Right Wing News has an interview with a formerly, like myself, life-long liberal about the difference. From the interview with Evan Sayet:
The basic difference is a recognition that good and evil, right and wrong, better and worse do exist and that's what the conservative believes -- and it becomes his job to do his best to seek out the good of fighting evil, to promote the better end and squelch the worse.
The opposite point of view is that nothing can be recognized as better or worse than anything, not because it doesn't necessarily exist, but because as human beings we don't have the objectivity to know if our belief that something is good is really because it's good or if it's a reflection of our bigotries.
So to eliminate the possibility that our beliefs are bigotries, to eliminate the evil of bigotry, the liberal eliminates all critical rational judgement.
And the is really it in a nutshell. It explains post-modern deconstructionism's insanity and why they believe themselves to be so highly evolved and intelligent. There is no arbiter of value but themselves and they cannot trust to or have faith in anything. They are left in their narcissistic hell, alone, and free to justify any behavior regardless of its result. I don't exagerate when I say its hell- it was for me, but like a true liberal I operated through cognitive dissonance and told myself it was the opposite. Any pain I suffered was from the stupid world not being smart enough to see the light. Any pain I felt was from oppressive haters- it couldnt possibly come from ME. He makes exactly this point:
indiscriminateness of thought doesn't lead to indiscriminateness of policy.
Indiscriminateness of thought leads to a society with evil, failure, and wrong because if nothing is better than anything else, then that which failed must have been victimized. If it's just as good as everything else, then if it fails or if it's just as good as everything else and it commits an evil act, that evil act must have been de facto, provoked.