There’s been a spirited debate between Ezra, Kos, and Digby about defining what Democrats stand for. I agree with Ezra that Kos’s “Democrats are the party for people who work for a living” falls way too short of the mark. I like Digby’s “fair taxes, a secure safety net, personal privacy, civil rights, and responsible global leadership” better, but it still feels like it’s missing something.

Personally I think the “brand” should be defined by something simpler and more broad that clearly stands in contrast to the Republican agenda. While it mentions a GOP bogeyman, I think this bit from FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” speech is a good place to start :

The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each Nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: Security.

And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security–in a family of Nations.
. . .
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights–among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however–as our industrial economy expanded–these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
. . .
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Although it’s applicable to Britain more than America, this speech by Tony Blair really lays out a lot of Democrat-specific values :

And we may have a stable economy, but every business I visit tells me however well Britain does now, within a decade hundreds of thousands of UK jobs will go to China and India unless we build a wholly new platform of economic opportunity in knowledge, skills and science.

For the wealthy few, every one of those challenges of the future can be overcome.

The third term mission is to overcome them for the many.

Changing Britain for better. For good.

Not a society where all succeed equally – that is utopia; but an opportunity society where all have an equal chance to succeed; that could and should be 21st century Britain under a Labour Government.

Where nothing in your background, whether you’re black or white, a man or a woman, able-bodied or disabled stands in the way of what your merit and hard work can achieve.

Where hard working families who play by the rules are not going to see their opportunities blighted by those that don’t.

And where if any of our citizens, no matter how poor, is in sickness or need, they get the best care available without any regard to their wealth.

Power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few.
. . .
The relationship between state and citizen has changed.

People have grown up. They want to make their own life choices. Their expectations, their ambitions, their hopes are all different and higher.

The 20th century traditional welfare state that did so much for so many has to be re-shaped as the opportunity society capable of liberation and advance every bit as substantial as the past but fitting the contours of the future.

And this will be a progressive future as long as we remember that the reason for our struggle against injustice has always been to liberate the individual. The argument is not between those who do and those who do not love freedom. It is between the Conservatives who believe freedom requires only that Government stand back while the fittest and most privileged prosper. And we who understand, that freedom for the individual, for every individual, whatever their starting point in life, is best achieved through a just society and a strong community.

In an opportunity society, as opposed to the old welfare state, government does not dictate; it empowers.

It makes the individual – patient, parent, law-abiding citizen, job-seeker – the driver of the system, not the state.

It sets free the huge talent of our public servants and social entrepreneurs whose ability is often thwarted by outdated rules and government bureaucracy.

It changes how government works, to open up the means of delivery to every resource, public, private and voluntary that can deliver opportunity based on need not wealth.

So perhaps our motto could be “Opportunity, Equality, Security”. I figure most people educated enough to get the reference probably wouldn’t be dumb enough to vote Republican anyways. Seriously though, I suck at boiling this sort of thing down into a sentence or two. Any suggestions?