Way to inflate another strawman. Do you want to discuss this rationally, or throw brickbats and play "gotcha"?
I see political identity as being on a x-y axis chart. On such, any position can be taken to the extreme. Certainly, conservatism could be taken to an extreme of enforced orthodoxy, as in "no change shall be allowed". You end up with something like the Shogunate era in Japan, with great stability and stagnation. Call that way out on the x-axis to the + side.
At the way -x end, out past the Liberal end of the scale, is a chaos where Change is embraced to the point of chaos.
On the y-axis, I see anarchy (no government at all) at the extreme + and totalitarianism (government in control of every aspect) at the extreme -.
Perhaps that came out poorly? I didn't mean to offend, and reading back over it I don't see how I did. That was an accurate statement I didn't mean in any way as a 'dig', just an observation of reality. I am truly sorry if I somehow offended.
I'm not even debating this topic. I simply was asking about terminology.
I don't agree that 'Conservative' means 'opposed to change', personally. If that were so, then Conservative would change meanings every time some rules were changed. The D party would be 'Conservatives' when they try to defend affirmative action, and all that.
I'm fascinated by this subject.
I'm off to dinner, I'll respond to any posts later.
Again, I'm truly sorry if I in any way offended.