I've been trying to be more clear in lectures about what liberal and conservative decisions look like.
One distinction has to do with civil rights. Since liberalism is grounded primarily in the principle of equity, they tend to want to expand civil rights protections. Civil rights of course is based in the United States on the abstract concept of equal treatment before the law--without any hint about what categories might be used to justify unequal treatment and whether public safety and health and the rest might be adversely affected. We discussed proposals to require the elderly to take driving tests probably not violating equal protection because advanced age can impair driving ability.
As a current example in the news, here is a liberal proposal from the U.S. House of Representatives: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Note the conservative argument against it: ". . . Mark Souder, R-Ind., argued that, because of the bill, "religious rights will now be trumped by sexual rights." Calling the bill a disaster for religious bookstores, which could be required to hire gay workers, he said the measure invited litigation and set "precedents that we will regret."
I highlighted what I think is the key part of their argument. The freedom of owners of religious bookstores to hire who they want, based on their traditional understanding proper sexual behavior. This hits both individual economic freedom and traditional values. Both are central to conservatism. It also touches on increased use of the courts--litigation--as a means of redress, which is another sore spot for conservatives.
