Dave seeks to redefine the term conservative to be a broader term than it has historically been, as I understand it. He is not the only one who has tried to do this in recent years, however, as his mention of both Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump indicates. But I think this is not a good thing. Dave says he is a Conservative because he wants to conserve the Constitution, so I suppose we could call him a "Constitutional Conservative" and distinguish him from what we might, then, call "Cultural Conservatives" (who still believe in God, for example, and stand against abortion and gay marriage). The problem with making a distinction such as that, however, is that it pretends that a person can truly stand for the Constitution while rejecting the worldview that actually gave us the Constitution in the first place, the worldview that provides the context in which the Constitution makes sense and is workable. In my view, an agnostic man who is for abortion and gay marriage is not a Conservative, even if he -- inconsistently -- wants to conserve some of what a Conservative worldview has given him. At best, he is a Semi-conservative, but I don't think I want to redefine the traditional understanding of the term conservative in order to count him as one of us. After all, once we allow such a redefinition, we have actually undermined Conservatism and irrevocably taken steps toward its destruction, as well as the destruction of the Constitution that men such as Dave say they want to conserve.