There they are.
As I am sure you can agree, each of the Big Three schools have at least one remotely positive contribution to make to our nation's political dialogue. While I personally came to the conclusion that conservatism's was its fiscal policy, modern liberalism's its restraint towards social authoritarianism, and libertarianism's its earnest attempt at taking the aforementioned two into account and blending them into something workable, chances are that you reached entirely different findings. As the old saying goes, we can agree to disagree. The important thing is that the up- and downsides of all three are taken into equal consideration and recognized for what they are, along with what they are not.
Whether or not one should choose to describe him or herself as a conservative, modern liberal, or libertarian should not be a defining factor in evaluating how his or her opinions will measure up to creating positive public policy measures. All too frequently, we discard the views of others simply because they claim to be of a different political perspective than we are. Not listening to someone's statements, so long as they are presented in a genial fashion and rooted in fact, is an absolutely horrid thing to do under any circumstances. By hearing ideas contrary to ours, we not only further develop our respective arguments via being forced to find creative ways in which to present and defend them, but avoid falling victim to the ever-alluring trap of developing chronic tunnel vision. It is never good to live in an echo chamber, and this, unfortunately, is a point lost on far many of us, which bears significant relevance to our next topic of discussion.
Well, perhaps I should say current topic of discussion as the articles were published out of chronological order due to a minor snafu on my part.
Oh well. The show must go on.