In America the term "conservative" means specifically a commitment to traditional understandings of the US Constitution and limited government.
Today that would require major, even wrenching, changes.
In a sense, then, that makes a true conservative something of a "radical."
So the point is not "change versus no-change", but rather, "which direction of change".
Today that would require major, even wrenching, changes. In a sense, then, that makes a true conservative something of a "radical."
Only if you allow the fraudulent expansion of federal power through revisionist interpretation of the Constitution as a "living document" to supplant the original intent of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution as our "tradition".
At this point, I think it's more accurate to say original intent constitutionalism is more "reactionary" than "radical".