I guess this is what means by "meanings have become so destroyed you can barely speak(Chomsky)". After all, If I had read those lines up there correctly, Doc's definition of Conservatism seems to be something that is meant to hinder the existing ways - the economical/poltical ideologies of the majority - and on the contrary, Progressivism seems to mean promotion of those very "existing ways".
Thus, the underlying concept happens to be the exact same ones as the Hegellian Right believed in - "What is realistic is rational." (by which it means any notion of overthrowing or replacing existing capitalism is SUPPOSED to be unrealistic, irrational and dumb). The frontlines of the social warfare certainly had it's share of changes, and I quite agree that judging which political tendency belongs to conservatism and which to progressivism is an easy task no more.
But, how the definition of Conservatism and Progressivism can suddenly(and so fundamentally) switch it's place like this, I have no idea.
I don't know if I have it correctly, but this sort of "intellectual word play" can only lead to the typical "take-it-for-granted" reactions of the intellectual right.
They take it for granted that capitalsim is the only existing alternative left right now, they take it for granted that it is here to stay for about another millenia or something, and they take it for granted the future of the human Utopia lies within capitalism.
That would answer some of those questions. Since one tend's to believe no other alternatives may take the place of the existing order, promoting this is the only progress humanity will ever make.
Now that is nutty.