>But that's fine. Tactics you vigorously debate, then move on to the next
>campaign, hopefully with a bit more wisdom on what to do next.
I like the idea of turning your opponents rhetoric (weapon) to your advantage.
Like how the drug issue divides society when used as an issue by the ruling class but the same issue (drugs) brings people (seemingly disparate groups) together to assure treatment rather than punishment.
If the issue is to reduce drug abuse then social factors that effect that behavioral change should be tweaked.
If drugs were freely available, evidence of their abuse would serve as a statistically valid indicator of success or the need to adjust the approach.
All of the factors that you describe as the goals of your personal activism would come to bear on this one issue and could successively be adjusted - setting a long term goal for society. Incremental successive adjustments would be mutually understood and anticipated rather than feared. A long term social agenda for change should encourage continuity of leadership. And as long as it's incremental and not socially disruptive it should not generate resistance from the supporters of the status quo.
But unfortunately, you can never lose the issue. In this case drugs were chosen because there's compelling evidence of the success of using the issue. The ruling class has lots of other tools for contributing to class warfare - isn't that what this election is? Seems that any of them could be adopted to this tactic/technique.