Well, it's a point of view, Doug: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." (Alice through the Looking Glass.)

But if you abandon completely the historical definition of "conservative" as someone who is suspicious of change, and resistant to any change which is not necessary, you manhandle it in a way that risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In Britain true enough the word has been hi-jacked for a long time, when printed with a large C, to cover all kinds of disparate positions. But in America you already have two overlapping parties like that.

However the word still retains it's more precose meaning, which is why the media in this country see nothing strange in referring to leftists in Russia as "conservative, while Tony Blair refers to left wingers in the Labour Party as "forces of conservatism."

There are conservatves of the left and the right, and radicals of the left and the right. What you appear to be espousing, Doug is radicalism of the right. So why not use that term?