I ask myself, why if I actually am closer in sentiment to the "liberal" side of things (see the chart attached), I end up fighting mostly with the "liberals" and ignoring the "conservatives".
One of the reasons, I think, is that the "liberals" are more reflective, more capable of making what they see as "new" arguments. The "conservatives" are generally not as intellectual, and those that are, are very good, very insightful. Disagreements with sophisticated conservatives usually come down to some fundamental, bedrock, issues, that hinge on burden of proof and empirical judgements - for example, the extent of military preparedness necessary and the risks one is willing to take by increasing military expenditure and involvement. Another is the role of government and just how much you can depend on "having the right people in charge". When you disagree on this, you disagree, end of story. I mostly do.
For the "liberals' their approach is more ad hoc, less principled. The "moderate liberals" also appear frustratingly blind to the dangers posed by the "Progressive liberals" who are in important respects indistinguishable from the right wing "fascists" that the "liberals" consider to be their mortal enemies. - except that they now have more influence with those in power and thus are a lot more dangerous. Much of my frustration and inclination to fight with "liberals" comes from this.
I wish they would wake up!