There’s a difference between conservatism and conservative philosophy. I’m denying the integrity of the latter, not of the former. So yes, conservatives exist, as does their agenda. Whether that agenda is principled in being backed by a coherent philosophy is the question at issue.

Whether conservatives are in favour of governmental power depends on whether they use libertarian rhetoric to disguise the effects of their authoritarian personality. If someone has no such personality, and thus no ulterior medieval agenda, this person’s core beliefs will be liberal, not conservative, and so they’ll be modern and principled rather than just prejudiced or instinctive.

Before you criticize an argument, you need to understand what’s being said. There’s no strawman in the article since I’m not trying to refute conservatism here. I’m testing the hypothesis that conservatism is just medievalism, by showing that that hypothesis is consistent with a representative sample of Project 2025. If you want to argue that that test is invalid because it’s based on oversimplifications, you need to show that the Forbes summaries strawman the contents of Project 2025.

Your comment ends with ad hominem. In any case, my mind isn’t closed. I just have high standards when it comes to philosophizing.

By the way, yesterday I wrote an article on Yoram Hazony's nationalism, so thanks for bringing him to my attention.