This is way off topic, but in response to the above...
I've always considered liberal policies to be the more emotionally based. For instance, universe health care on an emotional basis makes a lot of sense. Consider, for example, Keith Olberman's one hour special appealing for the passage of the health care bill. But if you can overlook the immediate emotion of the issue, issues regarding long term fiscal shortages and potential effects on innovation arise.
Really any social program, from affordable housing to corn subsidies to health care typically relies upon an emotional response for support. "The Poor Farmer" "The Middle Class is being left behind..." Etc...
If you have a heart, its sometimes difficult to remain conservative (at least by my definition). Its difficult to tell senior citizens that we're scaling back medicare because we simply don't have the money to pay for it. Its difficult to tell failing banks and their employees that we're not going to bail them out and that thousands will be laid off because the leaders of those companies made terrible decisions bankrupting the company and its not the government's responsibility to save their ass.
Now please keep in mind that I don't judge a government program based upon what party proposed and/or passed the bill, but by its overall effect. I can't think of a conservative thing the federal government has done since Clinton scaled back welfare.
Accordingly, the asshats currently claiming to be conservatives are just as guilty in relying upon emotional response for expansion of government, e.g. "The terrorists, the terrorists, the terrorists."
We've become (are? always have been?) a reactionary society. The politicians take advantage of this fact to gain and retain power. Its works on both sides of the aisle, but each with its own respective heart strings to pull.