Conservatives are "by definition" those who wish things to remain the way they are. They wish to conserve. It is not a value-loaded term when used in the context I did.

Liberals are those who wish things to change. That is not a value-loaded term either. The extremes of these two positions are respectively, "reactionary" (the way things used to be) and "radical"
(the way [they] think things ought to be.).

Remember when in the Soviet Union the Marxist hardliners were the "Conservative right", and the reformers where "the liberal left"?

Maybe your indignation arises from my attempt to describe political differences as relative positions on scales defined by self-interest, while you would rather define them as moralistic or intellectual positions where, of course, your side has all the morality intellect and everyone else is either a villain or a fool.

I noticed you conveniently failed to include my other comment in your quote,

"Conservatives are no different in this respect from anyone else, even liberals. If their own wealth or power is threatened by the required counter to some external threat, they tend to minimize the risk from that threat and the need to counter it."

Perhaps that did not coincide with whatever point you are trying to make now. Or maybe what really steamed you was "those who fancy themselves as natural members or beneficiaries of this class". I must 'fess up, I was thinking of you when I wrote that.

Lighten up. You really gave yourself away with that outburst. If you insist on minutely dissecting every utterance for signs of political incorrectness, don't be surprised if you find some.