The way I learned this was while we were discussing Roe v. Wade and then when I asked Prof. Goldberger what he thought the role of government should be. He stated that he thought government should be able to do whatever the majority wanted as long as they didn't have the ability to abuse a smaller group without any harm to themselves. For example, America shouldn't be able to put the Japanese in concentration camps without anything bad happening in turn to the Americans. Liberals view the government as able to do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't hurt the individual. The most important thing is freedom for the little guy - government simply exists to make it so the powerful can't prey on the weak.
Meanwhile, conservatives view government as a discretionary, directive force that leads society. The government is supposed to make decisions that help the country as a whole. Only by supporting the political process can the country move forward. Individual rights are still very important, but only as long as they serve the country's ability to progress as a whole.
A liberal doesn't say abortion is the right thing to do, a liberal just says the government can't stop it. A conservative says that by not making abortion illegal, the government is saying that it is acceptable. Conservatives want government to lead men away from their state of nature while liberals want government to never "burden" a specific group. Conservatives would welcome being led by a leader they agreed with while liberals resent any government mandated advice.
Where am I? If this dichotomy is accurate, I'm a conservative through and through. Does this mean that I agree with everything the GOP does? Not a chance. I believe that government is a powerful, directive force that can and should lead the country towards something better - and I definitely don't believe either major political party really has a handle on the direction of where the country should go. But, I'm convinced, the liberal belief that gutting the power of the majority to encourage the minority to change is the fastest way to eviscerate the nation's potency. As long as anybody has the possibility of choosing their path in life, there is no minority to worry about. As long as a law doesn't truly stack the deck against someone, the government's doing just fine protecting the rights of its citizens. In fact, I'm convinced that any law, whether detrimental or beneficial, that singles people out for anything that they are not directly responsible for (race, age, ethnicity, etc.) goes completely against the fabric of freedom.
Equality of possibility is what makes the country great; seeking for equality of results will bring us to our knees.
The government should be able to regulate activities, but it must not be able to act either capriciously or inconsistently. People should be able to make decisions about their own lives, but the results of those decisions can carry result consequences that can limit future options. The balancing act of determining when the government should step in is a completely different question. But, I'm convinced, as long as laws don't limit an individual's possibility, they should be valid.
