It takes a nation to protect the nation
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
(Economics) Also called: free enterprise or private enterprise an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations.
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. A political and social philosophy advocating individual freedom, representational forms of government, progress and reform, and protection of civil liberties. A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights, and nonviolent modification of institutions to permit continued individual and social progress. A movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.
In general, I'm not in favour of obsessing about the 'accepted' word definitions. As we all know, Islam is not a race, but if someone wants to say that being transphobic is racist, I'll ask them for their definition of 'racist', then I'll define 'racist 2', to partition off a separate meaning, if I need it. It doesn't matter, they get hung anyway. Their argument does not depend on the particular meaning, it depends on the EQUIVOCATION between 2 different meanings, and the attempt to get the benefits of meaning 2 while using the facts of meaning 1.
So, Muslims saying that Islamophobia is racist, are taking the genetic racial meaning and trying to glue it to the group affiliation meaning of Muslim. However they define their words, this trick can be exposed. At the end of the day, there are white, yellow and pink Muslims, so their attempt to blur the boundaries is exposed easily.
I will try remember the definitions of Socialism, Capitalism and Liberalism tho, for my own benefit, as well as for public argument. That said, he could happily reject the interviewers demand that he define those words. He could ask the interviewer to define the words and then say if he agrees. If the interviewer says that he needs to show he can define the words in use, then he should ask the interviewer to define 'cynical' or 'irony' or 'tautology' or 'expressionism' or 'mendacious'. I bet he can't. The point is, the normal population is constantly using words they can't define. That is the miracle of language, as people like Chomsky will tell you.
Actually, I have a strange ability to define any word you throw at me. I was on a holiday when I defined a few words for the non-English speakers, and a lady there was astonished. I think its not the norm? So nobody should expect you to trot out a definition of words you are using, unless you are a thought leader in that area, in which case you should be able to, as part of your educational mission.
In any case, I don't think that definition of Liberalism gets to the heart of the matter, it basically states the effects, of the thinking, it shows the leaves not the roots and trunk. So I'll give my definition.
Liberalism is the belief that we can construct a better system of human governance, by using principles of universal and equal human rights, equally and fairly applied justice, democratic mandate, civil institutions, and peaceful change. These principles will be applied by human intelligence and pure reason and human feeling (like conscience, compassion, sympathy and kindness), without being restricted by whatever institutions, norms, laws or cultural traditions that have arisen through historical development.
Liberalism begins with the Enlightenment, when ancient wisdom and ancient authority were no longer accepted without examination: from that point, everything is up for grabs; everything is potentially open to change.
Liberalism is fundamentally a (conceited) belief that the purity and power of the human mind in the current age, is superior to all the accumulated wisdom that has been stored through the ages in societies laws, institutions and cultural mores. It began with the bible language going from Greek and Latin scholars to being read by English speaking plebs, and is ending with words like 'marriage', 'man' and 'woman' being redefined.
Now that I've defined Liberalism properly, we can properly say what a conservative is.
A conservative believes that the purity and power of the human mind is INFERIOR to the accumulated wisdom of previous ages, and that the social knowledge that has EVOLVED and become ENCAPSULATED in the institutions, laws, traditions, cultural mores and even language, of the people over tens of thousands of years, is far more powerful, insightful, intelligent and reliable, than any 'superior', 'more enlightened', new theory or model that a single human or group of humans can concoct in their 'clever' discussions, even in a whole lifetime.
For example, the idea of marriage is older than the first human civilisations, identified by the cities and written records that first appeared 6000 years ago, and by spoken myths and legends that were handed down verbally before then. If marriage between man and woman is 10,000 years old, then its a concept has been tested and evolved through at least 400 generations. That's 400 times more testing than any single human perform in his life. You get the idea.
Thus for a conservative, everything is not open for change; and where change is accepted, it is done in small steps, and slowly, checking at each stage that the changes have not somehow wreaked havoc in the whole system. Crucially, the conservative would monitor the results, and then REACT to them, by rolling them back if necessary. Obviously, there is very little true conservatism around in the West at the moment.
So a conservative can have immigration, in small amounts and slowly, so that the effect of an entire generation can be seen, say, over 70 years. Once its seen that Islam, say, does not integrate and still preaches an unreformed message of fascistic supremacism and world domination - all of that immigration would be stopped.
A conservative would allow some reduction of the gold basis of the currency, but would wait at least 30 years to see what effect this had on the rest of the economy and the FX rates, before proceeding further.
A conservative could remove the death penalty, but it would be on a temporary 30 or 40 year basis. If after that time crimes rates have gone up (as they have seriously and dangerously), then the suspension would be ended and the death penalty restored.