One reason the Democrats don't get the credit they deserve is, I hope, obvious. Racism and other variations of bigotry prevent certain people from hearing certain messages despite messages being sent.

Hillary Clinton had a plan to help white working-class voters in states she lost to President Donald Trump. She vowed to force corporations moving overseas to pay back every cent in public aid. Such "claw back policies" would have given corporations incentive to stay and reinvest. But because she was Clinton and Trump was Trump, that message was barely heard by voters who needed to hear it most.

Progressives are guilty, too. As I wrote last week, Nancy Pelosi is plainly the most effective figure in the opposition. The House minority leader humiliated the president during budget negotiations. She forced him to sign an omnibus bill in which he got next to nothing. Pelosi's message was: The president is weak and we're taking him behind the woodshed. But few heard it, not even liberals and progressives. Instead, they continue to believe Democrats are milquetoast and harry them into doing more to resist Trump.

For this and other reasons, I have for some time thought the Democrats should deploy, when and where effective, a strategy that's in line with the GOP's rhetoric but that serves progressive ends. Ted Cruz, for instance, based his candidacy on religious liberty. Any Democrat could have mounted a counterargument on the same premise. Instead of pushing for privileged legal status for Christian conservatives, a Democrat could push a message of preserving church-state separation because it protects religious liberty.

Editorial Cartoons on Democrats in the Trump Era View All 58 Images

This hypothetical Democrat could say: A slippery slope toward the establishment of a religion would mean the erosion of free exercise. The Republicans say they are fighting for religious liberty but they are fighting against it. In such a hypothetical scenario, the choice would be between a pro-Christian candidate or a pro-American one.

The American way

This weekend was the first since passage of the American Health Care Act in the House (a bill that would repeal and replace Obamacare). I don't need to go into the weeds of policy to state correctly that the Republicans, in passing this bill, wish to take away something Americans have come to believe they have a right to. That is why even conservatives like Glenn Beck expect the Republicans to fail and for that failure to pave the way to the day everyone, not just the disabled and elderly, is on Medicare.

The Democrats have settled on a counterattack focused on pre-existing conditions. This message is correct – under the AHCA, insurers may once again legally discriminate against the sick and dying – and it will have broad resonance. Many Americans with private insurance wrongly believe repeal of Obamacare has nothing to do with them. But pre-existing conditions are everywhere. If the Senate passes the AHCA, everyone, not just the working class, will feel the impact. Focusing on that achieves a policy and rhetorical goal.

But I hope the Democrats see the opportunity here. The pre-existing conditions message is a necessary strategy. But, as I mentioned, Americans have come to believe health care is a right. After eight years, health care now something the government is obligated to provide or risk infringing life and liberty. The long-term message is therefore that the Republicans are fighting the Bill of Rights. And in fighting the Bill of Rights, they are fighting the American way.

Patriotism, not nationalism

This was the conclusion I came to after watching a fascinating video that went viral over the weekend. It was recorded at a town hall meeting in Busti, New York, in New York's rural 23rd congressional district represented by Republican Rep. Tom Reed. In it, a woman who appears to be in her 60s declares that government health care is the way, because it removes the industry's profit motive:

This sister explained the reason single payer better in 90 seconds than I've most in hours (including me). pic.twitter.com/fCjkgn8wir — Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) May 6, 2017

"I am a veteran of the U.S. Air Force and I have single-payer. It has saved my life four times. There is no profit in single-payer. We have to get the profit [out], and that's why you're here. You're talking about tax exemptions and property tax relief. These are human beings. We have bodies. We have minds. We are not property taxes. That's how you boil everything down – into money.

"We are not money," she added. "We are a nation."

That's a perfect political message. It's not only passionate, it's principled. It elevates caring for others on par with love of country. It pierces the veil of bigotry that prevents Democrats from reaching voters most in need of Democratic policies. With this message, the Democrats, as they did during the first half of the 20th century, can fight the rising tide of nationalism with old-fashioned patriotism.

George Orwell once made a distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism, he said in 1945, is "the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than advancing its interests." He added: "Nationalism ... is inseparable from the desire for power."

Patriotism, on the other hand, is a "devotion to a place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, militarily and culturally." Let's add politically, too.