Many people (the vast majority IMO) are intellectual misers when it comes to political issues. They simply pledge allegiance to an ideological tribe, and then blindly adopt its package of issues and stances :
Susan identifies with the progressive tribe, so she must be in favor of A, B , C, and D, and against E, F, G, and H;
Peter identifies with the conservative tribe and must be against A, B , C, and D, and in favor of E, F, G, and H, ... and so on.
Whether these stances and issues are mutually consistent or not, whether there is some logic in it or not, whether there is some scientific evidence pro or anti B or F - it doesn't matter. Being pro-B or anti-F only means showing affiliation to one's tribe.
Just one example: if you want to belong to the progressive tribe, you have to be in favor of (and to show it to your comrades!) environmental protection AND of open borders / liberal immigration laws. Is there any logical connection between these two?
Sure, any devout progressive would be able to come up with some ad-hoc connection, just as any not-too-stupid conservative will be able to invent some connection between anti-abortion and pro liberal gun laws...
Human reason, as David Hume remarked, is the slave of passions. In the political realm, it is the slave of tribal allegiances.
There are exceptions. I am very much a member of the progressive left, but I have little patience or support for most PC stuff, simply because I don't also support censorship and I see how PC is used not only as a weapon by people who easily take offense to any criticism or disagreement with them, but is also used as a way to distract or substitute for fighting for or supporting economic equality or reform. I hate how the Dem Party is always substituting PC and identity politics for actually fighting any class warfare for the masses, and most voters are too stupid to see thru that, continuing to vote blue no matter how much the Dems sell them out on economic issues.
Labels reflect the norm, not the outliers.
There is a liberal norm and there is a conservative norm.
Calling someone liberal should not be seen as that person following ALL liberal ideals, just a majority, just the norm.
That there are outliers to this norm is not evidence that the norm is wrong.
If I hold 20 liberal ideals and 5 conservative ones, it is fair to label me as "liberal".
I, for example, align with the liberal/left norm.
However, I hold several conservative/right ideals as outliers to that norm.
Those outliers do not deny my liberal bent to the extent that I would call myself a conservative or claim that I'm not a liberal.
Labels should be seen as the start of the conversation and presenting the norm.
They should not be the end of the conversation nor deny outlier opinions.