I'd say the "traditions" that conservatives defend are so many excuses for the exercise of our animal instincts, which generate dominance hierarchies. Conservatives defend so-called natural laws more than the traditional noble lies that rationalize them, such as that those laws make for divine right. Conservatism boils down to social Darwinism in practice, as I've argued on my blog.

Some people are more powerful than others. The most powerful people may not be the figureheads but those who have control behind the scenes, as in plutocrats, CEOs, or the deep state bureaucrats. The fact that they don't have absolute, divine power or omnipotence doesn't mean they only desire power and haven't obtained any.

They're corrupted, then, bu the extent of their power, which implies that God who is omnipotent would be all the more corrupted. In short, how do you reckon with the adage that absolute power is completely corrupting, while limited power is less certainly so?