In a reductionist sense, sure, to be critical of particular de novo political views is conservative. Yet no one would call progressives conservative or reactio

In a reductionist sense, sure, to be critical of particular de novo political views is conservative. Yet no one would call progressives conservative or reactionary for opposing the overturning of Roe v Wade. Are progressives being conservative when they oppose nuclear energy? But somehow it's commonly recognized as being conservative to be critical of policies that single out particular groups (the original intent notwithstanding). That is what I find peculiar. At least in the United States, being "conservative" or "progressive" and their various synonyms aren't really defined strictly by Miriam-Webster but by the zeitgeist. > You might disagree with the changes being made, but (social) progressives believe they're making them for the betterment of humans. Most people believe this of their own policies, not just progressives. That's a very unhelpful way of describing these two poles, as is relying on the dictionary.