Social liberals and the importance of process

In his New York Times column on Saturday, David Brooks tries valiantly to appear evenhanded in criticizing both liberals and conservatives in his analysis of the Terri Schiavo case. But he does a disservice to the liberals (surprise!) when he claims that there's no substance to their focus on process. Conservatives, he claims, appeal to a certain moral truth -- life good, death bad -- while liberals merely ask that the process for deciding such matters be fair.

What he misses entirely is the underlying premise for the focus on process: if the process is fair, then individuals will reach the right decision for them, and liberals deeply respect the ability of the autonomous individual to make his or her own decisions about what is right and good. This is nothing particularly new -- it is in fact the same premise that underlies the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, this assumption that, left to their own devices, people do a pretty good job of conceptualizing and following their own ideas of the good life. Government's role is to ensure that they are in fact left to their own devices.

Conservatives love this idea generally. They're against federal intervention in the states, against government intervention in individual's lives, and most importantly, against government interference in families. Where they get caught up is when individuals use this autonomy, this freedom from state interference, in ways that are not in concert with the social conservatives' view of what's morally right. Then they can't help themselves. Autonomy is no longer the prime value, losing out to the importance of doing things our way.

In short, liberals respect the right of individuals to figure out their own lives. Conservatives do not.

Why the Democrats can't seem to focus on and take advantage of this key contradiction in conservative/Republican politics baffles me.