On the contrary, it's conservatives that I feel have become more radicalized and intransigent.

I've pretty much been in synch with this guy's views as outlined here since I became politically aware in high school, back in 1960 (yes, before I went college). He's pretty much where I've always been, for half a century now. As far as his position on Iraq, that's not "conservative", that may be position held by many American conservatives nowadays, but that is not saying the same thing by any means, although some might want us to believe that for their own reasons.

I've always felt liberal/conservative referred to positions on economics, not geopolitics, (or religion or morality, for that matter) and although I agree there are often areas of consistent views in any party on issues of that sort, I feel these are in constant flux over time. I reject that there is an ideologically specific position on any issue depending on one's economics.

That is why I find this Canadian's views so appealing, and that they seem to articulate mine so well. To be critical of capitalism does not mean one necessarily rejects it. And to find appealing aspects to some socialist principles does not mean one must necessarily embrace them all. And when I am accused of that, and challenged to choose one at the expense of the other, I realize someone is really just reaching for my wallet.

I know that is not a view I share with modern conservatives, but that's not my problem, that's theirs.
It only becomes my problem when Conservatives use religious, moral, or other non-economic issues to discredit their opponents because they don't like their economic positions. You know how it works, he's wrong on Iraq so he can't be trusted on health care. There is no reason a liberal can't be pro defense and still be anti-Iraq. In fact, there's no reason a conservative couldn't agree with that same liberal on those issues, and some do. Some conservatives are atheists, and others are homosexuals, just as some liberals may disagree with them bitterly on both counts, and I presume some people from other countries, might even be pro- or anti-American regardless of their positions on the economic spectrum.

The cataloging, assigning and division of positions on issues IS, in my opinion, a modern conservative invention, conceived of by McCarthy, defined by Goldwater, perfected by Reagan, and perverted by the Neocons. Liberals disagree much more amongst themselves on a variety of issues than Conservatives do--not only do they tend to cover a wider range on the spectrum on any specific topic, they are also less consistent in their grouping of different topics into a single philosophy.

What conservatives are going to have to get straight is that what they believe is only their opinion, not a law of physics. Other people are not obliged to agree with them, not even other conservatives, and when they use litmus test positions on issues to dismiss or marginalize their opponents they are just going to piss people off, including other conservatives who are tired of being bullied.

This inability to disagree with someone without thinking them stupid, naive or evil may be one of the reasons why even their more reasonable and worthwhile suggestions are being increasingly ignored, and why their own ranks are showing signs of internal dissension.