One quality of the true conservative is a resolute desire to never be popular or, worse, fashionable. Indeed, anything but fashionable. As defenders of eternal truths, from the reality of God and final judgment, to the inadvisibility of wearing brown shoes with a dark suit, we conservatives know that to be popular in the current moment is to be untrue to eternity.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Liberal leader and member for Wentworth, often takes the popular (and unsound) position on many conservative issues: he supported Bill Henson's right to engage in his perverted "art" form, and despite being a Catholic convert is in favour of the redefinition of marriage. Malcolm eulogises Neville Wran, for whose Labor administration we, in part, have ICAC, and takes ABC boss Mark Scott seriously.

Occasionally Malcolm – and a Malcolm he is, not the reductive "Turnbull" of journalism – is put in the right's doghouse for these errors. This week, Andrew Bolt and Cory Bernardi are the latest to take Malcolm to task for, among other things, defending the ABC and for his otherwise lukewarm public support of Abbott government policies. Their critique of Malcolm is not unique. Malcolm is seen as too Wentworth, too trendy, too ABC, too rich, too ready to break bread with Wrans and Whitlams, too suspect to be ever be "one of us".

Despite all this, I have a message for my fellow conservatives: Malcolm Turnbull is "one of us".

We should fairly examine Malcolm himself. He epitomises what the Australian politician from "our side" should be. He overcame a childhood and traumas that would have broken weaker vessels, to go on to university honours and then to become an incredibly successful lawyer, investment banker and investor. Malcolm's wealth, often scoffed at by both old money and the newly envious, was accumulated by his own hard work and by prodigious risk-taking.

Indeed the honesty of Malcolm's wealth contrasts starkly with NSW's bipartisan source of nouveau political wealth, the dark arts of lobbying and government relations in which many NSW Liberal types seem only to excel. Give me Malcolm and his commercial acumen any day over the ex-parliamentary spivocracy. He is happily married to Lucy, herself an incredibly accomplished woman (and daughter of the great TEF Hughes QC), and is by all accounts an excellent father and a man of many friends. What is there in Malcolm's biography that a conservative should not admire?

It is often said Malcolm is specifically unsound on climate change when, frankly, he is the one Coalition MP taking the true conservative position. For as all Jesuit alumni know, the highest virtue is prudence. The climate change issue that bedevilled Malcolm's brief tenure as Liberal leader was, as is often the case in Australia, a dialogue of the deaf on both sides, no doubt because only here would a public debate on a scientific matter be conducted almost entirely among Arts graduates.

Malcolm's view, however, was the sensible and sound one: given the catastrophic potential consequences of climate change as forecast by most scientists, it would be imprudent to do nothing, in the same way that it would be imprudent to ignore most oncologists' warning that you have a tumour. His convictions are shared by Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, John Howard, Prince Charles, and former US Republican candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney. The carbon tax's most prominent US champion was Romney's former advisor Gregory Mankiw. If Malcolm's position on climate change is not conservative, then no one's position is.

In respect of the Abbott government's sales problems, Malcolm's reticence to go outside of his portfolio and defend frankly stupid ideas is no less conservative. Malcolm is not the minister for everything. He has no roving commission to protect bad ministers from the consequences of their actions. Why should he?

More specifically, no one forced Joe Hockey to bring forth a budget that asked for only selective sacrifice, in contradiction of the conservative ideal of "the nation" in which all play their part and all offer up some for the good of us all. Conservatives contrast the nation united with the left's penchant for satiating the grievances of divisive interest groups, be they militant unions, ACOSS whiners, or writers' festival types seeking a new subsidy for the latest antediluvian project.

True conservatism would have ensured that every segment of society took a budget hit for the good of us all (eg a company tax rise, even if only temporarily) rather than just inflict pain on the groups most likely to vote Labor. The need to be seen to be fair is as important as fairness itself and, moreover, Proverbs 17:5 should always weigh heavily on the Catholic conservative's conscience.

Similarly, it is not Malcolm's duty to defend a Coalition government's inexplicable capitulation to usually Labor-aligned vice-chancellors who seek to charge students higher fees. An investing type like Malcolm should first eliminate the costly sinecures and inefficiencies that infest our universities now before seeking to charge higher fees. Instead, the Coalition has taken the side of vice-chancellors against the students (and their parents), a decision which is both unjust and idiotic, and which will haunt Liberal MPs to election day.

Finally, it was not Malcolm's idea to spend precious political capital seeking amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act in pursuit of the libertine utopia of "freedom". A free speech absolutist position may make some sense to a certain type of liberal, but it is entirely foreign to a real Tory. It would shock the broad conservative pantheon – from Augustine to Hobbes to de Maistre to Pope Pius IX, to name but a few – to be asked to entertain the proposition that anyone should be able to say anything about anyone, especially their ethnicity or religion, free of consequences.

Yet apparently this Goldwaterite fantasy of repealing section 18C is the new "conservative" norm. No conservative could believe this to be so. Malcolm's refusal to embrace the current ACLU-like idiocy is to be commended, not attacked. His moderation is reflective not just of Jewish concerns in Malcolm's own seat, but (I suspect) wariness at any gesture in law affirming the fraying of social fabric in the cause of "freedom".

It has never been the conservative position that journalists, demagogues and controversialists are a special caste and nor should it be so now. Nor should Australian law privilege the rights of, frankly, bigots and wackjobs to denigrate people and their ethnicity. Bravo to Malcolm for taking, whether sotto voce or otherwise, the truly conservative position and refusing to be a part of this libertarian frolic.

Yes, Malcolm is unsound at times. Yes, Malcolm infuriates some parts of the Liberal party base. Yes, Malcolm is uncomfortably popular with the (very) wrong people. However, as Janet Albrechtsen said insightfully a decade ago, a Coalition with no place for Malcolm was a "perishing" conservatism. Malcolm Turnbull is "one of us", and should be embraced, not demonised.