For example, I think a common “conservative” lens used by liberals has a cowboy aspect, so while everyone but sociopaths desire peace but recognize the need for defense, I see a propensity among “conservatives” for a Jerico-like expectation that problems must be solved with force. In that respect, the “liberal” propensity towards force-as-a-last-resort is more consistent with the Star Trek (post-TOS) “message”.

The same applies to the Prime Directive when viewed through the “liberal” lens which puts higher value on the diversity of perspectives and rejects cultural superiority. Compare this to the “conservative” absolute certainty of Jerico’s cowboyism.

I also think you underestimate the significance of “progress” regarding Star Trek’s societal expectation of and support for self-exploration. Remember: the opposite of “conservative” isn’t actually “liberal”; it’s “progressive”; just ask George Will.

The last two points may suffer from a reversal in which instances we use our “liberal” and “conservative” lenses to look inward or outward (the basic conflict between positive and negative liberty). I think this is especially clear in the second example, where you see the Prime Directive as an inward restraint on government and where I see it as an outward respect for diversity of belief. Both can be simultaneously true, but I bet each of us view one or the other as *more* true.

However, where you completely go off the rails is, “To contrast this with the modern liberal, whose principles (if, indeed, he has any) can now be openly bought and sold on the Senate floor, is to find that there is truly no comparison at all”, as if this is anywhere near a fair generalization. There are plenty of scumbags on both sides of the aisle. I’m confident that if you wanted to start listing slimy liberals, I could match you one for one with corrupt, lying, philandering, despicable conservatives.