You lay this out pretty clearly here. Nicely done.
It's a rich topic, the differences between conservatives and liberals. It overlaps with Jonathan Haidt’s theory of moral values in the political context. I’ve written on this divide, too, a divide which arises, I think, as a way of coping with the brain’s internal divisions (our so-called lower and higher selves, the older and the newer parts of the brain), and as an evolutionary division of labour between men and women, with the associated value clusters of masculinity and femininity.
Those clusters are partly biological (hormonal) and partly cultural, I suspect, and in politics and in tribal culture wars these divisions can metastasize. Thus, in the US one of the political parties is much more self-consciously “masculine” (“strict” or authoritarian) than the other.
There are cults of masculinity and of femininity, toxic or excessive forms of these sets of values. The masculine, Republican one corresponds roughly to psychopathy, which is rampant in “conservative politics,” and the feminine, Democratic or humanistic/cosmopolitan one amounts to the political correctness or wokeness (i.e. the infantilizing overprotection) you'll find in the late-industrial big cities.
Personally, I agree mostly with liberal humanistic values (freedom of speech, gay rights, reproductive rights, etc), but I derive them from existentialism and from a pantheistic take on naturalism, not from the more fashionable postmodern relativism or Foucaultian cynicism, let alone from a mere insistence on political correctness (which can become tyrannical).
I’ll link to some articles of mine that pursue these rather politically incorrect lines of argument. Apologies, if you take offense to them, but my commitment to philosophical integrity comes first. I write what seems to me true, regardless of the consequences. And anyway, I’m far harsher towards conservatism than I am towards liberalism or progressive values.
