Red versus Blue

I woke up this morning with a question floating through my head.  I got to wondering about the difference between “liberals” and “conservatives.”  The first thing that became obvious is that the terms really have little or no intrinsic meaning any longer.  Maybe “red” and “blue” is just as meaningful.  
It feels to me that the difference is something like “compassionate and loving” versus “mean, nasty and greedy.”  This clearly is isn’t the difference between Democrats and Republicans because both of these kinds of people populate both parties.  I think that this is not a useful, or true, distinction – it is merely what it feels like to me most of the time.
It dawned on me that maybe the issue has something to do with an opinion about the differences between people.  As a liberal, I believe that people come with all kinds of built in differences, and that in addition to that the environment that they are raised in causes many more changes in their capabilities.  Some people are very capable, some are not very capable, but much of the difference is inherited by the person (either by nature or nurture).  I believe that generally people do the best that they can.  Some succeed much better than others, but that is just the way the bell curve goes.  I think this opinion that people are not always in control of their lives, compassion and assistance is appropriate.
It seems that conservatives believe that all people are created equal and that any differences in abilities or actions are caused by choices that the person has made.  Those who succeed are more willing to work hard, and are somehow “better” than people who don’t succeed.  Since their condition is created by choices that they have made, there is little reason to do anything to help out.  Since they are of the opinion that people get to the position that they are in because of their decisions there is no reason for compassion or assistance.  In some odd cases it is clear that people really couldn’t avoid the problems that they are in (acts of God such as earthquakes come to mind), there is sometimes a place for compassion and assistance.
Conservatives that are successful seem to think that they got that way because they worked hard and deserve it.  They seem to figure that all other people have the same abilities, options and support and therefore could have been successful too if they were only good enough or worked hard enough.  Since people who aren’t doing so well decided to do that on purpose, then there is no reason for helping.
There is also a bit of a difference having to do with how people work together.  Liberals tend to believe that people want to do good things and work together, finding ways to be friendly and peaceful to each other.  Conservatives seem to believe that people want to do bad things, and need to be forced to obey and be good.  One side acts as if people are basically good, the other as if people are basically bad.
The trick is that there are obviously a lot of “bad guys” out there.  In many cases there is a need to control people with force.  However, there are also lots of instances where other approaches work better.  If you go hard to either end of the spectrum it won’t work.  Therefore, the problem is one of degree.  
If given the choice, I would rather trust people and help out if needed until it is clear that this approach won’t work.  Other people seem to think it is best to distrust and avoid helping unless it has been proven that they can trust the other and that they need help because of problems that are really outside of their control.
I guess I still haven’t gotten very far with this issue.  I still can’t figure out the differences, but it seems to be tied to the idea of whether others have done something to “deserve” their situation.  Do rich and powerful people deserve it, or did it just happen to them? Do poor and sick people deserve it, or did it just happen to them?