Alright, what about so-called "conservative Democrats", such as Zell Miller? I don't think the meaning of "conservative" can change so readily as you believe, because it is a description of a relative position, not a fixed one. A pro-AA Dem cannot be called conservative, because the anti-AA position would return race consideration to the position described by the 14th A., and is thus a conserving of a previous condition.
"Change" would be a move toward the Liberal position, the consequent "change back" would be a return toward the Conservative position. An even more radical Liberal may advocate "change even more", which would place the first change in a relatively conservative position to the second change, but still more liberal than a return to the status quo before any change.
Care to comment on the X-Y axis theory I proposed?
I'm still not sure this works, for me. It doesn't allow defining what the 'conservative' position is in the first place. How far back do you go? It still sounds very fluid.
I see what you're saying, that this is one definition of 'conservative', one that defines positions on a given issue based on existing laws, etc.
But I think I'm asking about something different -- I'm looking for a definition of the 'political philosophy' that has come to be known as 'Conservative'.
A million years ago, when I was younger, 'L' meant collectivist/socialist and 'C' meant capitalist/individualist.
It seems that the definitions are shifting, at least that's my perception.
Care to comment on the X-Y axis theory I proposed?
I'm sorry, I should have mentioned it.
I basically agree, yes. Altho I do think that is simplifying it a bit, but it's a good working model.
I'm not talking about the 'change' concept, myself, mainly because everyone I know on all sides of all issues want 'change', if not on a grand scale then on a small one.
I'm a system's architect. My 'OOA' is that there are two parts to politics, the same as any other 'problem-solving' system --
Each has it's own pitfalls, but the real devil is in the details. When it comes to deciding on 'goals' for our laws, that to me is not subject to the 'L/C' distinction. Pretty much everyone desires freedom, prosperity, and all that.
The seperation comes in when discussing the details, the 'methods' to achieve those goals.
And I see two clear-cut philosophies to achieve goals we set for our govt:
I *thought* this was the meaning of "politically liberal" v. "politically conservative". I'm pretty sure it use to be, anyway.