Webster's Political Dictionary

Quick question for Hunter. When he says:

A passing comment by Republican pollster Frank Luntz on the Mclaughlin Group (yes, I know; I'm a glutton for punishment) and this excellent diary by Torta converged to ring the same bell in my ears: what do Democrats stand for? It seems a common refrain, or assumption, that Democrats do not have an overall theme or narrative, and I will certainly agree that the party as a whole does a rather bad job of articulating the message. But it lodged in my brain, and after a half hour of thought I realized that I, at least, know what I stand for. And it's not complicated. And I think, in reality, it encapsulates the Democratic Party rather well:

Strong Families.  Strong Communities.  Strong Nation.

What does he think that means? I don't mean how can you explain it, I mean how does it read on a bumper sticker? How does it sound in a debate? How does it work on a talkshow? Does he think the Republican will turn around and say, "Why, I must disagree with my opponent here, what this country needs a weaker families, more dilapidated communities, and a wimpier nation."?

Of course not. The reason "family values, low taxes, strong national defense, and smaller government" work as the prototypical Republican definition is because they actually define something. They are things that, for the most part, Republicans believe and Democrats do not. Sure, we'd argue over strong national defense (doesn't just mean big) and family values, but we're not for smaller government, not for lower taxes, not for endless military spending, and so forth. It defines the Republican party because it couldn't define us. Hunter's definition does define us as well as them. And while we can argue endlessly over who it really defines, on first read, it's so vague that anybody can lay claim to its embrace.

I'm all for defining the party, but we need to do it right. And that means nothing that requires five paragraphs of explanation on why it actually characterizes us rather than our opponents. Definitions should speak of actions, they should be, in a real and basic sense, little policy platforms that signal what we believe by explaining what we'll enact. Think "national health care, governmental reform, regulated corporations, a living wage, and a revived American image abroad". I'm not saying I have the perfect set of proposals, but at the least, they need to be policies, places the Republican party can't follow. That's how you define yourself, by saying what you are that they're not. And if the definition is going to work, you have to be able to simply say it, not need to explain it.