Simply stated, liberals have a better vision of what the world should look like, but are generally incapable of developing policies consistent with getting us there. This is becaue their approach to problem-solving is based on the their ideals, and is therefore impotent in a reality governed by primal instincts.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are rather efficient when it comes to acheiving goals, but they tend to strive for a world that is markedly non-ideal. Necessarily, this entails a fairly homoegeneous population with unified beliefs, usually aligned via religious dogma. While attractive and tidy, this paradigm seeds conflict throughout the world and is ultimately untenable.
I am something of a hybrid. I believe the liberal ideal is best, but that “conservative” policies and approaches must be employed in order to keep society healthy during its youth. Without this, civilization will simply deteriorate into chaos. A good example of such a hybrid policy would be requiring students to wear uniforms in public schools for a predetermined length of time.
On the outside this is conservative and restrictive, i.e. anti-liberal, but ultimately any liberal society requires an educated population. So in reality, not implementing such systems is the easiest path toward extreme conservatism. Why? Because the more uneducated a given population is, the more totalitarian the government must be in order to maintain order.
This “conservative approach to liberalism” is precarious, to be sure, but I think it’s the only answer.:
