In my mind, he would be a Liberal. Is there even a debate to be had here?
First century Palestinian Jews lived a life so different, and faced political and social problems so distant from those of contemporary Americans, that it would be meaningless to use the terms “liberal” or “conservative” as modern Americans understand them, to define their views.
You can debate just about anything.
One could, for instanced, argue that Jesus self-admittedly brought a message to shake things up and change the way things were done, which pretty much by definition makes him the opposite of a “conservative” who is maintaining the status quo. (You could say that he said he would not “change a jot or a tittle” of the Law, but you have to consider that in light of his doing things that upset the local religious authorities. What he considered consistent with the old Law wasn’t exactly what they did.) So he was a “Liberal” in seeking to change things.
What this has to do with modern American political sensibilities, and our uses of the labels, though, is another argument.
I think he’d be more of an independent with a leaning towards the liberal side of things.
Neither, He would not be political as He is for His Father’s Kingdom, not earthy kingdoms, (which Paul defines as demonic in Eph 6, along with Jesus being tested in the desert Satan claims all the kingdoms of the earth). You can’t serve 2 masters, you are either for God’s kingdom, or you are not, if you support a political party you are for a earthly kingdom, placing faith in that, and in conflict with God’s kingdom.
His stance would be made on a case by case basis and have no universal views on a political level, He even violates the law that Moses put down, so He is not for hard and fast rules, just lives by love and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Part of His plan is to overcome the earthly systems, ‘I have overcome this world’, (to rise above the petty meaningless energy demanding squabbles).
Which He did ’ All power and authority is given to me’
He would be his own man, some views might be considered liberal and some conservative. Most of all he would be consistent. Many liberals and conservatives tend to go along with what they feel is the “platform”. I seriously doubt he would do that.
I don’t know about how he would vote, but all the tradespeople I know tend to be conservative. The smaller the town they are from the more conservative they are.
Jesus’s message was religious AND political, as “The Kingdom” may have had a double meaning of being Heaven but also what the ideal government would be as opposed to the Roman Empire. (I read it in a Cambridge New testament book.)
He WAS political because he was against the Romans and the old guard Jewish temple rabbis. He was raised in a Jewish political, somewhat rebellious town, which was near a big city.
He said he was fulfilling the Law of Moses, not abolishing it.
Ultimately, he was a clear message of “right” and “wrong” and talked about “sins” and strict opinions about divorce and sexual transgressions.
It doesn’t translate into 2015 American politics. Jesus was rooted in his time and place, just like everyone who ever existed.
If one has a positive attitude towards Jesus, and you think he had to be a liberal or conservative, he will match your political belief system.
Jesus of Nazareth (assuming that we attribute to him the ideas that have been conventionally so attributed) would of course have been an anarchist.
Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you and forgive those who trespass against you = no law enforcement no institutionalized punishment
Share what you have = no money system, no basis of exchange, just pool all your resources
Judge not; turn the other cheeck = no authority over other people
Many times I have read that conservatives consistently give more to charity than liberals.
Based on that I suspect Jesus would praise more the conservatives.
I don’t know about “anarchist” exactly, but the historical Jesus was a counter-establishment anti-authoritarian revolutionary seeking an independent Jewish state. And from the teachings that are imputed to him, one can assume that such a state would have been a socialist one. Jesus was, in short, the Che Guevara of his time. Was Che Guevara a liberal or a conservative? 
They may vote Republican, but there’s an inconsistency there. On one hand, I’m pretty sure there’s an established correlation between conservatism – especially on social issues – and lower levels of formal education. OTOH, tradespeople would tend to be pro-union and anti-corporate, placing them at direct odds with traditional conservative positions.
That’s disputable. It depends on what you define as a charity. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to belong to an organized church and they therefore donate more to the maintenance of their church.
If you don’t count religious charities and go just by social charities, liberals donate more than conservatives.
Are we talking Jesus as he was during his time on Urth, or how it is reported he will be when he returns?
So by extension then your saying Jesus would disapprove of conservatives giving to religious charities, and that ONLY social charities are the ones that count.
I think what he’s saying is that conservatives are more likely to be active members of an organized religion and that charitable giving is a side effect of that rather than an independent choice.
The other factor is that the wealthy tend to be conservative, and the wealthy tend to donate more, not necessarily for altruistic reasons.
The idea that conservatives are somehow by nature more charitable is laughable since their social policies are the exact opposite of that. I still remember the debate with Ron Paul during the last election cycle about what should happen if someone without insurance got seriously ill; some members of his wonderfully charitable conservative audience suggested that the person should die.
Social conservative, economic liberal.
You might be right; Jesus was known to hang out with prostitutes, and it seems I read a news story every week about some conservative trying to do the same (albeit, in a different capacity).
Purely my opinion, but I disagree with “social conservative”. I think a lot of the religious basis for social conservatism is a combination of edicts written into the Bible long after the fact, and contemporary interpretations thereof. Social conservatism seems to me to involve a rather brutal enforcement of ideas that are both meddlesome and hateful, pretty much the diametric opposite of what we presume Jesus was about. It’s hard to imagine Jesus as a homophobe.
That does not seem necessarily to be true.
Cite.
The strongest correlation is between charitable giving and practicing your religion, but the notion that liberals give to operas and conservatives to churches, and the amount is the same, does not seem to be the case.
Regards,
Shodan
The Jesus depicted here seems much more in tune with American conservatives than with liberals.