Haha.  That is well written and exactly what I tried to capture in my latest article about the differences in the kind of people in Public Administration and me, (not as well, and not as briefly either) even tho I am heading toward that field.

In the olden days, before the rise of communism led the brilliant German chancellor Otto von Bismarck to institute the first variants of modern social security, taxation policy was heavily tilted towards the entrepeneur and the job-makers. Does anyone really long for the 'freedom' of life pre-social security?

I think our civilisations are stronger for the balance we see today. Sure, sometimes the socialists take a little too much from the entrepeneurs, and sometimes the capitalists take a little too much from regular folk. But by encouraging both equally - as I think most 1st world countries do - we have a balance which offers considerable good for everybody. Not perfection, but not misery either. You really have to try quite hard to suffer a great deal in a first world country, and that is something I think we can be thankful for even if we do have to suffer the presence of ideological enemies for it to happen.

Republicans sadly have disappointed me totally, so I remain a conservative, but never a republican.

But you are wrong in your final summation.  The former has no way of helping anyone.  They can only help when there are others to rob from to help their groups.  But once you kill that golden goose, there is no one left to rob from, so they wind up helping no one.

Otto Von Bismark (or actually his descendants) found out another truism.  Printing money does nothing to help anyone.

Dr Guy -

In that you are correct.  You may know from other posts of mine of my disappointment with the Republicans for not walking the talk as I had hoped.  I think their current state has more to do with disappointing conservatives than the 'rise' of competing ideas.  Repugnants just happen to be 'closer' to conservative than the Dems.

You are correct.  Should have added the qualifier, ", if it helps one at all."

Nice article/summation! It certainly raises the issue of "everyone is equal, some are just more equal than others". For myself I'd probably be classed as a republican with democratic tendancies, since although I disagree with policies from both sides (and have been disappointed with various republican policies) I find I agree with much more of what is said by the republicans than the democrats. wrt people who should be helped for example I generally think the government should exist to ensure people can survive, and make every effort to put them into work where they can fend for themselves. Hence I am 'liberal' in supporting benefits for those who are unemployed, homeless, etc., but am 'conservative' for also being in favour of conditions for those benefits/having them targetted in certain ways (e.g. you can only get unemployment benefit for a short period of time, and then if you have failed to find a job you will be offered one; if you are capable of doing that job and refuse, your benefit is removed). With some policies it is hard to know whether they're conservative or liberal though - for example I'd support benefits for children and marriage. The reason for marriage is that it's shown to be the most stable environment for children, and hence should be encouraged not discouraged (and provides benefits in the long term, since if children grow up in a stable environment they are less likely to resort to crime, and more likely to get a job). The reason for child benefit is that those children will then grow up, gain skills via education, get a job, and pay back a ton of money via taxes to more than cover the costs of that child benefit, as well as also being to ensure that the parents have sufficient income to support those children at a sustainable level (e.g. cover costs of food, clothing etc.). Does that make me a liberal or conservative (/democrat or republican)? I'm guessing conservative, because although part of that is helping the needy (parents with a streatched income that can't cover the costs of raising children), it's also helping people who might not be needy, and means the state is conciously saying 'you should be married single parents' which is quite illiberal.

One other substantive difference, one I've taken for granted for so long, it seldom surfaces to conscious awareness, but did this morning for some reason:

When Republicans lose an election, they respond by saying "The people have spoken."

When Democrats lose an election, they respond by saying "The people are stupid."

No - They respond "It was stolen"

See, at least we accept loss, versus hating it.