Well, sure.
But how do you handle that wonderful compartmentalization when someone who ostensibly falls into category #2 because they do a single thing that supports that category, but also simultaneously:
1.) Supports someone who despises capitalism and property rights and is doing all they can to destroy them
2.) Supports someone who believes in the government as the source of largesse for redistribution of wealth
3.) Supports someone who believes the right to keep and bear arms is archaic and should be taken away
4.) Supports someone who believes unions are wonderful and should have the weight of the government thrown behind them
5.) Supports someone who believes that industry is evil and should be crushed in favor of governmental programs?
Because even though this guy was a Ron Paul supporter (odious enough in my eyes, as anyone who garners the support of the putrid Code Pinkos is fatally flawed) in his exact words he said: “...I believed in Obama’s promises...”
Just how do we have a nice, neat categorization for that? I think the basic premise of the redefinition as you describe it is flawed. I think it is a good try at a transformational explanation (or prediction) but I don’t think it works.
Ok, fair enough. But, I can also tell you that I "believed in Bush's promises too", and look what he gave us.
All of your points will still apply, however, you can't win any of those points without first winning the stated battle, or at least reversing its trend. For if you don't win, or begin to make a dent in this new battle, you will lose all of those points you mention.
So, we first need to accept allies in our fight to win this battle, for if we do not win this battle, we will surely lose everything else.