It is often useful to analyze ideas by "eliminating the constants", so to speak. This is done all the time in the fields of math and science. Let us start by considering the degree of taxation, for example, which the Democrats and Republicans would impose upon us.
If the Democrats would have more taxation and the Republicans less, then we should look to the natural evolution of these possibilities, to wit, that the Democrats would have our taxes at 100% and the Republicans at 0%. This speaks badly of the Democrats as patronizing and controlling and of the Republicans as impractical. Personally, I'd prefer to be impractical rather than controlled, but you understand my point.
The reader may immediately suspect my method of "eliminating the constants", but I propose that should we not remove them, the task of determining what they should be then presents itself. Herein lies the problem. The level of taxation ends up being determined by politicians, who have a self-interest. This bias means that there is no natural mechanism which moves the level in the correct direction. If this is because of the apathy of the people in general, then maybe they're getting what they deserve, but I would prefer a situation which does not punish the innocent along with the guilty.
Have you ever heard of the "Natural Law Party"? I know that we think alike. We are not suggesting anything that novel. The idea is that any system should be self-correcting and self-regulating. Our government and some of its sub-systems are neither. It requires a modicum of intelligence and maybe leadership to imagine how things _should_ be, and how a system can be set up with certain basic rules which cause it to improve itself over time and adapt to changing external influence.
more to come