Most current Republican strategists are masters of ensmearment. They've effectively connected the concept of pro-choice with PRO-abortion, suggesting a cavalier Democratic advocacy for the termination of "life in the womb." They've coupled consideration on key issues with indecisiveness, the impending disaster of global warming with "tree-hugging," reconsiderations of a "yes" vote on the war (now using actual facts) with flip-flopping, arguing for defense of the country against the real rather than preferred enemy with cowardice and undermining the troops, sensitivity to people in need with being a wimp or having a victim obsession, and criticism of the Iraq war with an overemphasis on the negative. Calls for a reasonable minimum wage are associated with social welfare or socialism. Displeasure, frustration and anger with George Bush are all connected with "bashing the Commander in Chief," and concern for equal rights and variations in religious expression with being anti-God. And the list doesn't end there -- as you know.
How can Democrats carry all this derogatory baggage and still win? They can't. Even if people are fully aware of what I call terms of ensmearment as a tactic -- part of the well-oiled machine -- should anything major go wrong for the Democrats between now and this November or 2008, all of these derogations will burst forth from the Republican arsenal to bury the Democrats once again.
Each of us is at least 75% responsible for the way people perceive us because we have the capacity to provide contrary input. Someone walks on you like a rug and you ask, "Did I do something wrong?" or you buy them a gift. Who's to blame for the inevitable outcome there? In The Secret Handshake, I've shown how responding to an attack with a reply about feelings, for example, allows the other side to turn the discussion away from substantive concerns to emotions. In short, communication is like chess -- each move opens or closes options for the other side. If you don't do your part in thinking several moves ahead, you'll surely be lured into one of the dead-end paths contrived for you.
So what are the options? Specialization is one important tactic. Democrats and their supporters need to become strategy specialists. They need to stop letting the first Democrat who leaves his or her office on a given day be the one who meets the press. They should be prepared with their own specialty or say nothing. Here are three of a host of potential specialties:
Debate needs to be put on the backburner for a while. Unfortunately ours is not an era of debate in government and few Democrats or Republicans do this well anyway. To rely on debate at the moment is like a swim coach sending the proficient butterfly stroke guy into a pool to win a breaststroke race. He's going to lose. Better to find among Democrats and their blogger supporters the best debaters and have them ready for opportunities, but don't make this the only form of response.
Retaliation in kind to terms of ensmearment is an option. But the opposition is better at this particular strategy. Nevertheless, a few associations of the non-gutter variety wouldn't hurt. As I mentioned in my prior blog, "giving them the rope to hang themselves" is often a useful strategy with the arrogant and vile -- a kind of gentle nudging toward the farthest reaches of their own hateful pathology. I'm not talking about all Republican leaders here or even most. Strategy needs to be targeted. And if members of the Republican leadership are reasonable and averse to low tactics, then treating them with respect is the best policy. We're talking here about multi-faceted strategy. For others, however, associations of callousness, dishonesty, desperation tactics of the most distasteful order, dragging the country in the mud, polarizing, alienating the country from the world and rewarding the obscenely rich again and again while rounding up "illegals" they let in to get richer are a few options. Short phrases capturing these would be best. Some Senators and Congressional Reps need to specialize in this strategic option along with some bloggers ready for the task -- ones capable of sparring on the edge without, figuratively speaking, drawing blood.
Disassembling of ensmearments holds considerable promise, but it takes cleverness. Those who specialize in this tactic would be ready to substitute constructive for derogatory descriptors -- immediately. The example I use when training or teaching is one of referring to a job applicant as "stubborn" in a recommendation letter. The person wouldn't get the job. But one person's "stubborn" is another's "determined," "persistent," or "resolute." One person's Commander-in-Chief bashing is another's "patriotic duty." You get the picture. It's strategic reframing. It isn't just wordplay, but rather management of significant perceptions. The Democrats need a TOE (Terms of Ensmearment) Squad devoted to the immediate decoupling of insults conjoined to disparage their party. They need to select these people today and crush this underhanded campaign like a house of cards.
These are a few counter-ensmearment tactics. It's plan A -- a much needed start. This approach does not in any way substitute for substantive ideas. Done right, it should serve to clear the path to election of diversionary debris. Then, if the Democrats must face a storm along the way, there will be less rubble once again knocking them unconscious.