Art, I think that it is possible to have a benevolent and caring system within a democracy -- as long as we're willing to recognize that "democracy" means more than "majority rule". For all its failings, the US Constitution is predicated on striking an appropriate balance between serving the desires of the majority and defending the rights of the minority. The government needs a certain amount of muscle to do this effectively, and needs to be willing to stand up to a misguided majority on occasion. The misguided majority may be motivated by racism, or religious intolerance, or the profit motive -- whatever the motivation, the government has to be enough of a presence that it can have some hope of ensuring fair and equal treatment for all.

That concept is abstract and simplistic, but the application of it to specific issues is often quite complex. Therefore, I think that it is probably impossible for an effective and benevolent democracy to run on auto-pilot -- it needs tending by good people who will move beyond simple slogans to deal with real-world problems in all their complexity. My preference is for a government run by intelligent people, who can articulate goals and principles in a straightforward manner, but can deal with the complexity of the real world as well -- people who can handle both the "macro" and the "micro". My objection to so many of the "small government" crowd is that they seem to feel the slogans are enough, and paint anyone who understands the details as a "pointy-headed bureaucrat" who advocates waste and inefficiency. "They trust the government; we trust the people" is one recent example that comes to mind.