A commenter in my previous diary, The 2010 Election Is Our Chance, asked me a welcomely challenging question: What does the Democratic Party stand for? This is not as simple a question as it sounds on its face, given the number of interlocking agendas and resultant compromises, but at the same time it's not as tangled an issue as one might imagine. We each know what we stand for as individuals, and it's those principles that attract us to the Democratic Party in the first place, so the answer is neither ambiguous nor a tedious laundry list of issues. Quite simply, our party stands for Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity, and it's about time America was made aware of this fact.
Would Republicans and Libertarians howl and shriek in indignation at this compelling summary of our principles? Naturally. The more intellectual among them - few as they are in those sectors - would hasten to point out all the petty examples where our political leadership, both past and present, has not shown the greatest fidelity to our principles. They would insist that we do not support Liberty, precisely because we do - because we modestly balance the right to bear arms against the right of citizens to be free of fear in their own communities. They would insist that we do not support Equality, precisely because we do - because we demand more from people who have more, even though it costs them less (or even nothing, at the highest end) in lifestyle expectations. They would insist that we do not support Opportunity, precisely because we do - because we recognize that absence of regulation, labor standards, and services can, in practice, prevent people from having a fair shot in our economy.
But nothing they say would be of much consequence, because none of it would have the simple power of Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity. Typically the arrangement has been reversed, and it has been Democrats having to engage in long-winded explanations for why simplistic Republican slogans are nonsense - and despite our case being entirely true and theirs entirely false, the fact that we're having to lecture while they spout powerfully totemic "Veni Vidi Vici" slogans has weakened us in general. But with the truth and moral authority on the side of a laconic, rhetorical blockbuster, their propaganda would be disarmed. Of course, some of us prefer to lecture - and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be comprehensive and educational - but sloganeering is not unethical when your motto is true and its antagonist's arguments are, at their rarest best, meretricious and insulting.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of the Right would not be arguing at all - they would be blubbering in indignation, practically mute with rage, incandescent with hatred, and incapable of formulating even the simplest of helpful retorts. They would consider it an incursion on their territory - the domain of the rhetorical talisman - and yet be unable to mount the simplest defense or competing statement without sounding either bitterly defensive or pathetically imitative. They could not fight "Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity" - to fight them would be to tarnish themselves - so they would be forced, against their nature, to go for costly (and probably ineptly) verbose arguments, if not to respond violently in their impotence and damage themselves even more profoundly.
Now, a national advertising campaign would be nice, but it's not necessary: Each of us is the most important ambassador of the Democratic Party in our own sphere, living our lives day to day, going about our business, and interacting with people. Each of us is a leader to the extent we choose to be, decided in rational consultation with our particular talents and disadvantages. But you don't have to be a pillar of the community with dozens of friends and the respect of everyone you know to remember "Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity." In fact, more than remembering it, think about it - discover its implications and nuances, so that you can discuss them with thoughtful people. The more you think about it, the more you'll realize it's true, and that it's probably a powerful synthesis of your own values.
Below the surface of this simple trio of words is a number of philosophical and political connections that bear consideration: The balance of the three principles is suggestive of the checks and balances designed into our three-branch system of federal government, and many examples where one or another of the principles appears to have been compromised can be understood as a case where one or both of the others was reinforced, thus affirming the overall effectiveness and stability of the complete whole. Thus, what at first blush appears to be simply a list of three words is actually a single, overarching principle articulated politically in three ways - and so long as you don't make the analogy explicit (i.e., don't appear blasphemous), people familiar with the Christian notion of the Trinity would be primed to recognize the concept and respond favorably.
Most people, of course, would not be interested in such ethereal philosophy - they may want examples to explain what is meant by the three principles, and any informed Democrat should have no trouble doing so. The most powerful tactic is to explain each of the three by adding more totemic words as a subset rather than indulging our desire to lecture.
Liberty: Speech, assembly, movement, privacy, religious freedom, sexual freedom, marriage, trial by jury, etc. If you think your audience would appreciate it, feel free to add if you personally support legalizing marijuana, ending drug prohibition generally, or other policies that have not yet (and stress the yet) filtered up to the party leadership.
Equality: One citizen, one vote; justice should be blind to race and money; equal access; equal pay for equal work, etc. Whoever you're talking to probably belongs to at least one disadvantaged group, and may be more interested in hearing about matters of equality that most directly pertain to them.
Opportunity: Economic mobility, talent rewarded, effort encouraged, potential cultivated and enabled, possibilities created, hard work protected from misfortune, families nurtured, and personal creativity facilitated. No one crushed in the gears or denied a chance by those who have already made it.
Another compelling aspect is that the triptych of Liberty, Equality, and Opportunity equates to the three fundamental constituencies of the Democratic Party - the liberal, the humanist, and the progressive. While the first and last are often used as synonyms, we tend to distinguish them among ourselves in the interest of clarity and philosophic comprehensiveness.
But in truth each of the three bears distinct examination, and is owed its separate identity: We share much of our conception of Liberty with the honest segments of the libertarian community (as opposed to sophist hypocrites who are merely rationalizing unrestrained greed), but we recognize that it cannot exist in a vacuum - that there must also be Equality and Opportunity for freedom and prosperity to coexist and survive. Equality stems from our humanist, philanthropic values, that imbue human beings with intrinsic worth apart from their economic or military strength. And Opportunity is the positive half of freedom that complements Liberty - the commitment of the citizenry to enable each other's potential in service to each and all.
If this is reminiscent of the motto of the French Republic, "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité," all the better - Republicans would love the opportunity to associate us with the motto of France, and I say let them have at it: Nobody but them would give a shit about the association, and they would sound increasingly moronic and trifling the more they harped on it. I remember how incredulous some Democrats were that a man named Barack Hussein Obama could get through the right-wing fusillade to the White House, but every time they used his name against him, they just sounded like the petty bigots and idiots they are. The same would be true in this case, but even more so because most people don't know much about France, and they certainly don't hold it in any degree of hostility like the wingnuts do.
In other words, we should embrace and encourage our dear friends in the GOP to attack us according to their basest prejudices, crassest ignorance, and most trivial of ideological dogmas - never let them get within a mile of something that looks like both a credible and rhetorically powerful objection. So, in the spirit of that principle, I would say the motto would best be shown in a triangular emblem rather than a simple statement of the three words - simple geometric shapes always excite the passions of conspiracy nuts, and it would be really fun to hear wingnuts saying it symbolizes the Trilateral Commission, or the Freemasons, or some other incoherent nonsense. Or not - there's nothing wrong with just "Liberty, Equality, Opportunity" either.
Now, I do recognize that it is a little late in the season for this to be implemented throughout the party as a high-level election strategy, but that doesn't really matter: It's never too late for a good idea, and there is always 2012 if we are disappointed this time around. Nevertheless, there is no reason we can't do our best this year, and lay the foundation for the stronger, more culturally coherent party we've been talking about for so long. We've already made at least one small, but not insignificant bit of progress: I now have a powerful, simple answer whenever anyone asks me what the Democratic Party stands for, and with this diary so will every other Kossack who reads it and agrees. My friends, a toast to the future - cheers!