I just thought of a way to describe modern liberal arguments. Many people have noticed how they manage to hold contradictory positions at the same time. The way they manage this is they basically keep people who hold different positions in reserve and based upon what someone said, they deploy the best debater they believe they have to make the counter-argument. The best example of this of course is feminism. There are feminists who don't want to show off women's bodies because it's objectifying, there are also feminists who are pro-nudity and so-on. Logically these people should be opposed (and in a limited context they are) but they are basically allied and working together against anyone who disagrees with their fundamental positions. What's really interesting about this to me is not that it happens, but how are they getting away with this? It seems so obvious and blatant to me in hindsight. I think for starters people should be allowed to know what positions their opponent holds before having to go into a debate and the opponent in a debate should not be able to be changed out at will.
You mean like how "Republicans" support a limited government and seem to both simultaneously support gay marriage and not support gay marriage at the same time? The concepts of liberal and conservative and every political ideology out there can be made up of various beliefs. That's the idea behind the political spectrum, it's a wide range of beliefs, not one monolithic idea.
