In Sunday’s Times, Matt Bai writes about how Democrats are learning to frame their message.

What is framing? It is choosing a word or phrase that is full of positive connotations to describe a political policy or party platform. It is a shortcut that gives the voter some hints about the policy and predisposes him or her to like it. Pro-life sounds much more positive than anti-abortion, because it is not good to be anti anything. Pro-choice sounds much better than pro-abortion, because you can be against abortion, but still be for a woman’s right to choose.

In one recent memo, titled ”The 14 Words Never to Use,” Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls, grandly, the ”New American Lexicon.” Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz’s view, never advocates ”drilling for oil”; he prefers ”exploring for energy.” He should never criticize the ”government,” which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack ”Washington,” with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. ”We should never use the word outsourcing,” Luntz wrote, ”because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.”

Bai makes it out as if all this something new. That Republicans invented it and Democrats are slowly learning how to do it. Please. This trick is as old as the hills (of Rome) and there are books written about this.

It may appear that framing is entirely new, only because Democrats seem to have forgotten everything about political strategy and are continually playing the sap in the politic rumbles. They may be slow because in their close circles, there has been no need to frame an argument. In their mind, the guys in white hats and the ones in the black were just so clear that there was no need to convince others of that topic.

Well, losing the White House and both houses of Congress to the Republicans and the threat of losing the SC has got them to attend a Pol. Sci. 101 class and return to basics. They need to explain who they are and what they are for.

Bai relates a fascinating story about how the Democrats won back the filibuster. In an unusual show of discipline, Democrats in the Senate and House carried laminated, pocket-size message cards — ”DEMOCRATS FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY, AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER,” blared the headline at the top — with the talking points on one side and some helpful factoids about Bush’s nominees on the other.

Bai credits the blogs in part for getting them to work on their message. He also points to George Lakoff, the author of How Democrats and Progressives Can Win. I haven’t read it yet and am not sure if it’s worth the bother. Lakoff is on the lecture circuit among Democratic elected officials getting them to realize that it is important to stay on message. And to the relief of Democratic party leaders, they’re listening, because the wonky professor appeals to their ranks. Heh.

Yes, framing is important. But like other Lakoff detractors, I think that we need something more than nice catch phrases. A powerful agenda backed by a common understanding a more perfect future is needed as well. But pretty words are a good start.

A few weeks ago, I took a stab at defining the Democratic agenda in modern terms. I urge others to add to this discussion.