OK, let's consider the argument here.
The first two grafs set the piece up as a rebuttal of the claim that Trump has "razed" conservatism "to its foundations." 
The third graf asserts the strength of "conservatism's founding principles." So are we supposed to be disappointed with Trump's failure to raze the rickety structure built upon them so that something better can take its place? The piece never says.
Instead we get a series of other metaphors: Conservatism isn't a "hodgepodge," it's a "mosaic." It doesn't have an "agenda encased in amber," but a "constellation" of "practices and institutions" and a "set of rules of thumb."
It does need "recharging," and there have been "waves" of reform atop a "mountain" of wisdom, by contrast with Trumpism, which has an "all but hollow" "core" and a "rudderless" leader (later also described as "unmoored"), and lacks a "coherent framework."
Then we get this, in the penultimate graf. But you don't break ground after razing a structure unless you've also torn up the foundation!
Rather than resolve that conundrum, the final graf introduces yet another metaphor, in which Republican leaders are urged to impose regulation on the Earth's rotational speed!
End of rant.
