Politics is, at its best, a contest of ideas. Elections determine who temporarily holds political power, but the larger democratic conversation determines something equally important: how Americans understand the values around which our national life is organized.
That conversation takes place through words.
Freedom. Patriotism. Capitalism. Family values. Fiscal responsibility. National pride. Morality. Justice. Opportunity.
For decades, Republicans have worked successfully to associate many of these words almost exclusively with conservative politics. Democrats have too often permitted them to do so. Instead of contesting the definitions, Democrats sometimes abandon the vocabulary altogether, allowing Republicans to define what freedom means, what patriotism requires, what family values represent, and even what constitutes capitalism or fiscal responsibility.
That is a political mistake, but more importantly, it is an intellectual and moral mistake. These are not Republican words. They are not Democratic words either. They are American words.
They describe principles that have been debated throughout our history and that belong equally to every citizen and every political movement willing to make a case for them.
Democrats should stop surrendering this vocabulary. They should instead enter the contest of ideas and explain confidently what these values mean to them.
The question Democrats should be prepared to answer is not merely, “What are we against?”
It is the much more important question:
“What are we for?”
And the answer should begin with the values Americans already understand and cherish.
Perhaps no word in American political life is more important than freedom.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of liberty as one of our unalienable rights. The Constitution was created in part to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Generations of Americans have struggled to expand the meaning of those promises.
Yet freedom cannot mean merely the absence of government interference.
There is another kind of freedom that matters enormously in people’s everyday lives: the practical freedom to make meaningful choices about how they live.
Consider the worker who desperately wants to leave a miserable job but cannot because losing that job would mean losing health insurance for the family.
How free is that person?
Consider parents working multiple jobs whose wages still cannot reliably cover rent, groceries, utilities, transportation, childcare, and healthcare.
How free are they?
Consider the young adult carrying overwhelming student debt who postpones buying a home, starting a family, opening a business, or choosing a lower-paying career of public service because the monthly loan payment governs those decisions.
That is not complete economic freedom.
Freedom should mean more than government’s promise not to interfere with us. It should include creating the conditions in which ordinary people possess enough economic security and opportunity to make meaningful choices about their own lives.
A society in which millions of people are perpetually one illness, one layoff, or one unexpected bill away from financial catastrophe may be prosperous by some statistical measures. But we should at least be willing to ask whether it is sufficiently free.
Democrats should reclaim that question.
The phrase family values has also been claimed as though it belongs to one political party.
But what does valuing families actually require? Surely it means more than approving of one particular conception of family life.
If we value families, shouldn’t we care whether parents can afford to feed their children?
Shouldn’t we care whether a sick child can see a doctor?
Shouldn’t we care whether parents can find safe and affordable childcare?
Shouldn’t we care whether a pregnant woman can obtain appropriate medical care?
Shouldn’t we care whether workers have enough time away from their jobs to care for newborn children, aging parents, or seriously ill spouses?
Shouldn’t we care whether young families can afford a home?
And shouldn’t we want elderly Americans to live their final years with dignity rather than fear that illness or poverty will consume everything they spent a lifetime building?
Those are family values too.
Social Security is a family value.
Medicare is a family value.
Affordable healthcare is a family value.
Good public schools are a family value.
Safe neighborhoods are a family value.
Affordable childcare is a family value.
A wage sufficient to support a household is a family value.
Democrats should never concede the phrase to those who define family values narrowly around cultural issues while opposing policies that materially strengthen American families.
The better response is simple: If we value families, our public policies should help families flourish.
Patriotism is another word Democrats should proudly reclaim.
Patriotism does not require unquestioning support for a president, political party, military action, or government policy.
Indeed, the American tradition suggests almost precisely the opposite.
The Declaration of Independence itself is an argument that governments can betray the principles they are supposed to serve. The Constitution deliberately divides governmental power because the founders understood that leaders should never be trusted with unlimited authority.
American patriotism therefore includes dissent. It includes questioning government. It includes demanding accountability. It includes insisting that presidents obey the Constitution and that Congress exercise the powers entrusted to it.
And when presidents contemplate committing Americans to military conflict, patriotism does not require automatic applause. The Constitution assigns Congress a central role in decisions about war precisely because the power to plunge a nation into armed conflict should not rest casually in the hands of one person.
There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding that military power be exercised lawfully, carefully, and with regard for civilian life. Nor is patriotism measured by enthusiasm for military force.
Sometimes patriotism requires courage on the battlefield.
Sometimes it requires courage in Congress.
Sometimes it requires a citizen standing peacefully in a public square saying: My country can do better.
Patriotism is not loyalty to whoever occupies the White House.
Patriotism is loyalty to the principles the White House exists to serve.
Democrats should also refuse to surrender the word capitalism.
Capitalism at its best is one of history’s extraordinary engines of innovation, entrepreneurship, productivity, and wealth creation. Competitive markets can distribute economic decision-making across millions of individuals rather than concentrating it within government.
In that sense, healthy capitalism contains something resembling economic democracy.
People choose what to buy. Entrepreneurs decide what to build. Workers choose where to offer their skills. Investors decide which ideas deserve capital. Competition rewards innovation and challenges established enterprises.
But capitalism depends upon competition.
When markets become dominated by a handful of enormous corporations, when wealth becomes extraordinarily concentrated, when workers possess little bargaining power, when monopolies can prevent competitors from entering markets, and when economic power becomes powerful enough to purchase political influence, capitalism begins moving away from economic democracy and toward something resembling economic aristocracy.
That should concern anyone who genuinely believes in free enterprise.
Markets require rules just as democratic elections require rules. Preventing fraud is not socialism. Breaking monopolies is not socialism. Protecting consumers is not socialism. Allowing workers to organize is not socialism. Ensuring that businesses compete on reasonably fair terms is not socialism.
Those things can help preserve capitalism by preserving competition.
Democrats should be willing to say that capitalism works best when prosperity is broadly created and broadly shared—not because everyone should receive identical outcomes, but because an economy should offer genuine opportunity to everyone willing to participate in it.
The goal should not be hostility toward wealth. It should be opposition to economic systems in which wealth becomes so concentrated that economic power can overwhelm democratic power.
America rejected political aristocracy at its founding. We should be equally cautious about creating an economic one.
Fiscal responsibility is another phrase too frequently treated as partisan property. But there is nothing inherently Republican or Democratic about arithmetic.
Governments collect money and governments spend money. Responsible government requires making choices about both.
True fiscal responsibility cannot mean demanding balanced budgets only when the opposing party holds power while tolerating deficits when one’s own priorities are being funded.
Nor can fiscal responsibility simply mean cutting programs.
Sometimes spending less is responsible.
Sometimes investing more is responsible.
The important questions are: What are we purchasing? What will it accomplish? What are the long-term costs? And how will we pay for it?
Investing in infrastructure that lasts generations can be fiscally responsible.
Preventive healthcare that avoids more expensive emergency treatment can be fiscally responsible.
Education that increases future productivity can be fiscally responsible.
Scientific research that produces new industries can be fiscally responsible.
Conversely, tax reductions that significantly increase deficits without producing the promised economic returns are not automatically fiscally responsible merely because they reduce taxes.
Democrats should therefore reclaim the language of stewardship.
Public money belongs to the people. Government has a responsibility to spend it carefully, collect revenue fairly, measure results honestly, eliminate waste, and leave future generations a country capable of meeting its obligations.
That is fiscal responsibility.
Democrats should also reclaim national pride.
There is a strange assumption in contemporary politics that acknowledging America’s failures somehow demonstrates insufficient love for America.
But mature love does not require pretending that the object of our affection is perfect.
America has accomplished extraordinary things.
Our constitutional experiment has endured for centuries. American science, universities, businesses, workers, artists, inventors, soldiers, activists, immigrants, and entrepreneurs have transformed the world. Americans have repeatedly expanded political participation and individual liberty beyond what earlier generations thought possible.
Those accomplishments deserve celebration.
But American history also includes slavery, dispossession of Indigenous peoples, segregation, discrimination, political violence, exclusion, exploitation, and repeated failures to live up to our own ideals.
Those truths do not cancel one another.
Indeed, one of the strongest reasons for national pride is that generations of Americans have confronted injustices and worked to correct them.
Abolitionists challenged slavery.
Suffragists challenged women’s political exclusion.
Workers organized for dignity and safety.
Civil rights activists challenged segregation.
Veterans returned from wars and demanded that the freedoms they defended abroad apply equally at home.
Each generation inherited an imperfect America and attempted to make it more faithful to its promises. That is something worth being proud of.
National pride should not mean believing America has always been right. It should mean believing America is worth making better.
Nor should Democrats surrender the language of morality.
Government cannot make people virtuous. But public policy inevitably reflects moral choices because budgets, laws, and regulations determine whose interests receive attention and whose suffering society is willing to tolerate.
How we treat children matters.
How we treat elderly people matters.
How we treat people with disabilities matters.
How we treat immigrants matters.
How we treat workers matters.
How we treat prisoners matters.
How we treat people who disagree with us matters.
And justice before the law matters profoundly.
A fundamental democratic principle is that the law should apply without regard to wealth, political affiliation, social status, race, religion, or proximity to power.
No president should stand above it.
No billionaire should be able to purchase exemption from it.
No poor person should receive inferior justice simply because justice is expensive.
The rule of law is not a conservative value or a progressive value.
It is an American value.
There is a broader political lesson here.
If one side of a political argument defines the language, it begins the debate with an enormous advantage.
Suppose freedom is defined exclusively as freedom from government. Then programs that expand people’s practical choices can easily be portrayed as threats to liberty.
Suppose family values are defined exclusively through cultural controversies. Then economic policies affecting families disappear from the conversation.
Suppose patriotism is defined as supporting the president or military action. Then dissent becomes suspicious.
Suppose capitalism means defending whatever outcomes markets currently produce. Then attempts to preserve competition become attacks on capitalism.
Suppose fiscal responsibility means cutting domestic programs but says little about the revenue side of the ledger. Then the debate has already been tilted before it begins.
Democrats should challenge those definitions rather than retreat from the words.
That means saying:
We believe in freedom.
And then explaining what freedom means.
We believe in families.
And then explaining what families need to thrive.
We believe in capitalism.
And then defending competitive markets against monopoly and concentrated economic power.
We believe in patriotism.
And then explaining why constitutional government, democratic participation, peaceful dissent, and the rule of law are patriotic obligations.
We believe in fiscal responsibility.
And then demonstrating what responsible stewardship actually requires.
We are proud of America.
And then explaining that loving one’s country includes the determination to improve it.
Those arguments are stronger than allowing political opponents to define the vocabulary and then spending every election denying their accusations.
This points toward an even larger challenge.
Opposition is necessary in democracy.
When a government abuses power, citizens should oppose it. When leaders violate constitutional principles, legislators should resist them. When policies harm people, political opponents should explain why.
But opposition cannot constitute an entire political identity.
Voters deserve to know what comes next.
Democrats therefore need an affirmative vocabulary.
Not simply:
We oppose what Republicans are doing.
But:
We believe every American deserves genuine freedom—the freedom that comes with rights, opportunity, economic security, and personal dignity.
We believe families should be able to afford homes, healthcare, food, education, childcare, transportation, and retirement without living perpetually on the edge of financial disaster.
We believe capitalism should reward innovation, entrepreneurship, work, and investment rather than permit economic power to become permanently concentrated among a small elite.
We believe patriotism means allegiance to the Constitution and the democratic principles of the republic rather than allegiance to any individual leader.
We believe fiscal responsibility means paying for our priorities, investing intelligently, eliminating waste, and refusing to burden future generations unnecessarily.
We believe national pride means celebrating America’s achievements while possessing enough confidence in our country to confront its failures honestly.
We believe justice means that no person is beneath the protection of the law and no person is above its reach.
Those are not radical ideas.
They are recognizable American aspirations.
And Democrats should say so.
Democracy has always been a contest of ideas.
But you cannot win a contest you refuse to enter.
Political parties lose something important when they allow their opponents to take possession of powerful words and redefine them unchallenged. Eventually those definitions begin to seem natural. Citizens hear freedom and think of one party. They hear family values and think of one party. They hear patriotism and think of one party.
That association is not inevitable.
Words belong to those willing to explain and defend their meaning.
Perhaps Democrats should stop arguing about whether Republicans deserve to call themselves the party of freedom and begin asking Americans a better question:
What does freedom actually mean in your life?
What would greater freedom mean to the mother who cannot afford childcare?
What would it mean to the worker trapped in a job because the family’s healthcare depends upon it?
What would it mean to the student buried beneath debt?
What would it mean to the entrepreneur trying to compete against a monopoly?
What would it mean to the citizen who wants to criticize a president without being treated as an enemy?
What would it mean to the family simply hoping that hard work will provide a decent life?
Those questions move the conversation away from slogans and toward lived experience.
And that is precisely where the contest of ideas should occur.
Democrats do not need an entirely new political vocabulary.
Some of the most powerful words are already sitting in front of them.
Freedom.
Family.
Opportunity.
Capitalism.
Patriotism.
Responsibility.
Justice.
National pride.
Democracy.
The common good.
Do not surrender them.
Define them.
Defend them.
And, most importantly, demonstrate through public policy what they mean.
The challenge for Democrats is larger than finding better slogans. It is to articulate an affirmative vision of America—a country in which freedom is meaningful, families can flourish, capitalism remains competitive, government is fiscally responsible, patriotism means devotion to democratic principles, justice applies equally, and national pride includes the confidence to continue improving our imperfect union.
Politics cannot forever be organized around what we fear or whom we oppose.
Citizens eventually ask a more important question:
What kind of country are you asking us to build together?
Democrats should be prepared to answer.
They should enter every election, every legislative debate, every town hall, every neighborhood conversation, and every contest of ideas prepared not merely to explain what they are fighting against, but what they are fighting for.
And perhaps the simplest answer is also the most powerful:
We are for an America in which freedom, opportunity, responsibility, justice, prosperity, and democracy belong to everyone.
Those values were never Republican property.
They were never Democratic property.
They belong to We the People.
Our responsibility is to make them real.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.