LAST FALL, Democratic National Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. '60 and his cadre of politicos at the Democratic National Committee put together a new "Policy Commission" to inject some excitement into their moribund party. The mandate of this fearsome phalanx was to hunt down some New Ideas and forge them in the Great Democratic Furnace. The desired result? A new image for the Democratic Party.

Here's what really happened. First, a bunch of party hacks got together to solicit position papers from professors, businessmen and activists and hold fancy press conferences showcasing successful local and state Democratic initiatives. Finally this week, after their year of sound and fury, they released their report, one which foolishly seeks to recapture the electorate with this uninspiring message: let's move to the right.

Once again the Democrats have missed the boat. There's nothing new or exciting about the vast, mushy center where all political fence-sitters feel most at home. Americans have not embraced President Reagan because they support every element of his right-wing vision; rather, they've given him their votes simply because he has a vision. Any vision.

Ironically, Reagan's particular vision is a startlingly radical one for such a successful politician. Not surprisingly, though, Americans haven't bought it. Polls show time and time again that there are few issues of which it can be said mainstream Americans have moved measurably to the right. What Americans appreciate is leadership, and in a party or a President that means standing for something.

I WROTE MUCH the same thing in this space almost a year ago, when Paul Kirk came to the Kennedy School to tout his newly-refurbished party apparatus. After he did away with the messy minority caucuses and added the Policy Commission, I co-authored a position paper to help create a new image for the Democrats. But I wrote it on the naive assumption that they were not looking to mimic Ronald Reagan's message, but to create a new one they could actually call their own. Silly me.

The Democrats need to take a stand. But only if they incorporate issues such as the environment, tax reform, economic security, and gun control into a coherent vision can they hope to recapture the affections of the voters. Trying to form a coalition of special-interest groups can no longer do the trick. Several local and state Democratic candidates have run recently with great success emphasizing workfare programs and the clean-up of hazardous-wastes. The victories of Mark Green and Bella Abzug in New York, John Lewis in Georgia, and Harriet Woods in Missouri proves that there is still an audience out there receptive to a strong, principled liberal message.

Their report, though, merely rehashes Reaganite rhetoric. It refers to the Soviet Union, for instance, as an "empire"--an allusion that even Reagan now finds embarrassing. It endorses the Reagan military buildup, asserting that Americans "knew America's defenses had to be repaired." And it reassures that "Democrats harbor no illusions about arms control." But it does not mention American policies in regard to Nicaragua or South Africa.

THIS IS NOT to say that there are no good ideas in the commission report. It is strongest when it emphasizes the family--the real American family, and not the Republican fantasy of the wage-earning husband with the wife who stays at home with the kids, the dog and the Cuisinart. This results in the report advocating a more flexible workplace, pro-family tax reform, and greater income security, especially for child support.

What the Democrats have done with family-oriented issues is take the conservative's moralistic rhetoric and turn it into progressive humanistic proposals. They would be wise--and savvy--to try to do the same thing in regard to foreign interventionism, the "war on drugs," nuclear "defense", and the environment.

The Democrats still have no cohesive vision for the future of our society. A scholar of American history once noted that a successful electoral campaign is often one that emphasizes the Little Guy vs. the Big Guys. The Big Guys usually are in Big Business, and are synonymous with the Bad Guys. Reagan's innovation was to characterize the Bad Guys as Big Government. But his need not be the last word.

The Democrats must regain the spirit for the good fight if they want to have any hope of regaining the White House. But the first thing they have to do is sound convinced that they aren't themselves aren't the Bad Guys.