> I think that definition of conservatism is very generous to conservatives since we often see people who identify themselves as conservatives attempting to cha

> I think that definition of conservatism is very generous to conservatives since we often see people who identify themselves as conservatives attempting to change society rather than merely freeze it as it is. Those people aren't conservatives though. The problem is the disconnect between what conservatism as an approach to doing things and capital C Conservatives which is a group identity. The philosophy and the identity are hardly related. It's the exact same with liberals and Liberals. Fewer and fewer self identified capital L Liberals these days hold liberal philosophical positions. This identitarian present is extremely toxic because the group identity becomes more important that the original axioms that formed the original impetus for forming a coalition in the first place. The important thing is not to confuse the thinking liberals and conservatives with the non-thinking, following Liberals and Conservatives. "If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking." – Lyndon B. Johnson (also there is a similar but different previous quote from Winston Churchill) While Liberals and Conservatives are two group identities at odds with one another, I would not consider liberalism and conservatism to be at odds with one another. Liberalism is about individual freedom and conservatism is about preserving what works. They are only in conflict on an issue by issue basis when increasing individual freedom is in conflict with preserving something that works. Their are plenty of things that work that don't harm individual freedom and many that do can be modified carefully to increase individual freedom without destroying the benefit of the thing that provides benefit that took a while to build. Other than that slight disagreement, great contribution. Thanks for the reply.