What Does It Mean to Be A Liberal?

Chicago law professor, Geoffrey Stone, lists 10 principles identifying what it means to be a liberal in an op-ed in the Chicago Times. 

Jane Galt offers a similar list for conservatives and Arnold Kling does so for libertarians. 

Professor Bainbridge responds and also points to these ten conservative principles by Russell Kirk.

What's interesting about all of these lists is that none of them sound bad in terms of their intentions.  It makes me curious how political ideologies form and persist?  Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" is one book that attempts to answer this question and offers some compelling insights.  According to Sowell, it basically boils down to differing views of human nature.  (Liberals tend to view mankind as basically good and in a constant state of increasing perfection.  Conservatives tend to think of mankind as basically bad and in need of legal and societal restraints to keep us from doing harm to one another.)  I think Sowell's ideas partially identify the source of these differences, but not completely.

For good or for bad, much of our political perspectives stem from our understanding (or misunderstanding) of how people interact with one another on a large scale, something the science of economics sheds a lot of insight into.  Unfortunately, many economists believe the public has a gross misunderstanding of basic economics, often leading many to erroneous political conclusions.  If so, this brings up two important questions:

1)  Why do people have such a poor understanding of economics and why don't economists make greater efforts to communicate these ideas to the general public?  (Actually, some of them do.)

2)  As Gordon Tullock asks: "Why so much [economic] stability?"

I find the question of why more economists don't make greater efforts to engage the public particularly troubling.  If economists think our subject offers such terrific insights into the way the world works, why don't we do a better job trying to communicate these ideas to others?  This is something I hope to do in my future career.

When it comes to political beliefs, where I think most people begin to depart from one another is in the results (not intentions) they think opposing philosophies bring.  I wish there was more honest debate about what objectives to pursue and how to best achieve them instead of incessant demonization or ridicule of people with opposing ideologies.

Question: Do most people ultimately want the same thing, but differ on the best mechanism for getting there?  For example, I know many liberals and conservatives who want to help the poor.  The liberals tend to believe redistributing wealth is the best way, striving for maximum wealth equality.  In contrast, many thoughtful conservatives I know believe that economic growth is the best way to help the poor and that redistribution will ultimately slow growth.  (The believe it will keep everyone equally poor rather than making everyone unequally rich.)  Their perspectives differ, but their ultimate intentions aren't that far apart.