<I disagree that the Democratic party is essentially socialist.

If you catch a hard line Democratic official over a few drinks, and get him to talk about what the REAL progressive goals of the party ought to be, you'd find damn few differences with card-carrying socialists. I typically can count two. Obviously I'm not talking here about your typical Democratic middle-class voter.

I find it remarkable that the conservative voices I hear speak so clearly in defense of financial investments want so little to do with investment in human capital. Humane treatment of the poor, the expectation of health care adequate to stave off catastrophe, and accessible education are essential if the nation is to preserve even a semblence of the promise of upward mobility. The opportunity to mow the grass of a captain of industry is better than nothing, but I don't want to support better-than-nothing as a laudable goal for my nation.

I think everyone would agree that compassion for the poor, good health care, and good education are necessary for a strong nation. A lot of other things too.

Where the disagreement appears is how these things can best be arrived at. Do we do this through largely non-government mechanisms, or do we try to do this through massive government programs?

The core assumption--that such goals can only be achieved by a government forcing massive redistribution of wealth through centralized programs--is what underlies the Democratic Party, and defines the mindset of most liberals. I do not accept this assumption.

I believe that most of these things can be supplied most effectively by individual and voluntary group efforts, the private sector serving the needs of people. A quick look around you will show that for almost every product or service imaginable, including many critical to health or survival, the private sector does quite a good job. There are a heck of a lot more opportunities in a thriving private economy than mowing lawns.

If nothing else, philosophy aside, it should be obvious to any observer that the general well-being of a nation's population seems to be proportional to the freedom, economic and political, enjoyed by that population. "Command economies," which try to centralize everything, don't work and result in human misery.

The left has had decades of throwing trillions of dollars at the problems and human needs you describe, massively disrupting the flow of capital, drawing wealth from productive areas, and creating immense bureaucracies whose survival depends on these problems never having solutions. Are our students smarter and better educated now than they were before there was a Department of Education? Are there fewer poor? Are more poor families intact today? Is health care cheaper and more available than it was 20 years ago? Is there a single major wealth redistribution scheme that has actually solved a problem? And this massive money dump is mislabeled "investment?"

For God's sake, at some point one has to expect something to finally work to call it a success. The best excuse many liberals can give for the massive failures of most social programs is that "it would probably have been worse without it." How that can possibly be proved, I don't know.

Of course, all of the foregoing is assuming the goal of the government bureaucrats and rulers is to actually solve a problem, rather than simply exploit it to increase their power. When the latter goal is considered, most government programs have been resounding successes.