The trap is that it can foster a belief that it is just the packaging of ideas that needs to change, not questioning the soundness of the ideas. The Euston manifesto has power not because it clearly argues the liberal vs conservative case, but rather because it takes a position on America and national defense that 3/4 of the voters could support. It then goes after tactics that the other 1/4 would like but would alienate much of that original 3/4.

For a great number of the voters discussed, the question of national security is a serious one. Should we bomb Iran or not, should we have invaded Iraq, would a democratic Iraq start a movement in the Mideast to counter the appeal of terrorist jihadism and how many troops should be deployed are questions of tactics in the war to keep America safe from future. The fundamental question is are we going to fight the war and fight to win. The discussion on tactics is used as a way to gauge the fundamental question.

A good example of this could be made with the question of foreign call intercepts. If the democratic response had been to a) condemn the publication of secrets about tactics in our war against the terrorist, b) state that winning the war is job one and c) they would call for closed door investigations to ensure that in trying to win we haven't lost sight of the need to not abuse the rights of our citizens, then the majority of the country could see democrats as legitimate defenders of our country. When you look at the Echelon program under Clinton you can see that democrats can support a balancing act between gathering the dots and not abusing the rights of Americans. Of course, the ABC response above would have angered the democrats far left. The fact that some of those were also angered by Echelon and the majority have no clue on the program is a problem that the democrats need to address.

Gore is scorned because he talks at people, not to them. His policy and ideology has nothing to do with it.