But if this Neo-Progressive Movement is to have any chance of success, it needs to be disciplined enough not to insist that all members also be members of Moveon.org. We need, to borrow and remix the insight of Cass Sunstein, an "incompletely theorized movement." We need Republicans who stand in the tradition of Reagan and Goldwater, yet who are as disgusted with the sellout that corporate money has induced as are we. . . .
The Neo-Progressive Movement must also make its case to the Tea Party, the most potent political movement in America today, far deeper than it is caricatured to be by both Fox and MSNBC. For whatever extreme social vision motivates some in that party, the belief that government has been bought motivates them all. (Source)
Agreed, but not going to happen any time soon. No such coalition of liberals and conservatives can be effected so long as cultural values issues divide and conquer Americans who otherwise have common ground on these issues of money and power aggregation. Abortion and gay rights, for instance, ignite powerful emotions, and feelings about those issues trump, for now at least, whatever importance people give on a head level to how money controls the political agenda. Nothing changes until the emotions connected with issues related to power and money aggregation become more intense than the emotions connected with cultural-values issues.
This inability to become impassioned enough about power and money aggregation is a bigger problem for liberals than conservatives. The conservatives are all riled up and out on the streets about bailouts and corporate giveaways. The Liberals aren't out there in anything near the same force nor will they look to join forces with the Tea Party because they only see the differences on the cultural values issues and not the common ground on the power and money issues. As long as this remains the case Neoliberalism will remain a nice idea but not a potent political force.
See also "The Tea Party and the Middle."