Even a BIG TENT has Walls and a Ceiling doesn't it?

[Protagoras]

I always see the "BIG TENT" concept used as the justification for accepting all sorts of positions within the Democratic Party. The idea that we let anyone in...that we'll accomodate any position..etc.

And frankly this makes no sense to me. I understand that "liberal" means open to new ideas...if that's the definition someone wants to use. But that also seems pretty vacuous if taken out of any context...simply because something is NEW doesn't mean it's Better (new coke?)

And I think the consequence of this thinking is damaging and corrosive, because it robs us of the more basic strength of our actual core values...namely that of social responsibility and interdependecy. IMHO Liberals need to be able to articulate some Core Values that DO define the limits of their party in order to present anything meaningful to the country...and in order to present an actual alternative to the opposition.

Moreover, I think many of us are Liberal/Democrats because we DO believe our party stands for some specific things...not because they are NEW..but because they are about people and their social needs.

Sure that's complext...and drawing lines can be "arbitrary" but most of the time I see this used, it's either in terms of a straw man or a slippery slope...there are some basic positions that a liberal can take that aren't open to a lot of interpretation.

But the BIG TENT keeps falling down, and the din of voices creates more confusion than movement.

So I wonder...is it possible to begin defining where those walls are on our big tent? Is it possible to say, to call yourself a Democrat you can go this far...but no father...because that takes you OUT of the tent....(see Zell Miller).

Which issues do you feel would best serve for guidelines here?

And how would we approach articulating the Philosophy vs the Issues? I think the Philosophy is more important, but the issues are easier.

Choice, education, healthcare, retirement security, privacy...all great issues...but they don't hang together very well unless you have something that unifies the viewpoint.

So what are our philosophical walls that bring our issues together and Define the limits of our tent? My problem is doing it in a clear and concise way (I'm overly verbose)...but I think it's worth kicking around.

[DaveinMD]

1. the party

should never be about a laundry list of issues. When it becomes that we lose because there is always something to disagree about. People are members of a party because they agree with the general values of said party. Democrats believe that government should be a positive force to give everything the chance to succeed. We believe in lifting up all people. These values should be framed in the mantle of populism to win elections.

[Protagoras]

2. It can't just have a laundry list

but it does have to articulate some positions clearly enough that it defines itself.

If we appear overly vague and general we hold little appeal.

We're for Responsible Government!

We're for Good Things!

Lifting up all people is actually used by the pugs (rising tide crap).

I can't help but believe we need to hone our Philosophy more sharply and specifically..perhaps including SOME issues...Corporatism vs Populism?

Yes, I think populism may hold the key to our future, if we can bring it in and get everyone on message.

[welshTerrier2]

4. Frank Burns said it best:

"it's nice to be nice to the nice" ...

[welshTerrier2]

3. very good post ...

right now, the "core value" of far too many Democrats is: "win at any cost" ... and of course, we won't win as long as that's our message ...

here are the key ISSUES i think the Party should be battling followed by the underlying VALUES the issues convey ...

ISSUES:
1. out of Iraq - with bush in office, the policy is insane ... it has failed and cannot succeed ... staying, regardless of how well-intentioned some may be, does not make sense with bush in power
2. our country is being run by corporations ... an article in today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html) shows that our government is being run for and by mega-corporations ...
3. our elections process is totally poisoned by big money and lacks integrity ...

VALUES:
1. central to our platform should be a call to renew our great American democracy ... the ideals on which this country was founded have been polluted by commercial interests ... we need to return the country to a system where the individual citizen is served by government; not a system where the largest corporations and their wealthiest shareholders pervert the national interest ...
2. we need to understand that our nation, and all nations, will be lifted up when we act like good global citizens ... we should build alliances to strengthen our ties to all nations; not just those who serve the interests of trans-national corporations ... our greatest strength is in the alliances we build; not our military power ... today the US is an exploiter; we should value friendship and cooperation instead ...
3. we need to recognize that unrestrained market capitalism should be valued less than ensuring a reasonable life for our citizens ... valuing the "free market" above all, as republicans have done, diminishes our entire culture ... we become two societies rather than one ... families are not able to sustain themselves no matter how hard they work ... our environment becomes polluted ... worker safety declines ... product safety declines ... retirement security declines ... health security declines ... when we let the greedy have more and more freedom to exploit others, our society declines ...

well, that's enough for starters ... perhaps Lakoff and his reframing movement has a case to be made ... but without a commitment to the right policies and the right values, the Democratic Party will remain in a coma ... i'm afraid they still don't see what needs to be done ...

[Protagoras]

6. I still need to read Lakoff's book

But I really like your articulation of the 3 points above. I think that's the start of a winning format.

And someone calling themself a Democrat who rejected those might wanna think long and hard why they wear our button.

[Ysolde]

5. I read an article on DU a few months ago...

(not sure who wrote it) but it summarized a good "vision" for the Democratic Party: We will not rest until a single worker, working 40 hours per week, can support a family of four in safe and healthy conditions (or something like that).

I really liked it because it encompasses so many policy issues (clean environment, healthcare, living wages, one job to support a family, work place safety, education(?)) and does it succintly. Seems like someone better with words could enhance it and make it an effective vision statement. I don't know if it includes limits per se, but those would be easy to incorporate ("We don't discriminate").

I know I'm tired of the way everything is currently a list of policies instead of an over-arching vision. It often feels like pollsters created our campaigns, thus making them as bland and vague as possible (can't offend anyone that way). That's why I like Howard Dean and I hope he keeps saying things that some folks don't like. As far as I can tell, he's not harsh enough (how about the Republican Party is a "white, Christian, male party that obviously hates females"?).

Sorry for being so long. I'd just like to see more vision from the Dems that do get press.