Well - it seems the first step would have to be bi-partisan - so the urgency has to transcend party lines - to me this means the 2008 candidates basically provide the same answers to:

1) the nature of the threat
2) the ways we can respond domestically to the threat
3) the Average American must play a role in those responses by strengthening our social fabric.

All of those can be answered without trading any of the political beliefs which define the Democratic or Republican parties.

The second step is a bit harder. It would mean linking the issue of domestic security policy and foreign security policy in ways we have not been very successful at communicating yet. This linkage would have to run both ways. In a very broad sense our foreign policy actions matter to our domestic policies, and our domestic actions matter to our foreign policy.

Even though we have windows on the outside world in every household, I still think the average American does not contemplate why International events matter, or how they impact them and their families at home - I also don't think leaders ask them to. Conversely, many people who spend their time in the military live on base, or FS/FP types who work in D.C. don't really understand why the average American can't see the threats. Americans want to know why they should be involved and why they should sacrifice, but we have done a poor job of explaining how it matters as much in Memphis, Little Rock, or San Antonio as it does in D.C., Boston or New York.

Equally we have done little to help Americans understand the threats of pandemics, the effects of global warming, global poverty and other non-war type threats, or how those threats impact the average U.S. citizen. Ex. - in the Democratic debate last week the question was posed to the candidates’ ref. the impact of Aids in minority communities & how they would address it. The response by NY Sen. Clinton was (paraphrased) "If AIDS was killing white women between ages 25-35 at the same rate we'd see action" was IMHO a poor job of answering the question. AIDS is a social disease; to address AIDS requires discussing the conditions which give rise to it. If tackling poverty, lack of dignity and self respect, ignorance from lack of education combined with greater R&D $$s, clinic out reach, etc. in neighborhoods/cities with high rates of infection had been pitched she'd have demonstrated she understood the problem.

The domestic & foreign problems we face today are multi-faceted and require multi-faceted solutions. We require leaders who can communicate that and we require a public who understands and demands it. If you substitute viral extremism for AIDS you have the same type problem.

The political leadership must espouse enough of a bipartisan message to communicate the need for domestic sacrifice and involvement as needed to provide a clear direction for the future domestic and foreign policy actions. I believe here also there is room enough to accomodate their peculiar party views and strategies to pursue foreign policy, but there are key points the Americans must at least acknowledge

1) The world has changed since the the fall of the Berlin Wall, the disolution of the USSR, the Internet, and Sept 11, 2001 (and a host of other multi-causal events).

2) That change requires us to acknowledge it, reflect upon it, and change the way we thought about how we see America's role in the world, and just as important how the World sees America's role.

3) No matter what we do, there is no going back to the 1980s. The only direction we can move is forward.

4) What goes on internationally does effect us domestically.

The rest is probably debatable, but at least by acknowledging those points Americans can begin to view the world as it is, not as we wish it were.