What Do Liberals Think Of These Two Graphs

Would liberals support the idea of thought policing if the technology was available?

Liberals tend to value individual rights. Actually, in their own way, Conservatives are also very protective of their individual rights.I don't think Liberals or Conservatives would embrace thought policing.I do think that the Stasi attempted this and that North Korea is having a go at it as well. Look how that's worked out historically.

Does democrat mean the same thing as liberal?

No. Democrat, liberal, and progressive are three different things.A Democrat is a member of or habitual voter for the “Democratic Party".A libral is a person who believes in tbe political philosophy “liberalism", which teaches that tbe government should let the common people control their own lives. The opposite of liberalism is authoritarianism. The extreme of liberalism is anarchy, where there would effectively be no government. The extreme of authoritarianism is totalitarianism, where the government makes all tnr decisions. The Nazis and Leninists/Bolsheviks/Maoists/Stalinists were authoritarians; ironically Marx was a social libertarian. Liberalism has been called “the most successful political philosophy of all time”, simply because a nation can get a lot more done when it isn't wasting time and resources policing its people's morality.Progressives believe in “Progressivism”, which is an economic philosophy that pushed for making things better for everyone (or as many people as possible) by increasing number of hands a nation's wealth is in. Marx and Ingels were progressives. The opposite of progressivism is conservatism.Political philosophy and economic philosophy are the two axis of the political graph/compass. I'll attach a picture.Typically people who vote democratic to some degree liberal progressives, in the bottom left of the graph. Democratic politicans, on the other hand, tend more toward the authoritarian right along with tbe ready of America's parasitic ruling class. Some notable exceptions to this are Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Ilhan Omar, who are all in the libertarian left like most of the American people.

Do you think the Democratic party is too weak?

They aren’t weak, they are disorganized and that’s deliberate.Unlike the GOP there is no overarching doctrine to the Democrat’s politics. They are a reactive governing body which is to say they treat each new issue as a separate issues and handle it as such.The result of this is that they have a better sucess rate when doing “big things” because they have less dogma mucking it up. It’s hard to win elections when things are running smoothly though because they don’t have the fear machine running at max 24/7/365.At the moment it is the Republican Party that looks weak. The President is starting trade wars (anti-Republican Policy) and locking kids in internment camps and in some cases, dog kennels. The Republican Party can barely manage to squeak about this.The Democrats run their operations regionally and seldom if ever Force a candidate from Colorado to sync up with a New Englander. This is the opposite of the GOP where a Californian and a Georgian are supposed to tow the party line, even when it’s bad policy at home.The Democrats do have bad leaders currently. The ability to fundraise is now the defining trait of Congressional Leadership and that’s why Congress, as a whole, sucks. This isn’t just Pelosi, Ryan is godawful as a Speaker.The Republicans have been led by a shadow cabinet under Rush Limbaugh for years. Now under Trump, Limbaugh is all but irrelevant. The Democrats have never had a Limbaugh so when their current President retires, there is always a power vacuum.It’s different approaches.The DNC is bad at politics but competent at governance, under the right boss, the Republicans are great at politics but bad at governance and the boss doesn’t seem to really matter.

Are liberalism and conservatism mutually exclusive?

All of the answers so far seem to be trying to make a case for their own chosen ideology by selecting whichever specific definition or use of the terms liberal and conservative best fit their narrative. None are necessarily fundamentally wrong, but I think they are all dancing around the intent of this question. However, some definitions are still required:I'm assuming we're talking about American Conservatism and American Liberalism, as they exist today. I was raised “Conservative” and it was through the values I was taught that has led me to embrace Liberalism today, albeit in limited respects. So I think that no - they don't need to be mutually exclusive, but it still depends on which characteristics you embrace as the fundamental core of these two philosophies.If you accept that Conservatism seeks to maximize liberty by minimizing the interference/control of government authorities, and Liberalism seeks to maximize liberty by protecting the citizenry from organizational structures that would undermine such freedoms, then you have no conflict. The challenge is when you start defining those organizational structures:Conservatives today have largely embraced their own chosen religious institutions as a “ranking authority”, so when liberals try to protect the citizenry from these institutions you have a conflict.Liberals and Conservatives do not agree today on the nature of corporate entities. Conservatives believe that they are entitled to the same minimal interference/control as citizens, while Liberals see them as an organizational threat to the liberty they seek to maximize for citizens. This creates conflict.A growing portion of Conservatives in the United States also disagree with the nature of liberty itself. There is a degree of oppression/discrimination that they believe people should be free to exercise, while Liberals constantly seek to eliminate such things. This creates conflict.Ultimately, the desire to characterize/define neo-liberalism, classical Liberalism, and the various forms of conservatism seem to be a type of appeal to authority: everyone is trying to validate their ideology by identifying IT as the 'natural heir' of the original term. I believe that is an exercise in futility, since it does absolutely nothing to address these conflicts. They do exist, and unless we can actually talk about them and find an agreement that can act as a foundation moving forward, we will remain a divided nation until we fall.

If someone is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, what are they? Are they Libertarian?

Indeed, they are libertarian.Sadly, in the United States this word has been misappropriated by ultra-conservatives such as the Tea Party, who embrace fiscal conservatism but none of the social liberalism. Consequently the word is somewhat tainted in the US, but elsewhere it retains its original meaning. Libertarians agree with conservatives that most of government is a massive waste of money. However, if you oppose gay marriage, think the war on drugs is a pretty neat idea, approve of drone strikes in places you can't point to on a map and believe that government has a mandate to spy on ordinary citizens, you are not a libertarian. The Nolan chart helps us out here:The key is that libertarians don't just think government is a waste of money, they go beyond this and think much of what government does is actively detrimental to all of us, even the poorest in society.