It is a recurring theme here that the Democrats need to become more savvy about presenting their ideas. Proposed solutions often take the form of laundry lists of facts and arguments that can be used to puncture the public stands taken by the Republicans. While that is a vital component of a winning strategy, I personally doubt that it will ever decisively sway public opinion on its own.
Americans (along with most higher animals) seem more concerned with status than truth. Political races (as opposed to political debates) seem to be won by whichever side projects the strongest, most unapologetic image, while attacking their opponents (as opposed to the opponents' ideas), facts be damned. And people love it. After all, do people sit around watching Survivor, or American Idol, to see who wins some moral or logical debate?
To cut to the chase, my proposed discussion:
Is a Good Cop / Bad Cop approach required in order to effectively counter the Right Wing Noise Machine?
ROVIAN TACTICS
Three tactics I see used repeatedly to great effect by Rove and Company:
1) Never try to appear particularly flexible or reasonable
2) Use scapegoating wherever possible
3) Attack the messenger while ignoring the facts
1) Never try to appear particularly flexible or reasonable. Never admit mistakes. Better to cling to an indefensible position than to show even a reasonable amount of flexibility. This is because our leaders are symbols, as much as anything else. And, as Saussure pointed out long ago, the power of a symbol depends upon its arbitrariness. We can argue endlessly about whether this or that icon (drawing, painting, etc) of a tree best captures that tree, but there's no meaningful argument to be had about whether the word "tree" represents treeness better than the word "splunge". (The advertising industry certainly understands that consistency is more important to branding that persuasion will ever be.) Every time a symbol is challenged logically, its arbitrariness simply becomes stronger. In short, using facts to fight symbols is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Every time we get outraged by the latest scandal, they get increasingly innoculated against further outrage.
2) Use scapegoating wherever possible. Writers like Rene Girard (Violence and the Sacred) have theorized that scapegoating is such a pervasive means for resolving conflict that we are largely unconscious of it. Arguing, or fighting, typically leads the protagonists into a cycle of conflict, where each resolution merely sets the stage for the next battle. Scapegoating provides a truly effective release valve for aggression and retribution, while simultaneously breaking the feedback loop between the original protagonists.
I'm not at all saying that this is what lies behind Rove's thinking - just that this is why scapegoating often seems so shockingly successful. At the conscious level we recognize scapegoating as wrong and childish, but some deeper human part of us unconsciously associates scapegoating with communal peace. This explains why scapegoating resonates deep down with conflict-averse humans, no matter how wrong or immoral the particulars may be. Sad but (seemingly) true. People like Rove, Tancredo, etc are (perhaps naively) taking advantage of this human predisposition.
3) Attack the messenger while ignoring the facts. Probably most here already know about this drill, but still I see in thread after thread something like: "what they said about [Kerry, Cleland, Murtha, etc] is NOT FAIR, and HERE'S why...". Rove and company rub their hands with glee at such responses. This sort of clash typically strengthens those who fight with symbols, as they do, rather than facts. Next it makes people gun shy, they're eventually afraid to cite even the most obvious facts, otherwise they'll be unfairly attacked next. The only effective response is to answer personal attacks WITH personal attacks, and to carefully exclude as much meaningful content as possible from the exchange (even if those facts support the case) because the use of facts undermines the arbitrariness that conveys the swagger, strength, and attitude of those making the attack
SO, HOW TO RESPOND?
Here's my somewhat cynical response to all this, not a proposal for action, but rather as an admittedly hyperbolic thought experiment: the Democrats need to find a way to play Good Cop / Bad Cop. Such an approach is described with respect to politics by writers like William Burroughs (as in "Academy 23"). Some wing of the party, or even a third party, needs to take on the role of Bad Cop-Left-Wing-Noise machine, while leaving the the main portion of the party to take the Good-Cop-Fact-Based-High-Road. Then let the Republicans become gun-shy, and seethe in frustration, as their arguments get shoved aside in favor of attacks on their persons, their personal histories and habits, their failings and so on. (But NOT their logical inconsistencies. Not here, that would happen elsewhere.) They won't be able to point the finger back at Dem's in general, because the bulk of the party will continuing to argue facts and principles, freed somewhat from the need itself to respond to unfair attacks.
This approach allows the Bad Cop faction to vigorously respond to tactics such as those listed above, and to display some of the traits (inflexibility, aggressiveness, etc) that earn respect in the population. And to accomplish this without debasing more principled debate: without polluting the real ideas that currently get dragged down, hollowed out, and lose all meaning in these swift-boat style situations.
I'm not even talking about real collusion between the Good Cop / Bad Cop factions; in fact the tension that will naturally arise between those factions will provide a setting where one side can sharpen their principles, while the other side sharpens its attacks, ultimately for the purpose of taking on the larger foe. This is similar to structures Robert Wright (Nonzero) describes where internal conflicts within a community actually strengthen that community when the time comes for that community as a whole to take on a larger external threat.
CONCLUSION
Some may see this as overly cynical, that we "shouldn't become like them", etc. Let me say, the approach outlined above does not appeal to me at any personal emotional level (I am definitely not volunteering to lead any such effort - those with more aggressive personalities are required). Consider this to be a reaction to years of mounting frustration, but I reject any objections that such ideas are beneath consideration at all, especially with Bush's poll numbers inching upward again, and Rove looking smugger than ever.