Mr. Hartpence is characteristically mistaken. The Dems have a whole raft of abstractions they claim - that is not, to be sure, the same as principles - in fact, they claim all of the noble ones as their own whether they conflict or not. One reason they have so little in the way of practical policies to suggest at the moment is that one intended to satisfy, say, peace for example, doesn't work very well with respect to freedom, which they're also for. You can see the problem with this - it's a giant cosmic game of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. And so they pound the "principles" and hope that's good enough.
It isn't. The game works this way - "I'm for justice because liberals are for justice; he's a conservative, therefore he's against justice." That is not a philosophical position or even a political statement, it's a marketing ploy, and a second-rate one at that.
For four years they've been publicly arguing in abstraction about what abstractions they should embrace, or are about, or should return to.
Once they've solved that they will turn to what issues they should embrace, then later what their positions should be on those issues, but I think they'll fall back to arguing about abstractions.