If I could offer an opinion a bit counter to previous statements, it's less about understanding a "liberal" mindset than recognizing a combination of the personal differences in experience and trust in different authority figures.
First, an aside about the labels. When we start applying these generalist terms--which we generally need in order to have conversations at a high-level about an issue--we over-simplify the individuals involved to take a gross amalgamation of easily observed or reputed traits. When you look at the individual level, you'll typically find that individuals will be "liberal" on one political topic, "conservative" on another, and "none of the above" on many topics. The stereotypes are, with relatively few exceptions, not descriptive of individuals; rather, the stereotypes are constructs of political opponents who want a staw-man to easily attack and make a common enemy to rally against. I won't argue whether it's ethical or not. We all have witnessed that it is an effective means of communication.
With that said, what I think you're after in understanding the "liberal view" is an understanding of, generally speaking, why an individual would choose a view-point on a topic that favors a governmental authority over an individual privilege. As mentioned above, I think this disposition is primarily affected by two factors: (1) personal experience, and (2) who they look to as trusted authority figures. And the same model applies for the "conservative view."
Regarding (1), if he or she had a significant emotional experience in an area related to the political topic, then it pre-disposes him or her to a reaction one way or the other.
For (2), an authority figure on the topic can come from his or her personal life (i.e. a significant other or pastor), childhood (i.e. parents or neighbors), public life (i.e. employer or politician), etc. Since none of us can research all issues in their entirety, we rely on an accumulation of knowledge presented by others to assist us in our decision making. It is not an issue of one side ("liberal" or "conservative") being more logical than the other, rather it is more often a miss on what the premises of the argument are or the assumed truth value of a common premise.
So to understand the "liberal view," I'd suggest focusing on those two issues of experience and trusted authority figures, whether you research through literature, personal conversation, or other means.
What I really hope a reader takes from this is: do not vilify one stereotyped group or another, but rather recognize similarities from which you may grow in knowledge. Starting with the differences sets you up for a fight--it's the old "me vs. you" or "us vs. them" approach that is well on it's way to disagreement rather than understanding.
Meh /soapbox
