Today I've seen a lot of polling analysis about whether candidates are "too conservative" or "too liberal." I understand that this is an overall impression and subjective, so we can't really expect much rationale.

But it strikes me as strange on two counts.

First of all, I spend almost no time worrying about whether a candidate is "too conservative" or "too liberal." Other criteria make my choices. So I have a bit of trouble putting myself in the shoes of strongly rejecting someone just because of where they fall on a spectrum like this.

Second, and this obviously is related to where I fall on the spectrum, I can see a vivid explanation of what "too conservative" might mean and why it's objectionable. Someone who's too conservative, kind of by definition, is resisting change. In government, if there are too many people who are too conservative, it's difficult to solve problems. No one wants to change anything. No one even wants to believe many of the new problems exist. They want to keep on doing things the same way. To me, this is self-evidently a quandary, a problem unto itself. In fact, it's a meta-problem: a problem with the problems, namely, it's the problem that people are preventing change that solves problems. Yet when I ask myself what "too liberal" means and why someone would react in a similar way, finding it self-evidently a bad thing, I... start drawing blanks.

It isn't that I can't imagine - or understand - or remember ways liberalism has been criticized. But what exactly is wrong with being not conservative, or even very not conservative, given the meta-problem I just described?

Sure, not all change is good, and not all efforts to solve problems in new ways are successful. It's even possible that trying to fix a problem makes it worse and creates other problems that weren't there before. Too true, and I have no difficulty understanding that. If you write code, that's your bread and butter. Absolutely: you go in to fix something, and it's difficult, and often things are worse after that, at least for a while, until you do enough clean-up or else revert to a stable copy (or, well, a less unstable one).

I suppose not wanting to change things comes from a sense of familiarity and even affection - liking the way things are - thinking they work well enough and that shouldn't be ruined.

But I don't know how people explain to themselves that just because they like how it is - or think they prefer how it was before - it must also be good for other people, or the country, or future generations of humans and other creatures. The one is not necessarily the other, and any normal person should know that and consider it an important distinction, a placeholder for angles known to others, a reason to be less predetermined and more fluid, keener to listen.

We all appreciate a number of advances in government that have been made over the centuries. Most of us would hate to go back a thousand years and endure what was normal then.

If we put aside nuclear threats, climate change, AI, aliens, and so on, we can imagine another thousand years of improvements. We can recognize that most of those improvements will come from liberals. Conservatives will oppose most of them. Eventually they or their descendants will appreciate the changes, but they at the time will object; they may almost need to be dragged kicking and screaming, to draw on a tired metaphor.

One twist worth noting is that I think many conservatives will have a big problem with this picture, and it isn't just that they are portrayed negatively. It's that they don't believe we have another thousand years of improvements available. They believe we've pretty much reached the end of the line, and we're doing about as well as we can do. They don't think 3024 would have to be much better than 2024. They'd mainly just prefer to see fewer liberals trying to mess things up. To them, that would be an improvement.

Now, maybe I'm getting it wrong. Maybe few if any conservatives see it that way. Maybe more of them have more futurism in them than I give them credit for.

Then again, they'd probably see the improvements visible in 3024 as the result of economic and technological growth, not the result of government self-improvement (other than, maybe, getting rid of the liberals).

What I'm getting at is: what year between 2024 and 3024, assuming it's a general millennium of improvement, is a bad one to aim for? What year's government makes you "too liberal" if that's what you believe in?

Again, conservatives may have trouble answering this question, because they may seriously doubt that much more improvement is waiting in the wings from updates to government.

But if you ask me, I think the improved 3024 system of government would be very different from today's, and would not depend on any of our current foundational government documents worldwide. I'm convinced voting and representation would work differently, and I'm not entirely convinced we'd be doing either in a recognizable way, though I do tend to believe we'd be doing both, just very differently, and better.

To me, "too liberal" sounds like "too enthusiastic about fixing problems," and that doesn't really compute (again, to me). Sure, if it ain't broke don't fix it; but anyone who thinks there's nothing to fix here, or nothing major, is living in a self-reinforced mental bubble.

So, maybe that's my bias. But it isn't as if I can't see other arguments, here. "Too liberal" can mean trying to move too fast. "Too liberal" can mean trying to move in a direction that looks shiny now but will end badly. "Too liberal" can mean showing too much of whatever personality or ideology or platform quirks are more common in liberals than conservatives.

Everyone who says "too liberal" or "too conservative" is probably thinking of a few stances in particular that they don't like, can't stand, stay up at night worrying about, etc.

If it sounds like I'm being unfair, consider that most people who consider a candidate "too liberal" will be conservative. That means they will probably be subject to the personality issue that they don't see these big problems that are worth fixing, or they see big problems, but they tell themselves these problems will be fixed another way, without government involvement, despite, often, those problems not being solved for centuries. In other words, liberals certainly make mistakes, but the ones calling them "too liberal" rather than just "barking up the wrong tree this time" are people who are too obstinately unwilling to change government practices, and probably not best qualified to give the criticism of when change is and is not appropriate. Centrists or liberals would have more experience actually changing things, and presumably could know better when a particular not-tried-here-before approach is, or is not, likely to end in success.

In short, I don't personally believe "too liberal" is a real problem. If we could bring in the improved government of 3024 today, then that would be good. And the sooner, the better. There is no "too quickly" other than logistical seasons to implement policies and get people used to the transition. If we knew the end goal, we could begin planning the tradition today, this hour, this minute. If that would save lives, improve lives, avoid ecological catastrophe, position us better to maintain peace amongst ourselves and with any extraterrestrials we might meet, then excellent. There is no such thing as the grand benefit of pretending there is no improvement or no solution when it is there; moving toward it, by whatever transition is smoothest and most practical and sustainable, is a positive thing. There is no "too liberal" in this scenario, in my view. The more the better. The less let's-change-nothing conservatism the better, though I think conservatives could be very useful with planning for a smooth transition and a new future normal, provided they accept a transition is getting underway.

Now, this is obviously only one interpretation, and, specifically, my own.

I don't think we avoid ducking down the wrong alleys in our attempts to advance society by strongly resisting all change. That isn't realism. That isn't practical. It's obstructionist.

We can only avoid the pitfalls of liberalism if conservatives aren't so damn conservative. We need the help of different kinds of minds. It's a problem when half the people sit on the sidelines sulking, claiming any change at all is immoral and stupid. That doesn't help. That isn't troubleshooting, it's being a pain in the ass.

Now, this is not a fair characterization of conservatives overall (who do have a lot to offer, and do a lot of good work). It's just an illustration of a key point I'm making. "Too liberal" isn't really the problem, and we don't minimize the dangers of change by resisting all change just because it's change.

In short, I would like to see conservatives doing a little more soul-searching, and realizing that they are part of what they're resisting.

I would like to see conservatism evolve into greater and more practical open-mindedness, while retaining the strategic strengths it's known for.

(I suspect it's a mistake to assume conservative and liberal, as we usually define them, are exact opposites and equally valid and necessary, but I also recognize that in many ways, or perhaps all ways, this may be the case. My mind is not closed to different possibilities there.)