The problem is, people with seemingly unpopular views do not know which of their acquaintances share their views. So it’s hard to estimate the popularity of a given view, and the default option becomes silence. Inevitably, the popular view quickly seeps into the void, meeting no resistance as it becomes the de-facto standard of thought.

The end result is a polarized society driven by a stagnant discourse of self-indulgent moral platitudes.

Intellectual conservativism was destroyed from the right. Incoherent anger politics turned out to be far more effective at getting the voters.

Edit: meanwhile in Oregon the conservatives have fled to break a quorum rule and are issuing press releases with armed anti-government groups. As the Maoists discovered, who needs intellectuals when you have guns and slogans?

Intellectual conservatism - at least under certain definition - is tricky to defend. When there is a choice between "progress" - moving forward - and "stability" - avoiding changes - staying implies perceived perfection, which doesn't seem particularly intellectual. Progress doesn't just mean "change by all means", but conservation does mean "reject change", otherwise there would be no difference to talk about.

At least in the American bipolar system, there are many "moving forward" ideas that have traditionally been conservative positions.

Maximizing personal economic freedom and unrestricted international trade, for two.

So I would say there are certainly platform points that are more alternatives than forward vs backwards. Or were.

You can be conservative in some directions and progressive in others.

In some ways conservatism can mean "let's go, but not go too fast" but recently it's been more of an ideology of regression.