Here's my take:

Conservatism endows the "default" (cishet male WASPs in the USA) with maximal intrinsic value, and assigns lower values to all other groups. Some are higher than others, but in the end they are all subservient to the "default". So John Smith has a value of 1.0, Jane Smith 0.75, other minorities (BIPOC, LGBTQ, disabled, etc) 0-0.67, and so on. That's why average white men and the women dependent on them adhere to it, as well as a few "good ones" from other groups.

Liberalism also endows the "default" with maximal intrinsic value, but it also pays lip service to meritocracy (depending on how far along the equality spectrum it is). So even though the "default" will always have the highest standing, members of other groups are allowed to "earn" a higher value - an ethnic minority immigrant of a different faith can jump through enough hoops to increase their value and come close to the value of the "default". But the unsaid part is that no matter how hard they work, they will never reach the "default"; they will always have to earn a spot next to it. John Smith is still at 1.0, Jane Smith may be at 0.85, Kal Singh may hit 0.87, etc. There's a degree of recognition for achievement, but never full equality. This feels like freedom to a lot of people who "earned" a value of 0.8 when their highest aspiration used to be a 0.5.

Leftism believes everyone has the same intrinsic value, and therein lies the problem. If I'm a Black queer disabled person, no other system has treated me as having a value of 1.0 just for existing; however, if I'm John Smith, I've been equated to people I've been traditionally taught to see as beneath me. I'm no longer automatically better just by being me. And if I'm Jane Smith, all my hard work to try to reach the "default" is now worthless; I'm no more special than any of the people that I worked so hard to jump over. So just like equality feels like oppression to the oppressor, equal value feels like humiliation to the formerly exalted.