It seems that you (erroneously in my view) equate conservatism with Fact and liberalism with Falsehood, rather than (correctly) seeing them both as having a spectrum of readings and layers, facts and falsehoods.
One thing you might want to know about One Cosmos is that they use the terms "the left" and "classical liberals" instead of "liberal" and "conservative." Leftism comprises anything that has its roots in Marxism and/or postmodernism. Classical liberalism has its roots in Christianity and the Enlightenment.
These two categories don't necessarily correspond to democrat and republican or conservative and liberal, as understood in the Sept. 10th world.
The reason that Leftism is so roundly rejected on One Cosmos is that it is based on wholly incorrect assumptions about human nature and the universe. If your initial assumptions are incorrect, you will not arrive at the correct conclusions. Not on purpose, anyway.
Those assumptions include the following:
- Human behavior is almost entirely determined by environment such as socio-economic status or cultural norms.
- Corrolary: human nature can be corrected by the imposition of the proper institutions, namely a socialistic government. The configuration of this government will be determined by the extremely smart people who currently languish in academia because the masses aren't smart enough to put them in charge.
- There is no such thing as absolute or objective Truth. Perception and the manipulation thereof is all there is.
- Corrolary: there is no right and wrong, only power, and those too weak to seek it. Oops. That's Voldemort, the fascist!
- Power structures are the only things that matter in human relationships. You can divide all people and nations into oppressors and oppressed.
- Strong people and strong nations are by definition oppressors; weak people and nations are by definition oppressed.
- Oppressors are evil, so whatever the oppressed do to oppose them, or whatever you do on the behalf of the oppressed, is right.
- The United States, as a uniquely powerful nation, is by definition uniquely evil.
- There is no God. Religion is ossified superstition.
- All cognition is mediated by language; ergo, only those trained in language use (literary theorists and linguists) can tell you what reality really is.
- Did I forget to mention that there is no such thing as objective Truth? Except for what the Left asserts, that is.
It goes on.
On the other hand classical liberalism is rooted in the following assumptions:
- Human nature is imperfect and flawed and we are powerless to change that fact.
- Individuals may persue a path of improvement, but it has to be chosen from within (often through inspiration from without) but cannot be imposed from the outside.
- There is definitely such a thing as objective or absolute Truth. It might be hard to determine (we see through a glass darkly), but it exists independently of our perception of it.
- Determining/learning/perceiving the Truth is man's highest calling.
- Power structures exist, but power can be used for good or ill. So can weakness, for that matter.
- Strong people and strong nations may or may not be oppressors, and weak people and weak nations are not, by virtue of their weakness, virtuous. Sometimes the underdog is a total jerk.
- Compared to the history of nations and human societies, the United States is uniquely good and has spawned goodness in other nations. (Comparing the US to a standard of perfection, as the Left does, is totally unreasonable.)
- There is a God, or at least transcendant truth. Some religion is good, and some of what passes for religion is trash.
- There are many ways of knowing, and it's a good idea to cultivate all of those ways so that you can better arrive at the Truth.
As you can see, these assumptions about reality are mutually exclusive. Either one is true and the other false or they're both false, but not both true. (Only a leftist can look out the window and say that it's day and night at the same time and not see why that's a problem.)
Deciding to take the best from two sides of an argument is a good thing only when both sides represent merely differing interpretations of the same data. But being inclusive and integrationist isn't virtuous in and of itself. You have to be integrating two good things, such as yin and yang or sweet and salt or progress and tradition.
But if you integrate truth with falsehood, all you get are more lies and no truth. Truth cannot be adulterated and still be truth.
Let's look at the two things you proposed that we ought to adopt from "liberalism":
If by this you mean that we shouldn't foul our own nest, then it's a no-brainer. Of course we shouldn't despoil and destroy the whole planet. Duh.
However, the Left often champions environmentalism as (a) a substitute for religion, wherein Gaia unblemished is the ultimate goal and we filthy humans are vermin who violate her (b) a bludgeon to take down Big Business, which is an unmitigated evil, no matter how it behaves (c) a way to get Big Government Grants by predicting the end of the world and claiming that their research will save us all.
That turns off the rest of us, so we hesistate to champion causes that could be used in ways that we don't approve of.
It is true that our current healthcare system is a mess, but maybe you're too young to remember the days when it wasn't. Socialized healthcare is a tempting solution, because it simplifies things (at least conceptually). But we have living examples of socialized healthcare in Canada and Europe, and it's not pretty. The systems ration care and are going bankrupt.
Besides, Bob hasn't been trashing the idea that we ought to care for the earth, nor has he suggested that our current healthcare system is the cat's pajamas. One Cosmos discusses philosophy, not policy, which might intersect at times but are not the same animal.
Look, I'm always up for discovering anything that the Left does right or does better than classical liberals, but so far I haven't found anything. (I do know some individuals on the Left who possess various virtues, but I can't say that those virtues derive from their Leftism or vice-versa.)
For me, it boils down to this: You cannot learn the Truth from people who deny that the Truth exists.
And one other thing, don't get your back up because the Cosmonauts came out swinging. I've been subjected to the same treatment when I chastised them for something I thought they got wrong, but I didn't take it personally. They're sensitized to lefty trolls, who, believe it or not, can often come across at first as very reasonable people.
Don't attack the tone, address the arguments; otherwise, you're exhibiting stereotypical lefty behavior -- emoting rather than reasoning. Besides, one man's vitriol is another man's impassioned defense of an idea. Roll with it, baby.