Every statement so far has been from a liberal, and many of them not americans... The Liberal/Conservative concept is a regional one, and has slightly different meanings on the two sides of the pond. It is inaccurate to characterize liberals as "pro-change" and Conservatives as "anti-change". While I believe that is one meaning of the two words, it is not the meaning of the concept in American politics. Plainly, Conservatives do want change. In the extreme case, many seem to want a theocratic state. Conversely, Liberals would very much like to keep the status quo on many points, such as abortion.
It is also incorrect to characterize liberals as deomonstratably more open minded than conservitives. Show me the liberal who does not believe firmly that abortion is Right. That belief is no different from the conservitive viewpoint that it is Wrong. It doesn't matter who is "correct" or who has better logic, or more political clout, the point is that neither side will budge an inch... and oh, guess what, that means that both sides are both closed-minded.
Think of it this way Orph, If politics is one dimensional (I don't think it is) than at one end you have liberals, and at the other you have conservatives:
Liberals--------------------Conservatives
Left --------------------Right
To be extreme is to hold opinions that fall predominately at one end of this line or the other. It does not matter which side you are on.
I will take examples of social welfare policy:
Extreme Liberal: The government ought to provide a basic standard of living for all citizens and prevent any given individuals from being much richer than others. All health care should be free.
Moderate-Liberal: The government ought to provide financial support to those who are in need, and provide free health care for all.
Moderate-Conservative: The government ought to help people who are in need, but strict guidelines are required to keep people from leaching the taxpayers unnecessarily. Health care is a consumer commodity, and needs to be paid for just like anything else.
Extreme Conservative: It is not the governments business to support indigent people. Health care is a consumer commodity.
Now all these views are within the accepted spectrum of mainstream American politics. While I have characterized the right and left most views as extreme, that is of course relative. The word "extremist" to me denotes a tendency toward violence. For example:
Conservative extremist: Poor people ought to be rounded up by force and put into labor camps so they can do some good.
Liberal Extremist: Corporations are evil. We ought to shoot the CEOs and nationalize all industry so that every man can have a job and wealth will be spread out evenly.
The right wing extremists bomb abortion clinics and shoot gays, while the leftists attack loggers, spike trees, and burn SUVs. Both of them are reprehensible. These are people who have allowed an ideology to swallow them whole, leaving nothing left but an empty vessel committed to spreading their strange disease.
With regard to stagnation...
Orph, the simplest definition of stagnant is simply "not moving" therefore, by definition a view point that does not change is "stagnant". It deosn't matter if you are right or wrong, just or wicked. On the other hand, it is not the best term to describe a simply motionless situation, since the other connotations of the word are all negative. It undoubtedly derisive to refer to anyone's beliefs as stagnant. There are many other words which mean "unmoving" that do not have the same negative overtones. You have come up with the example yourself. You say you are steadfast, they say you are stagnant. You are both technicaly right, but an opinion is expressed in the word choice. you think you are right, they think you are wrong, or at the very least that lack of change is by definition a bad thing.
