What We Stand For Americans don't know what Democrats believe in. It's time to tell them.

Here are some simple truths every Democrat needs to hear. To win back the White House in 2008, our party must change. We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good but that keep falling short. We must finally reject the false choice between exciting our base and expanding our appeal, because unless we both motivate and persuade, we'll lose every time.

But above all, Democrats must be bold and clear about what we stand for. It's time to show the millions of people who can't tell what Democrats stand for that any American who believes in security, opportunity, and responsibility has a home in the Democratic Party.

As Bill Clinton told us many times in 1992, change is never easy. Our party's greatest challenge is to offer new, innovative, and progressive ways to expand opportunity, demand responsibility, and defend freedom and American interests in the world. That will require challenging party orthodoxy and, from time to time, making some in our party uncomfortable. But during the next four years, we have to be willing to surprise people once again. If we do that, we will earn the chance to put our ideas into action; if we don't, we will not win, no matter how much money we raise or how good our party machinery may be.

We congratulate Gov. Howard Dean on his new job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars, hone the party's political machinery to rival the Republican juggernaut, and rebuild state parties, particularly in red states. That's a tall order, even for someone with Dean's energy and tenacity. We've had differences with Governor Dean in the past, but we wish him well in this endeavor. If he succeeds in building and funding our party, all Democrats will benefit.

In the end, the success of any national party chairman depends not on how well he does his job, but on whether his party wins the White House on his watch. The chairman's role is to be chief cheerleader for the party. But if Democrats are to win in 2008, we must be willing to take on a few basic problems that party headquarters is in no position to fix. A party gets only one chance every four years to define itself for the voters. That comes in the presidential nominating process, and that definition is determined by the party's presidential nominee and what he or she stands for. Ironically, the best thing a party chairman can do is to keep his head down and his nose to the grindstone, and give potential candidates a clear field to have that debate. Dean will do fine as long as he remembers the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Since Roosevelt, only two Democratic candidates in 15 elections -- Johnson in 1964 and Carter in 1976 -- have won a majority of the popular vote for president. In that six-decade period, only one Democrat -- Clinton in 1992 and 1996 -- has won election and re-election to the White House.

If we're going to improve on that track record, we need to discard failed strategies, not return to them.

For example, it's a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections. The 2004 election should have dispelled that myth, once and for all. With an unprecedented effort to get out our vote, Democrats far exceeded all expectations -- and we still lost. Next time, we need to mount an unprecedented effort in persuasion, not just turnout. A party that has averaged 44.5 percent of the vote in the last 10 presidential elections and has only won a majority of the popular vote for president twice in six decades needs to start winning over some of the voters it's losing.

The argument about base versus swing voters is the longest running false choice in Washington. We simply need both to win. If we only win our base vote, we'll lose every time. If our base doesn't come out to vote in large numbers, we won't win, even if we do well with swing voters. But if we offer a clear, progressive approach for tackling the big challenges facing America, we'll do well every time, and so will the country.

Democrats like to believe that we have the right message and our problem is one of communication -- of getting our message out more effectively. The Republicans, we like to argue, win with an inferior message, because they're better at getting it out. But after losing two presidential and three congressional elections in a row -- all of which Democrats thought they would win -- maybe it's time to think hard about what we say, not just how loudly we say it.

Finally, Democrats like to feel that if we just pull together and sharpen our differences with the Republicans, we'll win. We're all for Democrats standing our ground to defend what we believe in -- and no one has opposed President Bush's corporate conservatism more sharply than we have. But at the same time, we couldn't disagree more with those in our party who are so green with Karl Rove envy that they want to try to out-smashmouth the Republicans. If Democrats want to make a lasting difference in American life, we have to define ourselves by what we're for, not simply what we're against.

Let's not kid ourselves: Americans didn't have any trouble telling the difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush. The trouble they had was figuring out what our side stood for.

We faced a similar problem after the 1988 election. Then, as now, many Democrats argued that the party's troubles were all about mechanics -- that we had a communications problem, a turnout problem. Clinton realized that all those troubles would take care of themselves as soon as he solved the root one -- Democrats' vision problem.

A recent Democracy Corps survey found that twice as many voters say Republicans know what they stand for. The two biggest Democratic weaknesses identified in the survey -- support for gay marriage and offering no strong direction for the country -- bracket the party's twin problems: Voters don't know what we stand for, and have grave doubts about what they think we stand for.

Shoring up our weaknesses will not come without real debate -- even real fights over national security and domestic priorities. We should not shy away from them. It's far less important that Democrats come together now than on Election Day. And we are far more likely to be together on Election Day if we battle out our differences now -- so we can decide the direction of our party and rally an actual majority of the voters around the choices we make.

If we want voters, especially those in America's heartland, to take a new look at the Democratic Party, we must have the courage to take on the great challenges of our time: making America safe; building an opportunity society; standing up for core values of responsibility and family; and reforming a political system that is broken and corrupt.

Closing the national security gap. The most important challenge for Democrats, and the country, is security. It cost Democrats the Senate in 2002. It cost us the White House in 2004. In the next decade, it will determine whether we can recapture the glory days of FDR, JFK, and Clinton, or whether we will go the way of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings. Fair or not, too many voters doubted our party's toughness and resolve in the face of new dangers. Until we recapture the muscular, progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- and convince voters that national security is our first priority, not just something we talk about until we can change the subject to more comfortable domestic issues -- we'll have a hard time convincing them to return us to national power.

That is why a distinguished group of Democratic elected officials and thinkers has signed an open letter urging Democrats to put security first, because the "American people will not trust leaders who will not vigorously defend their ideals."

Our challenge is to articulate our own set of national security ideas on a scale that matches the size of today's problems, the way the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, containment, and the Peace Corps did in theirs. For example, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, and others have suggested that NATO be given an entirely new mission, to win the war on terror. We should think just as big here at home. If we truly believe that the poor and minorities shouldn't bear the brunt of keeping America safe in this new era, why don't we propose a system of voluntary universal service that asks all to do their part?

After the last disappointing election, in 2002, President Clinton gave a speech to the DLC warning Democrats not to underestimate the potency of security as an issue. In uncertain times, he said famously, "strong and wrong beats weak and right." Ironically, many Democrats seem to have missed Clinton's point. A few days after becoming party chairman, Dean cited that very Clinton quote to argue that Democrats have a communications problem, not a security problem. "There is no crisis of ideology in the Democratic Party," Dean said, "only a crisis of confidence."

It's easy to warm Democratic hearts by promising "competence, not ideology," as Michael Dukakis did in 1988, or "confidence, not ideology," as Dean has done now. But in the end, ideas and ideology decide elections, and Democrats rise or fall based on whether we get them right. Like it or not, making the world safe from terror will be America's central challenge for the next decade, if not beyond, and voters deserve a better choice that is neither weak nor wrong, but strong and right.

Building an Opportunity Society. At our strongest, Democrats have been the party of the middle class and those who aspire to join its ranks. Opportunity is the value that unites our party like no other. Moreover, we are the party of opportunity in a decade that is likely to produce the greatest concentration of wealth since the 1920s and the greatest erosion of middle-class opportunity since the 1970s.

But Americans will never know we're the opportunity party unless we offer a bold, clear vision of economic growth that will help them get ahead. Our side has been talking about programs for so long, we've forgotten that it took an overarching vision for Democratic presidents to create them. The New Deal, the Great Society, and the New Covenant came first, and made later victories on Social Security, Head Start, and the Earned Income Tax Credit possible.

The good news is that we share a common vision of a country that gives every citizen willing to work hard the promise of a better life and the chance to make the most of it. Bush has promised an Ownership Society. John Edwards and others are right to propose an Opportunity Society instead. Once again, our ideas ought to be on the scale of the problem: Demand tax reform that rewards work, not wealth, and gives everyone a chance to own a piece of the rock, not a bigger piece of the debt. Make college free for all who are willing to work or serve. Close corporate loopholes to restore fiscal responsibility and make the market work.

These ideas and others offer an upward mobility strategy for all those who, in Clinton's words, go to work every day and play by the rules, and who see rapid economic change and competition from low-wage nations clouding the future for them and their children. The Republicans have no such strategy; we Democrats need to articulate one.

Standing up for responsibility. We can't let the Republicans set the moral and cultural debate in election after election. If we do, they'll keep using wedge issues to help them, hurt us, and divide the country. It doesn't have to be that way, and we don't need to compromise our values to change it. We can win the cultural debate, but only if we offer a values and cultural agenda of our own.

The last two elections were all reflex, all the time -- deflecting Republican charges on same-sex marriage, guns, and abortion. The best way to stop having the same old phony debate on cultural issues is to force a real one on issues that matter: strengthening families, helping parents teach kids right from wrong, coupling rights with responsibilities, and asking all Americans to give something back to their country.

Americans in the heartland will stop thinking Democrats look down on them once we demonstrate that we honestly understand their concerns. Parents are right to worry about the coarsening of the culture, and about needing more time with their children. Sen. Hillary Clinton is right to make clear that our goal should be fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Sen. Barack Obama is right that there's a limit to what government can achieve if we forget about personal responsibility. Republicans will never step up as the responsibility party. Why can't we?

Reforming a broken system to bring democracy back. In order to restore these great values, Democrats need to remember our calling as the true party of reform. Last time we looked, the Republicans controlled the White House, both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships, and a plurality of state legislatures. Yet the Republicans are the party of fiscal profligacy, special interests, and K Street corruption. Congressional leaders rewrite their rules faster than the old Soviet Union. In a country built on a free press, the administration has admitted putting columnists on the take.

Democrats have a duty to blow the whistle and champion radical reform. We need to be willing to take political risks and embrace new ideas: breaking the redistricting racket that leaves most incumbents more likely to die in office than be defeated; ensuring all Americans can vote and have their votes counted; opening primaries to enfranchise independents and break the grip of organized interests on the nominating process and the parties; restoring spending caps and pay-as-you-go policies to put our fiscal house back in order; promoting family-friendly tax policies that help middle-class families with retirement savings, college costs, homeownership, and raising families; putting a stop to Washington's costly revolving door; and ending corporate welfare that puts the tax code up for sale.

We need to reclaim the mantle of reform and innovation and show the Republicans for what they are -- the party of Washington, corruption, and the status quo. Then we can speak to Americans, as we did in our finest days under Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton, in terms of our vision, our values, and our sense of national purpose, not in the bureaucratic doubletalk of Washington.

The American people deserve a Democratic Party that champions the values, interests, and safety of the broad middle class and all who aspire to join it. We can and will be a majority party again, but only if we do the hard work to earn the majority's trust. When we look at that map from Election Night 2004, it breaks our hearts to see America's heartland covered in red. Only time will tell who our party's Moses will be. In the meantime, we all have a job to do to make that Red Sea part.

Al From is founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council. Bruce Reed is president of the DLC.

ROFL! Its not just about process. Its about substance. What do liberals believe in? They're in denial and they can't fix their problems. They blame their losses on Bush, on Big Business, On Al Qaeda, and on redneck religious Americans. Boy, are they really looking in the wrong place. French Boy didn't have a vision. He didn't have a plan. He didn't have ideas. When the Democrats finally figure out who they are, they can give us a call. Sorry, Al From and Bruce Reed - but those are the facts of life. You might want to bring them to the attention of the kooks in your party who've now become its mainstream. Good luck.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

Sen. Barack Obama is right that there's a limit to what government can achieve if we forget about personal responsibility. Republicans will never step up as the responsibility party.

What the heck does that mean? Republicans are the party of personal responsibility. Much more than baby killing, government teat-sucking Democrats, anyway.

Hey thanks for posting that steaming pile. I was going to buy fertilizer to do the lawn with this morning and took a quick look at the computer screen on the way out the door. Now I don;t have to go to the store, the grass will be greener, the neighbors may complain about the smell but I saved $20 bucks.

"We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good...."

It's hard to part with those "winning strategies" like scaring seniors, embracing the redefinition of marriage, lying about your record, blocking well qualified judicial nominees, stiffing blacks after demanding their votes, etc. This is especially true when doing these scummy things makes you "feel good."

Then we can speak to Americans, as we did in our finest days under Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton, in terms of our vision, our values, and our sense of national purpose, not in the bureaucratic doubletalk of Washington.

So the DLC wants to elevate Clinton into their pantheon of liberal heroes, along with Roosevelt and JFK, huh? Well, as a famous Dem once said, "Bring....it...on!!!

... any American who believes in security, opportunity, and responsibility has a home in the Democratic Party.

Yeah, right. But only if you believe in the "security" of appeasement, the "opportunity" of government dependency, and the "responsibility" of offering endless excuses to every dem victim group.

"Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, and others have suggested that NATO be given an entirely new mission, to win the war on terror."

France? Germany? Spain? Turkey? Canada?

Excellent! Americans will flock to the polls to turn over our safety to these pittiful, terrorist enabling states.

This poor fool has deluded himself into thinking he is profound and enlightened.
He claims to know how to make the dems win elections but look at his article.
The first half is cliches and slogans.No "new" ideas or anything of substance.
When he finally does get around to discussing issues he offers nothing but established lib priorities.It is of course lost on him that these are the beliefs that voters continue to reject.
He gives the obligatory talk about the future but only offers retreads of FDR,Truman,JFK,and Clinton.(sorry LBJ and Jimmy,you don`t count)
He does`nt seem to realize that the reason why the dems lose is because of what they stand for.There is no way to change that without them changing their views which of course they are unwilling to do.

How many examples are needed to convince "swing voters" that the democrats are nothing more than an anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-American crime syndicate. I keep naming names to people I come in contact with, especially associates at work (2 jobs). With facts, truth and an using your life as an example, The Democratic (Socialist) Crime Syndicate will take its rightful place in the ash heap of history.

100,000 conservatives who read blogs X (knowing)25 non-readers X each of those convincing X 25 acquaintances = 62,500,000 voters. I can name more than 25 non-readers I come in contact with personally (in workplace, relatives, friends) who are solid conservatives. I am spreading the word to everyone who I come in contact that brings up politics. People who respect you listen.

What reflex? Democrats are for homosexual marruage, gun control, unlimited abortion, higher taxes etc.etc. Seems that democrats are the ones who are reflexive when the truth of their positions are brought out.

The second paragraph is a how to about how to mask those liberal positions, and how hillary and the DLC are trying to put on another smoke and mirrors show.

We're all for Democrats standing our ground to defend what we believe in -- and no one has opposed President Bush's corporate conservatism more sharply than we have

corporations provide jobs…..

The trouble they had was figuring out what our side stood for.

Not true…anti-American; Socialism; Michael Moore; George Soros; it is a long list………

Americans didn't have any trouble telling the difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush…. Well Duh………..

Voters don't know what we stand for, and have grave doubts about what they think we stand for.Voters do know what you stand for – abortion – gay marriage – entitlements – big government – higher taxes – light on national security - appeasement of terrorist just for starters…

"There is no crisis of ideology in the Democratic Party," Dean said, "only a crisis of confidence."… Ooooooh?

The New Deal, the Great Society, and the New Covenant came first…… All socialist programs, top heavy government calling for higher taxes…..

Bush has promised an Ownership Society. John Edwards and others are right to propose an Opportunity Society instead………..What’s the use, this buffoon is already so confused it makes the head ache………

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.