Sometimes [...] revolution is necessary in order achieve piecemeal change. Equally, project can utopian its advocates believe it can achieved incrementally. Debates about gradual improvement or total transformation are just distraction. The question is whether the goals of the project are possible at all [...].-Gray (2011)Just imagine British Labour Party supporter and Party supporter met each other by chance in weird, wild country like Russia. What would they do? They'd go the pub or for cup of tea together.-Solidarity movement activist cited in White (2013)In his essay On Being Conservative (1956), philosopher Michael Oakeshott describes conservative disposition, as centered on a propensity use and enjoy what is available and to delight in what is present rather than what was or what may be (407-408). The present, as Oakeshott portrays it, is esteemed on account of its familiarity, its here-and-now quality, and its ability provide sufficient (rather than superabundant or blissful) conditions for life. Yet Oakeshott acknowledges the value of the present-and, ultimately, of conservatism itself-depends on the concrete, historical circumstances in which any political actor finds himself or herself.1 He goes on add the conservative approach politics characteristically asserts itself when there is much enjoyed, and it will strongest this is combined with evident risk of loss (408). And he observes if the present is arid, offering little or nothing used or enjoyed, then [the conservative] inclination will weak or absent (408).These remarks, by one of conservatism's best-known thinkers, point an important aspect of conservative theory, namely both the normative worth and practicality of conservative outlook depend on how much there is enjoy and value in actual historical circumstances. If they live in times of great hardship, or under arbitrary political rule, political actors and thinkers with conservative sympathies (such as respect for tradition, and predilection for slow, gradual improvements) will face painful moral dilemmas, and perhaps even justified in renouncing conservative behaviors altogether. Such thinkers have been called conservatives or, sometimes, conservatives because of their recourse radical means defend values such as stability, tradition, and authority (see for example, Dahl 1999; Muller 1987). Oakeshott himself intimates that, in historically turbulent times, the task of conservatively-inclined thinkers is no longer delighting in the present, but actively participating in the establishment of better future. And he concludes, rather enigmatically, that it is not at all inconsistent conservative in respect of government and radical in respect of almost every other activity (1956, 435).This paper explores some of the issues thinkers temperamentally disposed conservatism face they live in time and place in which laws and constitutions are dispensed with, and there is little of value conserve. It proceeds by discussing, first, the necessary preconditions for recognizably conservative approach change, before going on explore what might happen if those preconditions do not exist. While the conservative mistrust of revolution and preference for piecemeal approaches is well-known, less attention has been paid the plight of (potentially) revolutionary conservatives, who are convinced such approaches are of little or no use in their current circumstances. Part two of this essay, therefore, uses empirical examples illustrate how practice complicates some of the theoretical propositions discussed in part one. While Edmund Burke's (1729-1797) reactions the French Revolution have played liminal role in developing conservative political philosophy, other parts of history where conservatism's problems have emerged and have recognizable connection with the situation today remain of great interest. …