Diuretic
Permanently confused
Fair enough, but liberalism = socialism = cradle to grave steady hand of government taking care of its constituents. Conservatives strive for just the opposite. I don't see how you could argue that conservatives "can't tolerate ambiguity", at least when it comes to economics.
I'll go with the economics one first. And I have to make the point that all this is extreme generalisation but that's in keeping with the topic so I'm not at all embarrassed about it.
I read a lot about "risk-taking" in those economies with at least some aspects of the free market in them. That's fine but risk-taking doesn't equate with recklessness, I think the risks are analysed, considered and treated in line with the ordinary risk-management process. Now let me bring ambiguity and uncertainty into it. I don't see too much tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty in the economic process as described above. I do see a lot of prediction though - market analysis and the rest of it.
Socialism cradle to grave. I see it as a sort of safety net, not a smothering blanket. I do think the basics for human existence should be available to people regardless of income. I'm not talking about luxury here, just the basics. So if those basics are guaranteed for the individual from cradle to grave then I'm okay with it. I'm not okay with policy built on envy and I'm not okay with policy that restricts an individual's rights, based on their abilities, to improve their material lot. If someone wants to go through life with the basics because they're not able or too lazy to improve their situation then they can do so. I think a society should give everyone the chance - through free education for example - to achieve their own potential but society can't do anything about the character flaws that keep some people from doing so.