Jesus himself probably wouldn't have understood your question. In the Gospels, Jesus is a radical reformer of the Judaism of his day, but sees himself as being less a reformer than one who calls Israel back to what you might call the "spirit" of Judaism. Little is said about his relationship to the state. He apparently believed in paying the taxes Rome demanded. He was opposed to violent revolution. He also supported the poor and others who were on the outside of both state and religion. Those things allow people to identify him as either conservative or liberal. "Conservative" in that he is largely obedient to the state and its demands; "liberal" in that he believes in compassion for those who are - to use a modern phrase - marginalized. In theory, many modern "conservative" Christians put those together by arguing, for example, that the state isn't responsible for the poor, but that we as individuals have a moral responsible to help the poor through charity, while many modern "liberal Christians" advocate for government involvement in helping the poor. Each claim Jesus as their inspiration and example. Again, Jesus wouldn't have understood the debate. The Roman Empire didn't have ideology as we have ideology. It had those who ruled and those who were ruled by them. (One can say that not much has changed - but I"m talking theory here, not practice.) The idea that the state would be responsible for running welfare programs, etc. wouldn't have even occurred to him. So it's a bit of a fool's game to argue that Jesus would or wouldn't have supported the welfare state. It just wasn't an idea that had even been conceived. And as far as the state taking military action is concerned - again, we have no real way of determining whether or in what circumstances Jesus would have approved. Jesus asked for respect for Roman soldiers. "If a soldier asks you to walk one mile with him, walk two." My guess (and it's only that) is that Jesus would have approved of the basic principle of chaplaincy - the idea that soldiers were as worthy of being shown the love of God and cared for in times of crisis as anyone else. I do believe that Jesus would have believed that one should serve God before either Empire or religion. Using modern terms, I think he would have rejected either patriotism or fundamentalism - since one can easily put Empire before God and the other puts religion before God.
After all that, in terms of ideology, my basic answer to graeme's question is that it's a pointless one. Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative as we understand the terms, because the terms didn't exist and wouldn't have been conceived of in the Roman Empire. It's trying to take the Jesus of the 1st century and fit him into the ideology of the 21st century. It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It can't be answered. We have to discern what action Jesus is calling us to and then we have to act. In some way, following the example of Jesus, our actions should be motivated by love and by a desire for justice and compassion. I'm not entirely sure that can be easily placed in a particular spot on the modern ideological spectrum, since I know people on both the "conservative" and "liberal" ends of that spectrum who would fit into that description.
Briefly, moving on to Paul - who is the one who basically put all this into a somewhat more practical framework - he seems to have argued for loyalty to and respect for the state and its leaders, but always in the context that loyalty to God was foremost. "Our citizenship is in heaven." He saw the state as having a purpose (basically, law and order) but I think loyalty to God would have led him to believe that our loyalty to and respect for the state should not get in the way of our personal responsibility to offer love, and to seek justice and compassion. Like Jesus, I don't know that he would have interpreted love, justice (as faith would define the term) or compassion as the responsibility of the state. Paul certainly exercised his rights of citizenship as a Roman.
The relationship of the Christian to the state is a difficult one. I would fall on the side of saying that while neither Jesus nor Paul saw the state as the primary actor in seeking peace, justice or compassion (that was the responsibility of individuals motivated by God) it's equally true that neither lived in a society where people had the right to speak out, to vote, etc. So how they would have put that into practice in the context of a modern, "democratic" state is uncertain. Would they have advocated for us to try to influence the state and make the state the provider of peace, justice and compassion, or would they have said "the state's the state, and our faith is our faith," and seen the two as separate? Hard to say. I think they would have expected people of faith to be active in promoting God's reign on earth through the democratic process - but that's a guess. I just don't think you can take 1st century figures, transplant them into the 21st century and say with certainty - "here's what their political or ideological allegiance would have been."
And in terms of the US election my guess is that Jesus would not have been all that impressed with the current political process anyway, regardless of what candidate or ideology we're talking about - motivated as it seems to be most often by the desire for power for its own sake and/or its trappings rather than any desire to truly reform society in a way he saw as consistent with God's will.
but then again, expecting guests to have perfect manners is over the top - there has to be flexibility. I was brought up as Miss Manners in one house, and pizza in front of the TV, grab your own, take the last piece don't ask, who cares about manners, in another... The second one was more fun but the first was so instilled in me it felt super rude.
