On Kevin Drum's site,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007213.php, they are discussing the ALA's list of 100 most banned books. One of the things this reminded me, is while people attacked Clinton's "it takes a village" concept, conservatives don't seem to disagree in the slightest.
In fact, the vast majority of modern social conservativism, to the degree it has intellectual roots, has roots in communal upbringings. Children do not learn religion, values, and morals from the family. Instead, they are expected to be taught these things in community-ran schools. The community sets the moral standards for things such as pregnancy decisions, gay sex, adoptions, etc., and use the power of the state to direct people to obey. Individual choice, and the individual responsibility of the family for making moral, social, educational, and religious decisions, are simplified so that one would have to take affirmative (and often drastic, to the degree of exiting the community), steps to diverge from the community.
Likewise, the modern social society rejects NONCOMMUNITY services for the needy in the community (some liberals believe that conservatives do not want to help any sort of poor, but to avoid the argument, let's just cede them this). Instead, it should be up to the community to use community resources to take care of the poor...through Churches and local charities.
What's the point? The point is one of strategy and language. Although liberals must remain true to their roots, and reject "triangulation" or "concession" of their values, they have to realize that their core values are not inherently different than those of the conservative base. What liberals need to focus on is destroying those barriers between our policy preferences and their disdain for "liberal morality". We can do this if we show them how the differences between the two are mostly based on arbitrary or strategic differences. We can also find better ways to compromise some of our policy preferences (when neccesary) while still making sure our values ultimately succeed.
I should point out one other thing. The fact that we do not make it in this world along, the fact that we look to our communities for economic aid, for education, for comradery, and yes, for developing morals (love thy neighbor and help the poor ARE MORALS) is, in my view, an essential part of the liberal philosophy. While individual rights protect people from the excesses of such interdependancy, it is the rejection of theidea that one has the ability to exist completely independant from our surroundings and circumstances which seperate us from Hayek and Nozick. If we're all Rawlsians now, we can, should, and must use it to our advantage.