I don’t remember exactly where, but in one of the episodes of the Josias podcast someone (sorry, can’t recall who) made the point that one of the fundamental values of liberalism today is not to offend — to be nice. So questions about the truth are subordinate to concerns of how this might affect someone.
And recently I’ve noticed that I, who have always thought of myself as having a conservative disposition — even when it wasn’t cool to admit it — have been repelled by the modern right as it exists today.
Then it occurred to me, it might be because the perennial dialectic that forms both right and left necessitates that, today, the right takes the form of something that is contrary to the good, the beautiful and the truth, precisely because it must oppose the nice. So it must give offence: it must, therefore, be that which is not perceived as good by the intellect (so it is anti-beauty).
Of course, there are many ways to be wrong and only one to be right, so its no wonder that the opposition to an error (the subordination of the transcendentals to sentimentalism) is itself an error — an uglier error.
I suppose there are other factors as well, for example, if the mainstream tends to be liberal than people with more talent would tend to be more liberal — just to be part of the mainstream. Ergo, the right becomes, generally, a composite of the left out. (This is a simplistic approximation; individuals are a bit more complex).
But anyway, I suppose the point is that there is more to the side outside the spectrum than cowardice to choose a side. In fact, some outside of it have one thing that impedes them to be on one side: principles.