That makes sense. You might consider that this election might be a correction to the left from the Bush corruption of what 'right' means.
You might also consider that the continuous left drift might be the growing disparity between upper and lower incomes forcing the lower to rely more on government than on private industry for economic well-being.
Looks like we're in agreement, as these are two points on which I have written in the past.
However, you and I are heretics on FR for pointing out the importance of that latter elephant in the room. But the reality is, the gap is increasing and it is having real effects...and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. (Faux conservatives have that 'head-in-sand' tendency of other liberals...I refer to those who express this tendency as the Ostrich Brigade.)
One specific on which I would comment is your use of "income," when it could also be viewed in terms of wealth. A progressive income tax maintains stratification, by hindering the poor from gaining wealth even if they do increase their income.
And since the "common defense" protects wealth as well as income, it would make sense that it is insuring the wealthy more than the poor, not just the high-income more than the poor. Thus, a flat tax, fair tax, etc., alone is the best system. We must view wealth levels, too, when considering such gaps.