I doubt anyone who frequents ITA is unaware of the difference between libertarian ideas and those advanced by social conservatives (or the difference between liberalism and Democrats). There's a reason I avoided discussing Frank Meyer: I wasn't concerned with how the Republican Party should play its cards to keep libertarians and conservatives happy at the same time. Although that is an interesting debate that has existed for a very long time. (While I'm here, First Things has an article discussing the new "Fusionism.") Musgrave makes an excellent point when he says that good conservative ideas--deregulation and others adopted by Republicans (who, by the way, are sometimes different from conservatives)--don't need much updating. Where Musgrave errs is in assuming that I actually contested, or would contest, this proposition. Though I dedicated few words to the notion, my post made it obvious that I think Republican ideas--and the old conservative ideas that sometimes fuel them--are in most cases long lasting and preferable. Even if I didn't consider them intellectually superior, Republicans have done a better job of building coalitions of interests by using ideas, whether old or new. In any event, that was not the point. Had I dedicated my post to the prowess of Republicans I wouldn't have felt moved to mention Democrats so often. Perhaps this argument was lost for the same reason Musgrave accuses me of failing to make fine distinctions--I wasn't trying to make them because I assumed they were understood by anyone who watches politics with any attention.

Now I'll go back to the argument I was making--about Democrats. If I'm redundant, it's because I'd like to make some fine distinctions readily apparent. I must not have made it clear enough, but the spirit of my argument was that new ideas--or ideas that Democrats are not right now adopting, even if they are old ones--will be what enable the Democrats to win elections in the future. Any attempt to replicate the structure that the Republican's have used, or the re-packaging of old ideas, will be unable to shake the coalitions that sprang up in replacement of those that once supported the interests advanced by the liberalism that thrived in the Democratic party. The machinery that enabled Republicans to overcome a population of overwhelmingly self-identified Democrats was created in response to the same "liberalism" that Dean wants the Party to return to.

For Democrats to win, with the help of liberalism, it would require them to (1) overcome the incredibly established right-wing machinery that sprang up to defeat Democrats (and its brand of liberalism), by simply returning to the same liberal ideas that once yielded Democratic victories; or (2) develop or communicate new liberal ideas (not necessarily revolutionary ones) that appeal to the interests of persuadable voters. There a-lot of eggheads in the Democratic Party, and certainly a-lot of eggheads who are liberal. But, they aren't doing much to develop or communicate ideas that will appeal to the interests of persuadable voters. In this regard I do think there has been a failure on the part of the top tier of your model to articulate policy alternatives that can persuade, or appeal to the interests of, voter classes who have "realigned" themselves. This problem is compounded, for the Democrats, because George Bush has made it a point to spend like a Democrat while adopting some "progressive" ideas, all in the name of "compassionate conservatism." In this sense, you could say that Republicans have been more successful than Democrats at using liberal ideas to appeal to the interests of swing voters.

What Howard Dean and his supporters are saying is that they would rather focus on alternative 1, and just try to overcome Republicans by doing what Republicans did--because they genuinely believe the old ideas they've been harping on for a long time now can still win them elections. A recent Pew survey does a bit to explain why I think that plan will fail. In the survey it was reported that "disaffecteds" and "upbeats"--two groups of swing voters--voted for George Bush by large margins despite overwhelming support for a higher minimum wage and national health insurance. In your fifth paragraph you help make my point. To put in your terms, the Democratic Party platform has been unable to reflect the interests needed to build coalitions that can win elections. It's not hard to think of several "issues" that could be affected by philosophical liberalism in a way that would benefit the Democratic Party. At this point though, the Democratic leadership seems happier to recycle the same ideas despite an electorate that has changed. This is not to say that liberalism could not be the source of winning ideas; simply that it doesn't look like it will be at this point in the Democratic Party. (As simple examples that could be popular to swing voters: John Dewey could serve as the source of ideas that appeal to the interests of voters who are deeply concerned with the pedagogical failures of our public education system, or Woodrow Wilson the source of ideas for a foreign policy that threatens global terrorism.)

As I alluded in my earlier post, I tend to think that coalitions of swing-voters will benefit the GOP unless the Democratic Party is willing to try a new "Third Way" which sometimes openly rejects liberalism, on some issues, in favor of some conservative ideas. I'm not saying that any ideas need to be produced, although that may be necessary. I don't mean to suggest that the ideas should be revolutionary either. I doubt liberalism will be the source of ideas that undergirds Democratic victories in the near future. I say this simply because our electorate has changed enough that the interests of current persuadable voters will ultimately lead them to reject the liberal ideas currently adopted by the Democratic Party, in favor of any number of interests that Republicans have represented recently--whether it be liberal (or hawkish) foreign policy, activism on social issues, tax cuts, free trade, or populist approaches to education and entitlement programs. With that behind me, let me conclude: Howard Dean Democrats should (1) acknowledge that the liberalism they espouse is failing to inspire ideas that can win elections by appealing to the interests of persuadable voters, and react to this fact by borrowing some conservative ideas; or (2) come up with some liberal ideas, aside from those we've heard about over and over, that can move swing voters.