Well, apart from being a linguistic tool, labels are necessary as functional and utilitarian entity in achieving goals, at least politically, I think. Philosophically, one could argue for the non-dual nature of human consciousness and any attempt to divide it as simply futile act of projecting one?s ego and limitations. But politicians and average human beings by nature hardly have easy time processing, digesting and carrying out such high philosophy in every-day life. It becomes very difficult to live up to the high-flight of universalism when your sole individuality puts a claim on itself over everything else. As a result, on a continuous sub-stratum of human consciousness we draw boundaries and limitations and diverge and disconnect from each other because we want to know ourselves, define ourselves in individual terms that gives our individuality/ego comfort. To incorporate the 'whole', by definition means to get rid of the part, the part that is you, or the limited idea that is of you. Consequently, most of us, at least the non-Arhants or non-Bodhisattvas shy-away from ideas where our identity is not tangible to ourselves, something we cannot measure or point out so easily. Thus, in politics it becomes essential for members to create a 'package' and present it to the public so that they can 'know' who or what they (person/parties) are. Liberalism usually have open-ended agendas, meaning things are not always clearly defined which become vague after some point Most of it assumes a conceptual understanding that requires us to step outside of our everyday selves which frankly is not everyone?s cup of tea. Conservatism on the other hand campaigns on what is already visible and experienced and does not always require us to give up our comfortable individual ground hence more popular among the traditionalists.