Thank you for the detailed reply. Yet, I find it a bit disheartening. Not because we disagree, but because we disagree in such predictable ways. Much of what you wrote is familiar to me as the conservative approach I find in US literature, news, editorials, etc. And, if I were to state my opinions on these topics, you'd probably find they align pretty well with the liberal approach that you are familiar with.

For instance, let's look at our opinion on the capital gains tax. Personally, I think that in time, a low capital gains tax results in aggregation of capital to those who can afford to invest it. That is, once salary isn't your main source of income, you graduate into a special low income tax bracket. IMO, this rewards wealth more than it does work or investment. If you couple that with no estate tax, you get wealthy children that are born into a low tax bracket, and they and their grandchildren will remain so with only modest effort.

But, to be honest. I'm not really interested that much in that argument. Because, truth be said, in some ways we are both wrong. That is, there are probably two scenarios in which a healthy society could thrive: one where the capital gains rate was reasonable in my mind, and one where there was no capital gains (the scenario that you feel is reasonable). HOWEVER, both those scenarios probably require implementation of other parts of our ideologies to be viable overall. Or, in short: A liberal law in a conservative system is perverted, and a conservative law in a liberal system is perverted.

This is where I find the US. We are in an ideological struggle that neither side will win. And, what is worse, each of our respective victories will not provide what we intend, because they are not implemented as part of a rational system. Our individual victories each reflect different systems that will never come to pass. It's that classic: "But you're not doing it right!"

Perhaps I am arguing for a centralist position, but I think it's more than that. There are many many ways that you and I can make our country a better place to be. However, it will never look like the way that either of us would choose. I think we need not to be half conservative and half liberal, but something else. Something that would probably be very difficult to label.

Deep down, you and I will likely always wish that the country was doing something closer to our personal worldview. However if we want the country to do well, we need to understand that that will never come to pass. IMHO we need to build a workable system that is enlightened by our worldviews, but not reflective of them. I strongly believe if any country represents the worldview of one person (or one group of persons in agreement) then the country will fail. Even if that worldview happens to be my own.

As an example, although I disagree with much of his political ideology, I voted for the Republican Rick Snyder for Governor of MI. He is a conservative, but I believe he is more than that. I didn't get that his Democrat opponent Bernero was more than a liberal. Perhaps he is, but I didn't hear it.

BTW, I do agree with a couple of your points. :)