Although there are many difficulties associated with the terms "conservative" and "conservatism", I'm going to use the terms anyway, leaving them undefined, for the sake of exploring the possibilities for collective action in this brief entry. We can (and most assuredly will) argue - or rather continue arguing - about definitions later.
Conservatism does not lend itself well to organization. It is primarily a defensive posture, rising up here and there only as necessary, when something vital is attacked or threatened. At the height of Christendom there could be no "liberalism" or "conservatism", only the jostling of temperaments and personalities. Politics in the Middle Ages was personal and dynastic, not ideological. Were it not for the relentless assaults of Liberalism upon what T.S. Eliot called "the permanent things", there would be no "conservatism" as a political philosophy in our time either. And that is how genuine conservatives like things. Our goal is to put ourselves out of business, to make conservatism unnecessary, to take the politics out of everyday living.
True conservatives of the modern age are a stubborn and contentious bunch, almost self-selected for their cantankerousness, or so it seems. There are a few, of course, who swim against the tide by the sheer force of their convictions, and who would much rather be at peace with the world. But many of our fellow-travelers are simply rebellious and contrarian by nature. They are on our side now because we are the opposition, but when things are set right again, many will find that their oppositional stance is less principled than it is habitual.
The point here is that conservatives don't organize or get along especially well. The worst among us are habitual contrarians who lack the talent (or desire) for consensus-building. The best among us are generally men so fiercely attached to their beliefs - let us say, Catholicism and Presbyterianism - that they are sometimes as hostile to each other as they are to Liberalism. The tendency of conservative groups to splinter and factionalize becomes more and more pronounced as one moves further to the Right. During the Cold War this was the Achilles' Heel of anti-communist groups all over the world - incessant factionalism and infighting, to the point of total ineffectiveness against an organized, united, and militant Left.
For Catholics, ultimately, the Church is our only social cause. We are working for the social reign of Christ the King over all men and nations. Any alliances we make with non-Catholics are merely transitory. But the institutional Church is today profoundly weakened, and it is seems likely that, until such a time as God restores the Church to her former glory, much can be accomplished by working with men of good will in other traditions. I trust that many conservative Protestants have similar feelings about working with Catholics.
The old coalition assembled by W.F. Buckley, Jr., and National Review served its purpose for a season but could not endure. Anti-communism was never enough. If there is to be a new conservative movement truly capable of advancing the cause of the West, it will need to be strongly (though of course not exclusively) creedal, perhaps along the lines of that which animates Touchstone magazine. Using Touchstone as a starting point, I would suggest something a little more open to some of the ideas on the Right now considered too "extreme" (e.g., special creation, monarchy, distributism, secession) but firmly closed against those ideas outside the perennial tradition (e.g., kinism, reconstructionism, charismaticism). Those whose sole animating beliefs are Libertarianism, Mormonism, Judaism, Americanism, Race Realism, Human Bio-Diversity, Capitalism, etc., will need to make their own coalitions.
What model of organization is best? The two models which come first to my mind are the non-creedal and Americanist John Birch Society, and the Catholic Tradition, Family, Property. Both are movements which have a strong social element - retreats, camps, conventions, local chapters, lectures, and other activities to engage the membership. Both also have a strong cultural emphasis which is totally lacking in the Tea Party movement. A few years back, when Paul Weyrich was still with us, the Free Congress Foundation proposed something similar, but with an emphasis on personally influencing America's elites through a network of conservative intellectuals working through local chapters across the country. That project seems to have fizzled, but I wish it hadn't.
I have good friends in both organizations, but find both the JBS and TFP models deficient in some serious ways. The JBS penchant for conspiracy theories is not to my taste, nor are its Americanist tendencies, nor is the domination of this group by Mormons. The TFP has long been dogged by rumors of cult-like behavior - from good orthodox Catholic sources - and while their famous displays of public militancy are valuable, they aren't everyone's cup of tea.
Nevertheless, I believe that we need a broad-based conservative movement that combines the best of both groups. I would also suggest that a new conservative movement focus on local affairs, since effecting change on the national level is almost hopeless at this juncture. The movement will need to take some unpopular stands and should strenuously avoid capitulating to a populist Tea Party mentality. There ought to be a strong cultural dimension to the movement, the idea being that cultural change must precede political change. Local chapters could sponsor lectures on various topics, promote the arts, organize festivals, and even back candidates for local offices. The culture of the movement should be patriarchal: one of the great challenges of our time, after decades of feminism, is that of inspiring men to lead their families and communities again. Externals are also important: let there be high standards of dress, language, and public decorum at all events and gatherings. This movement will need to be conservative in form and substance, in body and soul.