Conservatives have a bunch of things they want. For instance, they want more gun rights because of their, "small government" ethos. They want to ban abortion because of the safety of the unborn. Some of them even want to ban homosexuality because "the bible says so". Pretty much every republican wants to deport undocumented immigrants because of "nationalism; America first".
So there are 4 values here; small government, safety, theocracy, and nationalism.
Conservatives aren't consistent with the first value; small government because if they if their value is freedom, then surely they must also be in favor of the recreational legalization of all drugs, they would be in favor of abortion rights with no restrictions, they would support open borders, they would want to end all the foreign wars, and they would essentially be libetarians. Conservatism can't mean freedom because if it was, there is a party that already exists that consistently believes in freedom; libetarians. Conservatism therefore has to mean something else.
Another value conservatives have; safety. They apply this value towards the unborn. They call it the "right to life". I call it safety. It's the same thing. However, they don't apply this logic to letting undocumented immigrants in, even though America is a safer place for the undocumented than their home country. They often claim that the undocumented immigrants are a danger to America (which they aren't)(Undocumented immigrants far less likely to commit crimes in U.S. than citizens (wisc.edu)). They oppose welfare programs which keep the poor safe from starvation. They support these foreign wars whenever Trump wages a war even though it causes foreign civilians, our troops, and even the United States to be less safe because as we wage endless war, more countries hate us and are therefore more likely to fund terrorist attacks on us. They oppose the concept of safety on gun, insisting that their freedom to own guns is more important than the safety of others. You'd figure the conservatives (if safety was their value) would want to disarm everybody to make society as safe as it can be. Conservatives often claim it's impossible, however THEY ARE THE REASON IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. If every conservative wanted to ban all guns, they would immediately turn all of their guns in. This would only apply if the conservative value was safety.
If the conservative value was theocracy (implementing black and white biblical law into society), then conservativism calls for treating the undocumented just like the native born (Exodus 12:49) and a 100% wealth tax on anyone with more than enough money to survive (unless they were a ruler, the bible lets rulers keep their money, just like communism)(Mark 10:21)
If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade, Affirmative action, and not cutting taxes because off of this goes against the status quo/nationalism (the belief that your nation is great just the way it is)
The liberals on the other hand, they have a value, but they never state what their value is, which is how they lose support from the independents who think, "How is this party consistent with any of their beliefs?" The left wing value is anti pain. All of their beliefs follow a consistent anti pain ethic. Abortion? Let the people abort to minimize pain. The liberals have mixed views on late term abortions, where some support them if it prevents future maternal pain and others oppose them on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain.
On guns; minimize the pain from school shootings while also trying to appease the conservatives by trying to ban semi automatic guns. This view is greatly distorted because mass shootings are a small portion of homicides, but the liberals don't care. They want to minimize pain that they see; they don't care that much about pain they can't see unless it's super graphic. This is why you see liberals caring a little bit about starving people in Africa. If those starving people were here, liberals would be demanding that we give free housing and healthcare to the suffering people that we can see merely because we can see them. If those people are suffering far away, then the left doesn't care as much.
On taxes, they want higher taxes on those whom the sacrifice would be minimal to minimize the pain of other people that they can see.
The conservatives have no principles. The liberals have a principle (anti pain ethic (but only for the pain they can see)), but it is based off of emotion, news stories, anecdotal data (they are more upset about a mass shooting that kills 26 people than they are about traffic deaths that are responsible for 30,000 American deaths a year (the deaths from traffic accidents are more painful and graphic usually than dying from a gun), but if traffic deaths were broadcasted as much as school shootings per death, the liberals would want to reduce speed limits).
With one party having no principles, and another party having principles that are partly based on emotion rather than reality, I think both parties are absolutely horrible. It's time for DART members to break away from the democrat and republican parties. The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.