I will concede that Republicans are not immune to power lust. I would probably put Nixon, as just one Presidential example, in that category. But when you compare Democratic to Republican political leaders on a case-by-case basis, it becomes obvious that some consider politics a job, while others consider it their life's blood, and far more Democrats than Republicans fall into the latter category.

...Anything that the Democrats propose, that does anything good for anybody, you claim is a bribe for votes.

Well, it is. Most of it quite obvious--simple Robin Hood wealth transfers. Would love to see an exception.

Well heck! Politicians are supposed to do good works, while in office.

Sure. On my nickel. Anybody can be the soul of generosity with somebody else's wallet.

And Republicans resort to populism too, in any case.

Unfortunately true, and getting worse every year.

The entire point of self-government is to seek out your own good. In an indirect democracy the voter's goal is to elect those who best provide for the good of the voters. Period. End of story. Anything else, and it's not democracy any more.

The original purpose of our government was to protect the individual rights of the citizen. Not to provide him with everything he could possibly need. Democracy starts to fall flat when it becomes possible for voters to legitimately vote wealth and property out of the pockets of fellow citizens and into their own pockets. When our nation was founded there was NO mechanism for this, and it was not even considered as an issue when the Constitution was written*. Even later on, the idea was considered an aberration. Our ancestors had no idea what was coming.

Now a majority of the 2 trillion dollar Federal Budget is dedicated to simply removing money by force from one group of people and handing it to another group of people, not in return for any services, but solely because they exist, are breathing, and will vote for those who are giving them the money.

Jerry Pournelle says that people living on the public dole could not vote once upon a time. I don't have independent verification of that, but it seems logical, and may not be a bad idea. When the takers overwhelm the producers, the system will collapse.

*unless it falls under the quaint and obsolete idea that the government cannot do anything not specificially mentioned in the Constitution.