I finally started receiving the paper copies of The New Republic last Friday, and was a little bit discouraged when I read this:

STEP ONE: ADMIT THE PROBLEM. WHEN DO WE GET TO STEP TWO? "There was not a national message." --Representative Calvin M. Dooley, Democrat, after Democrats lost the presidency in 2000 "[T]here obviously must be a change in Democrat leadership and change the course with a clearer message." --Jesse Jackson, after Democrats lost seats in the House and the Senate in November 2002 "[Democrats] need a clear national message." --Bill Clinton, after Democrats lost the presidential race, as well as seats in the House and Senate, in November 2004

I don't really like "this pretty much speaks for itself" posts, but this is one of those. One could make arguments that you could find trends all of the place if you take quotes from three different people over a period of four years. But what these people are saying is true. I wasn't involved in political campaigns in the past, so I don't know if there was as much discussion after the last two elections about what the Democrats need to do to win. (My feeling is that there was more focus on distractions--the feeling that Gore actually won the election in 2000, and the bitter feelings about being tarred as unpatriotic by Republicans in 2002.) This time, there are no such easy distractions; it seems like most Democrats really do see the need for a more clear vision of what it wants for America. How's this one: "Compassion, Equality, Cooperation, Fiscal Discipline." It doesn't acronymize (yes, I made that word up), but those four things seem to summarize what the Democrats stand for (or, at least, what I want them to stand for):

• Compassion. Caring about each other. The social safety net falls in here, but it's also just a moral sense of caring for each other and wanting to provide an environment where strong communities can grow.
• Equality. The notion that people have equal rights and responsibilities. This doesn't mean everyone is the same, and does not mean that everyone has to have the same material wealth. I would obviously put gay marriage in here.
• Cooperation. Domestically, this would be similar to compassion. After 9/11, I felt a sense of the nation wanting to work together towards common goals, helping out in the community, etc. Unfortunately, the dominant political message tended to be "Go and shop!" and "Let's come together and fight in Iraq." That sense of common purpose can be rebuilt. Cooperation also means cooperating with foreign powers. A lot of issues are bigger than any individual country--environmental issues and terrorism, for example. It might feel good and right in the short term to do things our way all of the time, but in the long term it would be better to have the cooperation of other countries.
• Fiscal Discipline. This wasn't always a Democratic ideal, but under Clinton it became one. And now, it is the Republicans who are the "borrow-and-spend" spendthrifts. There are valid things the government should spend money on, but there is little doubt there is a lot of waste thrown into the budgets. Democrats must promise to make an honest effort to spend money only where it is truly needed to live up to America's promise.

I know these may seem a bit naive and ambiguous. I'm sure they can use refining. But if someone were to ask me "what do the Democrats stand for" this is what I would say. Knowing what you really stand for--not just a list of policies that you support--will help in crafting a message that Americans can internalize.