Majikthise has some thoughts about the "War on Drugs" where she is proposing to adopt the techniques of the "far right" to get her vision implemented - I'm not going to quote it because you should read it all. I think this is a great idea and one that I support for lots of reasons. I am, along with a significant proportion of the "conservative blogosphere" completely against the "war on drugs" as it is fought today. Whether I count as far right is debatable - I'm pro-choice on everything and anti-big government - as are the Insta- and Vodka-pundits and a whole host of others. The problem I have with the "liberals" and "progressives" is that they seem unable to understand incentives, the law of unintended consequences, and the idea that the best help is self-help. Oh and don't get me started on love affair with bloodthirsty communist tyrants, their generosity in spending other people's money and their general inability to connect cause with effect. Anyway I think that Majikthise is onto a good idea and one that in fact stands a chance in splitting off the libertarian right from the big government religious right at a local level.
There are however a few points that I wish to make in the spirit of constructive criticism. The first is that local union idea is potentially a bad one if, as I recommend, you want to get the libertarian right on your side. Unions, particularly public school unions have a horrible reputation with the right of all stripes because they are seen as being comunist dinosaurs. The reason why we libertarian sorts dislike these unions is not so much because of their communism as their disdain for things like personal responsibility and their protectionism when it comes to their members whoich means that they campaign to increase the size of the public trough and reject sensible measures to cut it such as school vouchers.
The suggestion to get a more liberal drug policy acepted as common wisdom is, on the other hand, a good one. There is a strong libertarian case for this as well as lots of common sense and historical precedent (see Prohibition). Regulating and taxing the supply of currently illegal drugs would be far better than the current solution and would probably significantly reduce the crime rate. However the key needs to be to also look at the generally failing "illegal but tolerated" policies of Europe which have made it easier for the middle classes to snort cocaine but not really helped the poor to escape from drug-related criminality.
On a related note - it may also help to reframe the debate about the "evils of drugs" if you act a bit more tolerant of the currently legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. There is a significant chunk of the world which sees (second hand) smoke as being far less unpleasant that mainlining heroin so seeking to ban smoking while also proposing to increase tolerance of other drugs is clearly inconsistent and hypocritical. That's bad for the case and is another area where unions tend not to help. If you want to get people to sympathise with your position you have to be consistent (Note Majikthise doesn't mention 2nd hand smoke and she may be consistent here but I note that a lot of "liberal" people aren't consistent on this issue).
In addition, something that the conservatives have done well is seek to build alliances - the whole Iraq war effort is an example - as indeed is the "cartoon war" coverage. But it is possible to build broader alliances - the bipartisan blogospheric attacks on the FECs blog/web regulation is a good example of how it is possible to get people who are not normally friends on the same side. The important thing here is to deliberately seek out people that you would otherwise disagree with and to make it clear as I am trying to do in this post that in some issues you can work with people that you otherwise disagree with. Heck do it right and you might manage to reverse the current republican sweep of the government by splitting off the part of the republican big tent that is nervsou about those fundemntalist Christian sorts.