The contraction between 'liberals are bad' and 'theocracy is good' sounds like a classic case of having one's cake and eating it too. This is not an unusual human condition. Normally people pull this off by compromise with others. They get the cake, but just get to eat part of it AND have to watch other people eat their own cake. I believe there are two elements that both push dominionists to a lack of compromise and publicly present their language in contradicting terms.
The ardent dominionist does not embrace compromise easily. The need to not compromise stems from their embrace of power. Consider the golden rule - those who have the gold will make the rules. There is a twist there. Their foundational power is not the same as other peoples'. The dominionist will always have the 'gold' of God's word on their side. What could be better than having the creator of the universe in your corner and nobody else's'? This is instant cache to not having to compromise. The need for compromise becomes even a more mum issue when the ‘gold’ of political power is included. I believe this is how the strident dominionists believe themselves to be positioned.
The other element to the viewing of dominionist language as being contradictory is mistaking the dominionist 'private' language with their 'public' language. Groups will say very strident things when they talk amongst themselves. A different face is shown to the public who would be justifiably spooked by the internal dialog. Contradictions arise when the private and public statements are put side-by-side. The internal ‘pep talk’ will differ from the outward persona of the group. The dominionist’ private and public messages have blurred, resulting in a contradictory conversation.
Is it right to judge the dominionist dialog when their plight is a part of the larger human condition? Discernment is called for. Those who hold themselves above others in power, spiritual or political, are neither inherently liberal or conservative. They are instead dangerous to those not like them. This is the foundation of the dominionist definition. The fact that their private and public dialog are compared has value. There are contradictions there that go beyond pep talk and ‘wouldn’t it be nice if’ conversation. The internal dialog instead shows an agenda congruent with need to exert power over others. The difference between private and public language is a warning sign to those outside groups who would be affected by the power driven agendas.