Quote Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff View Post
What if the "status quo" changes? To say that the definition of conservatives is that they support the status quo is ludicrous. The status quo of Abortion has changed, yet most conservatives oppose this. The status quo of homosexual acceptance has too, yet many conservatives oppose this. Many "status quo's" have been established long before most conservatives that I know were even born - yet are strongly opposed by conservatives.
Quote Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Conservatism is inherently reactionary, and dependent on there being call for change and what the perceived status quo is. There cannot be a universal conservatism, since the things it depends upon can vary immensely. Islam, the Soviet Union, the US - all have or had their brands of conservatism.
People don't agree on what the status quo is - one can perceive it as the situation now, whilst someone else can perceive now as an aberration and prefer the status quo twenty years earlier. That's the problem.
"Reactionary" is a pejorative, usually used by "progressives" (or revolutionaries/radicals, if you want to start using pejoratives).
Conserving isn't done for the sake of it - although the less persuasive arguments in favour of conservatism do tend to degenerate to that level. It is done in reaction to calls for change, and a conscious decision is made on what to focus on. One isn't ever totally conservative, at least not if the aim is to be taken seriously.

Just to make things clear, the above are some reasons why I don't see 'conservative' as a worthwhile definition in serious discussion. It is however too easy to use in political rhetoric to be abandoned altogether. As definition it's worthless, more important is how people differ in how they perceive it. Hence, I presume, this topic.