This op-ed by Jim Wallis is reprinted from today's edition of The New York Times.

By JIM WALLIS

Since the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.

So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.

Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for - as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.

Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.

The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values, but the questions to ask are these: Whose values? Which values? And how broadly and deeply will our political values be defined? Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.

To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.

First, somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them, but with the exception of John Edwards in his 2004 campaign, they haven't mustered the gumption to oppose a government that habitually favors the wealthy over everyone else. Democrats need new policies to offer the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live below the poverty line, as well as the 9.8 million families one recent study identified as "working hard but falling short."

In fact, the Democrats should draw a line in the sand when it comes to wartime tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits, and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children. They need proposals that combine to create a "living family income" for wage-earners, as well as a platform of "fair trade," as opposed to just free trade, in the global economy. Such proposals would cause a break with many of the Democrats' powerful corporate sponsors, but they would open the way for a truly progressive economic agenda. Many Americans, including religious voters who see poverty as a compelling issue of conscience, desire such a platform.

Similarly, a growing number of American Christians speak of the environment as a religious concern - one of stewardship of God's creation. The National Association of Evangelicals recently called global warming a faith issue. But Republicans consistently choose oil and gas interests over a cleaner world. The Democrats need to call for the reversal of these priorities. They must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future, let alone hold our foreign policy hostage to the dictates of repressive regimes in the Middle East.

On the issues that Republicans have turned into election-winning "wedges," Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose," or the alternative, "safe, legal and rare." More than 1 million abortions are performed every year in this country. The Democrats should set forth proposals that aim to reduce that number by at least half. Such a campaign could emphasize adoption reform, health care, and child care; combating teenage pregnancy and sexual abuse; improving poor and working women's incomes; and supporting reasonable restrictions on abortion, like parental notification for minors (with necessary legal protections against parental abuse). Such a program could help create some much-needed common ground.

As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children. They need to adopt serious pro-family policies, including some that defend children against Hollywood sleaze and Internet pornography. That's an issue that has come to be identified with the religious right. But when I say in public lectures that being a parent is now a countercultural activity, I've found that liberal and conservative parents agree. Rather than fighting over gay marriage, the Democrats must show that it is indeed possible to be "pro-family" and in favor of gay civil rights at the same time.

Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases - something Democrats should advocate as the first step toward bringing other countries to our side. While Republicans have argued that international institutions are too weak to be relied upon in the age of terrorism, Democrats should suggest reforming them, creating a real International Criminal Court with an enforcement body, for example, as well as an international force capable of intervening in places like Darfur. Stronger American leadership in reducing global poverty would also go a long way toward improving the country's image around the world.

Until Democrats are willing to be honest about the need for new social policy and compelling political vision, they will never get the message right. Find the vision first, and the language will follow.

Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, is the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."

Share this story with your friends - go to this article on The New York Times Web site and click the "E-mail This" link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/opinion/04 wallis.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/opinion/04 wallis.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/0...

Good morning Boys and Girls...

surrogate here... writing from a foreign computer today... weird keyboard... watch for tyyypppos.

So then, I just read that Martha Stewart may have broken her house arrest for yoga class... you go girl!

Martha went to jail for lying to FBI agents over a few thousand bucks.

John Bolton lied to FBI agents about intelligence that may have kept the war from ever taking place...and was promoted to Ambassador to the U.N.

The Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) asked for some papers that might have made Mr. Bolton look bad and the white house said they were secret... too sensitive to release.

Information that WAS classified, (the fact that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent - clearly marked in the file from which the information was gleaned) is passed on to three different reporters by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby... but President Bush has decided that rather than letting prudence rule the day and asking the both of them to step aside, at least until the investigation is complete, instead has taken the position that he won't do anything about it until he's forced to.

Now... here's the rub.

The pattern of using different standards to deal with different issues involving similar sorts of infractions has become stock and trade for the current power structure, but I think it's a gong to bite them in the behind real soon.

I was talking to an old friend who's a minor Republican mucky-muck (big in local politics) who's been a staunch Bush supporter from day one, and he told me that the support is eroding fast, especially among older Republicans, and the feeling that's taking over, and being talked about openly now - even at official events - is disgust.

He also said that he thinks that if it wouldn't look  like such a sign of weakness, many many House and Senate Republicans would abandon GW at the drop of a hat, but that if they do, they're afraid they'll loose their majority in 2006...so they keep bailing water.

These were all things that came up:

The stem cell thing, (a great majority of my friend's friends support the current bill and do not want Bush to veto it)...

Disgust over the Plame/Wilson debacle...

The Downing Street memo...

The deficit...

The virtually non-existent support for our troops both while in Iraq and when they come home...

Even Bush's vacation!

He says that about the only people left who totally and sincerely support the administration are the "the oblivious, the obtuse, and the assholes."

I cracked up.

Be good to everyone!