I'm often perplexed by these two. I can't really tell what the differences are between what these two philosophies are supposed to be. Both preach minimizing the role of the government and personal freedom.

In practice though from what I've seen conservatism has religion thrown in to justify some of the liberal practices and moral grandstanding.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Political terms are always changing and are mean different things to all people, so I can see how you'd find it perplexing. I've always thought of it in terms of being economically and socially conservative/liberal. If someone is economically conservative (minimal governement interference) and socially liberal (letting people decide whatever they want to do as long as they don't infringe the rights of others) they are a libertarian. If someone is both economically conservative and socially conservative (restrictions based on the belief that some things are inherently harmful and wrong) then they are a conservative.

The best way to get at the distinction that you have in mind, I think, comes from a term I saw sometime back that might encompass what people think of as "neocons" and the "Christian Right". These are generally the groups that are distinguished from libertarians and the term I saw used was "pro-government conservative". That is, the political atmosphere in America seems to be that the Republican Party ("conservatives") have moved away from their previous positions on states' rights and government size/scope in favor of issues like international hegemony, increased military spending, and government regulation of morality. That is not to say these blocs have sworn off "small government" but rather that it's taken a backseat in priority to these other things. There, I believe is the distinction you're seeking.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Conservatives have never been strict libertarians.

__________________
My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.

"Sir Galahad," by Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1834)

But being "socially liberal" isn't liberal at all. It's conservative. Conservatism is supposed to be about being free to live your life as you see fit without interference, or at least that's my dumbed down take on it.

How you describe socially conservative is exactly what I'm lamenting. How can a person believe that there should be minimal government interference and then advocate government interference in our private lives. That screams inconsistency.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I wouldn't argue that they had in any parlance. I believe that libertarians are more timelessly described as "Classic Liberals" which doesn't lend itself well to the title "conservative". My point here is that the stalwarts of the GOP's platform have shifted. Isolationism, states' rights, fiscal conservatism, etc don't seem to feature as prominently these days.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Again, the terms are terribly fluid. For instance, classical liberalism meant what we would term economic conservatism, as in minimal government interference. I suppose I was talking about what the terms have come to mean.

Well they both do seem the same in that both of them talk about freedom, liberty, and small government but once you get past the lip service conservatives (or what passes as conservatives these days) tend to be pretty much on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to personal liberty (as opposed to economic), civil liberties, and military intervention which does require huge tax revenues although conservatives talk about how much they dislike taxes. I used to consider myself to be a libertarian but the problem is that no philosophy has all the answers and it lead me to knee jerk dogma that got into the way of seriously considering each issue and the best solutions to problems. I find that when ideological people tend to focus on the positives brought out by the one they choose and put on blinders in regards to everything that doesn't work out so well.

Well actually being socially liberal is that very thing. It's only in modern American that liberal means government intervention. Outside of the modern U.S. liberalism is also very pro market.

European liberals are pro market? That is news to me.

As it is to this European.

Yes they are actually. Have you ever read The Economist? It is the most popular liberal news magazine on the planet and is very pro-market. It is British in origin. You may read things here that call Europeans liberal in our terms so American audiences understand it for what they think of as liberal but in Europe that wouldn't be the case. Look for European sources for European readers that describe liberalism and I think you will be surprised.

Not government interference but societal pressure. i.e. no PC. Conservatives don't advocate government enforcement to quell things they believe to be wrong. That is modern liberalism.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Yes European liberals are pro-market.

Heres the new "principle declaration", released today, of the Dutch liberals, the People's party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). The next post contains the translation.

translation (next post):

__________________
5% of the total surface of the Netherlands is used to grow hemp

Translation:

I don't think it gets much more rightwing in the mainstream than this. And these are liberals for sure.

__________________
5% of the total surface of the Netherlands is used to grow hemp