That said - the more the "idea" becomes implemented (made law, or whatever) the more the consequences of its implementation will alienate more and more people.

There are certain functions of the state on the exercise of which
there will be practical unanimity among its citizens; there will be
others on which there will be agreement of a substantial majority and
so on, until we come to fields where, although each individual might
wish the state to act in some way, there will be almost as many views
about what the government should do as there are different people.

[...]

It is not difficult to see what must be the consequence when democracy
embarks upon a course of planning which in its execution requires
more agreement than in fact exists. The people may have agreed on
adopting a system of directed economy because they have been convinced
that it will produce great prosperity. In the discussions leading
to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by
some such term as "common welfare", which only conceals the absence
of real agreement on the ends of planning. Agreement will in fact
exist only on the mechanism to be used.

But it is a mechanism which can be used only for a common end; and
the question of the precise goal towards which all activity is to be
directed will arise as soon as the executive power has to translate
the demand for a single plan into a particular plan. Then it will
appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not
supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve. The effect
of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without
agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to
commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where
they want to go: with the result that that they may all have to make a
journey which most of them do not want at all. That planning creates
a situation in which it is necessary to agree on a much larger number
of topics than we have been used to, and that in a planned system we
cannot confine collective action to the tasks on which we can agree
but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any
action can be taken at all is one of the features which contributes
more than most to determine the character of a planned system.

It may be the unanimously expressed will of the people that its
parliament should prepare a comprehensive economic plan, yet neither
the people nor its representatives need therefore be able to agree on
any particular plan. The inability of democratic assemblies to carry
out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably
cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Parliaments come
to be regarded as ineffective "talking shops", unable or incompetent to
carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction
grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be
"taken out of politics" and placed in the hands of experts - permanent
officials or independent autonomous bodies.

[...]

It is important to see the causes of this admitted ineffectiveness
on everything - the whole direction of the resources of the nation.
For such a task the system of majority decisions is, however,
not suited. Majorities will be found where it is a choice between
limited alternatives; but it is a superstition to believe that there
must be a majority view on everything. There is no reason why there
should be a majority in favor of any one of the different possible
courses of positive action if their number is legion. Every member
of the legislative assembly might prefer some particular plan for
the direction of economic activity to no plan, yet no one plan may
appear preferable to a majority than no plan at all.

Is there a single issue that is so strong that it can unite enough members of our diverse society to be victorious? Why?