Other coherent groupings (by sex, race, occupation, avocation, ancestral origins, etc.)

6. Humanity itself.

Today's progressive movement seems to consider grouping 5 (limited, however to sex, race and ethnicity) the most important rank and defines "progress" as anything that supports that definition.

Yes, that is something conservatives would consider pointless and reckless.

Consider one point of contention--the minimum wage. The left/liberal argument is that everyone who labors must be guaranteed an income that allows them to support themselves, if not also a small family.

This sounds good, but isn't it indistinguishable from the "participation trophy" you disparaged in the first part of your article?

You seemed to recognize the fact that there are some people who lack the intellect and skill to become productive members of society.

Because we place the individual at the top, and because we recognize the importance of meaning and purpose in our lives, we would allow such people to participate as best they can, even if the remunerative value is very small. At least they are able to contribute something, and that can be very important to the psychological happiness and health of individuals.

Yet, with the minimum wage, you are telling them, "No. If your labor is less than the minimum amount we have declared, you are not allowed to contribute anything at all to society!" They are sentenced to a life of sitting in front of the television, wrapped in the "safety net" you have so generously provided them.

Whereas, without a minimum wage, these people could at least contribute something to society, even if they must rely somewhat on the safety net.

Very progressive of you. You strip a group of people of the ability to have at least some dignity in their lives, and you feel, oh, so good about it.

That is just a small sample of how conservatives think. You may disagree with what conservatives believe, but at least disagree with what we actually believe, not some cartoonish, strawman version.