I liked this statement much better than your first one, which was a cliche that is unworthy of you. The view of conservatives as desiring stability is a refreshing reminder of what the term actually means, as opposed to the usual painting of them as racist, uncompassionate baby-eaters. I also agree with the second part of the statement, which is that a balance is necessary. Stability can easily become stagnation, and change just to be changing, regardless of values, is not a good idea either.

On the other hand, when I give it more thought, if you look more closely at the statement, "Conservatives tend to focus on profit and Liberals tend to focus on need," you may have something there.

Profit reflects the creation of real wealth*, an increase in the true value of something from the application of human effort and ingenuity. It is a sign of productivity, of growth, and economic health. Bill Gates created a huge industry from nothing. He and his employees are productive people, creating profit and wealth. Almost all businessmen fall into this category. The woman sitting on a blanket on a street corner, selling jewelry made from metal scraps, is not on the same level as Gates, but she is no less a productive person, creating wealth by her own efforts. Someone who performs a service--a librarian for example--creates wealth by doing a particular job with her skills and experience. One need not create a physical "product" to be productive.

Why the pursuit of profit would be considered an exclusively "conservative" value--by your second definition--is a puzzle, since rapid change is one of the biggest drivers of a successful economy.

Many liberals often see "need" as a demand, a permanent blank check on the wealth of others, with the possible exception of those liberals who are willing to pull up their own sleeves and go to work in a soup kitchen themselves. A liberal politician sees "need" as an opportunity. He requires other people's "need" to exist. Without people dependent on him, he has no function, and no power. From his view, the worst possible outcome would be for the poor and unemployed to join the middle class and become taxpayers, perhaps even to join the opposition. The liberal politician certainly has no use for the wealth creators, other than to tap them for taxes to fund his largesse, or political protection money to keep him in power.

Of course it's much more complicated than this, and certainly more complex than categories like "liberal" and "conservative." What is boils down to is that some people want to see the disadvantaged taken out of that category, to become productive and independent. Others have a vested interest in the existence of a permanent "victim" class, which can be used to maintain their own power. You can tell by their actions which is which.

*The concept that wealth is "created," not just moved around, is one of the toughest ones to get across to many people.