“As an example, Bennet just came out with an ad featuring a Buck statement that he “opposes separation of church and state.” Buck is now in full back-pedaling mode, of course.”
Per usual, and I don’t know why it is so, conservatives are on the wrong foot in framing this issue. The point to drive home and drive hard is the Constitutional guarantees and traditional exercise of freedom of religion, and the free exercise thereof.
Directly attacking the existing jurisprudential twisting of the 1st Amendment plays to their strengths, whereas emphasizing the freedom of conscience undermines the sovietish “freedom from religion” jurisprudence.
It is unfortunate and bewildering to me that the case for freedom is usually presented as crudely and awkwardly as possible. As much as any factor, Reagan’s eloquence is what moved his agenda forward, and even persuaded people over to it. Expanding the base can be done on principles stated well, not merely by pandering.
I think there are a couple of reasons for that.
First, we just tend to assume that everybody shares our basic philosophy, and plays by the same rules we do. And thus, to us, it's enough simply to point to a few words in the Constitution and that's enough to convince everybody else.
The problem is, if the other guy doesn't share our assumptions to begin with, the old "point and shout" mode of debate is not just ineffective, but actually counter-productive. It turns people off, and it makes us look stupid and narrow, which just makes it more difficult for us next time around. (Interestingly, this applies equally well where Scriptural discussions are concerned....)
Second, I think we conservatives don't really have a good handle on what we believe anymore, and we certainly haven't got a good way to present it convincingly to those who disagree with us.
We need to change that -- but, unfortunately, there's also a populist bent to the Tea Party movement that positively rejects "elitists," including those intellectuals (such as Buckley or Russell Kirk in the old days).
Those are the ones who have the background and means to do the necessary heavy lifting of explaining our principles within the context of the modern world and, more importantly, reconciling the various competing conservative ideas into a somewhat coherent platform -- and doing so in a way that makes sense to those (the majority of Americans, btw) who are not already convinced.
And finally ... we're impatient. We don't lay any groundwork, we just tend to wade in and say things that people are not prepared to hear. Of course they dismiss us.