Are conservatives consequentialists?

When conservatives/libertarians imply that the morality of an action depends purely on it's consequences when they say that it doesn't matter what circumstances you're in when you act, they sound pretty consequentialist. Are they aware of this, is this an unconscious thing, am I wrong, or something else? 

They definitely pretend to be the more consequentialist side but in reality they have rigid, idealistic principles that have horrific ripple effects.

This is a flaw both Libertarian and Traditionalist conservatives have in common. Both believe in what they see as a severely morally good set of principles that they thinking are unbreakable, then they call the other side the emotional snowflakes and pretend they're more pragmatic just because their side is the harsher one.

Right. What I see as consequentialism *could* just be a more "life is a test of virtue and people who don't pass the virtue test can get fucked" kind of attitude. 

No thats a libertarian thing, I dont think it depends purely on the consequences, though important

As opposed to morality being derived from Authority of the Majority? There's only one "Party" ramming that line down society's throat right now...

As opposed to morality being anything else. I asked a question. Please use this time to deviate from back-and-forths between America's two annoying political parties

Well, I had "party" in quotes because both parties act the same way.

Milton Friedman identifies as a consequentialist and was also considered the high guru of Reaganism, the last wave of authentically American conservatism.  His effective counsel to Augustin Pinochet to build an economy of the rich on the graves of the Chilean underclass represents the high-water mark of classical economics just as well as it does the trench of human atrocity.

So I think the answer is yes, at least in part.

What is a conservative/libertarian?

And a consequentialist is just another one of those worthless philosophical ists.

Justification for over-think and getting paid for it probably. (Therein lies the worth I suppose)

All very Machiavellian.

I think that Republicans are quite the opposite of consequentialists. They don't care about the result of a policy if it violates their "principles". They fight a lot of policies that would materially benefit their constituents' wellbeing because of some stupid axiom of free trade or whatever the current case is.

I've been called a consequentialist, and in a way I am, though obviously, I am extremely left-winged, because consequentialism isn't necessarily not caring for what came before - its valuing the consequence over that prior thing. To me, the things that build up to something is a part of the consequence. For example, let's say that there was a man who shot someone, that man was raised in poverty, with little education, etc - though that person is not entirely at fault because they had no choice in their uprising, I would still say that that person should go to jail - because regardless of the fact that they had no choice in the matter, they still have a thought process that is harmful to others. Now, here is where I probably differ from most, I don't think the consequences for that man should be equal with what he did. 

Ethically speaking, he murdered someone - and that requires justice in any consistent framework - but ethically speaking - that consequence was derived from things outside of that man's control. Therefore instead of focusing on punishing that man, we should focus on rehabilitating that person. Justice is largely what we make of it, but I believe it is to attain retribution for a wrong. In this case, retribution is preventing that man from hurting other people, but instead of letting him rot in prison, I believe that if you simply change the mind of the man, then you can both attain justice, and save the liberty of the man. There is also, obviously, always a blend of being in and out of control. Ignoring the free will  debate for a second, there could have been a opportunity where that man didn't shot that person, so because that person "choose" to do that, he should have consequences - or so the theory goes right?

But, as also mentioned, he was not entirely in control. It then comes down to a pretty simple dichotomy for me - to determine if they deserve to be the thing that justice takes - was that "choice" coerced. For example, if a boy robbed a store, that's typically considered morally wrong, but if he did so because he was starving? That's more complicated. Because he was coerced by his surroundings. However, there's obviously the argument that that store owner is being harmed, and that even if you are being harmed - harming others is not the answer, etc, etc - essentially - even if a choice is coerced - if you are harming others is justice still deserved? It depends on your idea of what consequences you believe to be just. Me? I think that the true one that should deserve the justice we lob onto the individual is the society that shaped that individual. If someone was murdered, it is not necessarily the fault of the murderer, it is the fault of the institutions which brought that man to murder. 

Speaking pragmatically however, even if that is the case, that person should still probably be separated from society, though not to punish him necessarily. It is certainly the case that the faults of society were not errant enough to warrant murdering someone, or that the person is simple too dangerous (regardless of whose fault it is) to keep around others. At the end of the day, it comes down to what you believe the purpose of justice to be, or so my philosophizing brain tells me. 

You mean like Marx, who never ran a lemonade stand to develop his economic theory that has never shown a true, successful, enduring consequence of its application that has lasted even half as long as free market capitalism in 173 years of effort?

Sure, Communists or full-fledged Socialists are not consequentialist either, I agree.