After pondering the problem of partisan prevarication, I pursued some potential paradoxes in my own personality. Perhaps you will peruse my prose?
OK, enough alliteration.
The terms conservative, liberal, and radical all apply to me in various aspects of my life, and the layers of meaning in each word may warrant some exploration.
Conservative
Outside of politics, the term conservative refers to moderation and traditionalism. I prefer to dress conservatively in simple clothing with minimal patterns and few bright colors. I value literature and music that has withstood the test of time. I like to lead a quiet life. In these respects, I find myself blending with many who consider themselves staunch Republicans who see me as one of their own on a surface level.
Liberal
Once upon a time, liberal meant independence, broad-mindedness, and opposition to authoritarianism. a liberal education was one which prepared the individual to assume mastery over himself and build a foundation for intellectual growth. The classical liberals of the 19th century pioneered a spirit of independence and voluntary association as a solution to societal problems. I support the idea of individual liberty, including when people choose actions and relationships I may not prefer myself. Shocking, I'm sure. If there is no victim, though, there is no crime. And if there is no crime, laws are criminal. If there is a more liberal position, I'd like to see it.
Radical
Here is the truly paradoxical word. The Latin root (heh) of radical refers to literal roots. As such, it would initially appear to be linguistically synonymous with fundamentalism. In some fields, there is such a relation. However, when it comes to politics and society, it means something far outside the mainstream. Perhaps it means those who target the root of the status quo.
My views on the nature of the State and its relation to society are certainly far outside the mainstream. My economic views diverge from the usual schools of thought.
Conclusion
Labels are messy things. They are often applied in an effort to compartmentalize something or someone that is much more complex. The result is a stagnation in discourse.
Be wary of the urge to dismiss something with a simple label. Be conservative in your condemnation, liberal in your open-mindedness, and radical enough to go against the crowd. At the very least, be willing to entertain an unusual idea from time to time, even if you don't embrace it.
You could write a book on this subject. I say this from experience, as I kept writing longer and longer opinion pieces in response to people who indulge in label-flinging habitually, before I decided that enough was enough, and it's time to stop. Truth be told, I think people spend way too much time in echo chambers, reading only books that they agree with, in order to re-affirm their beliefs. Pity the close-minded, for they are afraid of having to think. Labels are simply the lazy means by which they distinguish those in their own echo chamber from those outside (which is why I like making fun of the labels themselves). The label of the foreign is their cue to stick their fingers in their ears or engage in some other form of intellectual cowardice.
The saddest part is, most libertarian-leaning folks I know can better articulate the principles their opponents espouse than those opponents can themselves, because we have explored many of those dead ends on our way to where we are now. We can point out how they mischaracterize one another in their arguments. We can articulate why we disagree with their premises, reasoning, and conclusions. But we are deemed too naïve no matter what, because they have deemed themselves enlightened. Meanwhile, libertarians and anarchists argue amongst one another quite viciously as we strive to tease out the details of our own philosophies as we explore.
As a former communist who constantly argues with communists, I can attest to that. I know both sides of that argument better than most ancoms know their own alone. Likewise, I find it fun to play devil's advocate with statists whenever they think they have a practical idea for a perfect society, because no matter how much they say that they value liberty, any "perfect" system of government very quickly devolves into totalitarianism when you start throwing hypothetical problems at it.