Some good thoughts, there. I don't buy the idea that change, in and of itself, is a good thing. It has to be related to specific values and goals. This was one of the problems of the 60s, where "smashing the system" became an end, not a means.

Just because something is "new" doesn't make it good. Just because something has been around a while doesn't make it bad. And of course, the inverse is also true. Values and goals are what you judge by.

I also don't buy that liberals are open to change any more than conservatives or libertarians are. In fact, each political philosophy has a set of values and goals of its own. Not surprisingly, each group will support changes that lead to those goals and fight changes that lead away from them.

Try proposing changes to liberals that do not fit into the liberal agenda and see what you get. Privatize the American retirement system? Over their dead bodies.

I support a specific set of philosophical ideas, and their political consequences. I support changes that nurture these values, and oppose changes that do not. It's not much more complicated than that.

And many universities aren't teaching just liberal values, but collectivist ones, the ones currently poisoning South Africa, among other nations. Those are the teachings I oppose. (I don't think any of us believe that liberal and collectivist are equivalent, although there is an uncomfortable overlap.)

C.S. Lewis once said in response to someone telling him he was trying to "turn back the clock":

"We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Of course you can turn back a clock. And if it's telling the wrong time, you should.