…A commitment to the defense of the particular habits, mores and
institutions of the United States against those socioeconomic trends
that threaten to undermine them, and those political movements
(generally on the left, but sometimes on the right) that seek to change
them radically in the pursuit of particular ideological goals.
Here is the post, which is interesting throughout. I should not speak for Ross but having read his blog for a while I believe he would prefer a modified definition to allow some of those habits and mores to be judged. Ross circa 1958 for instance need not defend segregation. But it is hard to invoke a standard of judgment without moving away from conservatism in the philosophical sense and becoming a rationalist.
Insofar as I am conservative (debatable) I would rewrite the definition:
A realization that we will do best by building on the strengths of the particular habits, mores and
institutions of the United States (and other successful nations) rather than trying to reshape the nation radically in the pursuit of particular ideological goals.
You can then pick a rationalist standard of judgment (e.g., utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Rawls, whatever) while keeping this vision intact. Conservatism is then an empirical claim about the resilience and power of national and cultural strengths. There is no "pro status quo" trap lurking in the background here and no reason why you can’t be both a conservative and a rationalist at the same time.