Men are rewarded or punished not for what they do but for how their acts are defined. That is why men are more interested in better justifying themselves than in better behaving themselves. -- Thomas S. Szasz
We have seen it time and time again: An up-and-coming Republican champions some issue to an almost extreme degree, gains power and recognition, becomes symbolic with the party, and at their peak gets caught up in some scandal that reveals them to be (at best) flawed or (at worst) hypocritical.
The liberals/progressives bring begin to talk about said Republican, only to be accused of "kicking the man while he's down." Office-holding Democrats remain relatively silent, for fear that their skeletons will be dragged out of the closet.
The media gives the story mild coverage, but under the false premise that "every single story has at least two sides" tries despertly to find a Democrat to bash for balance.
Meanwhile, the conservative/neo-conservative side uses the opportunity to push tried and true talking points, such as "This is just because they hate Bush" or "They're doing this because they're losing on the real issues" or the ever-famous "Clinton did it too."
There are reasons this cycle exists. A media that is more concerned with profits and ideology than informing the public; elected officials who fear lobbyists and corporations more than the American people; frustrated citizens who can't explain why they were dealt the cards they received in life and, due to the encouragement of a handfull of egotistical sociopaths, have decided to hate and attack those they feel are to blame for their situation.
But there's something else. Even before a story breaks, people already have an image in their heads when they hear or read that "a Republican" was involved. Regardless of the facts at hand, everything is speculative because the GOP has (over a long period of time, mind you) created an image of what a Republican is. Or in the sense of politics, what a Republican stands for.
Contrast that with a Democratic elected official: every scandal is just "more proof" that the party is weak on terror, loves to waste the American People's hard-earned money, and cares little about families. It has gotten to the point that one "bad Democrat" story can neutralize five "bad Republican" stories. A fumbled line by John Kerry becomes an attack on our military, while an attack on our military by Rush Limbaugh is a fumbled line.
I'm not bringing up anything new here. Kos once described the modern day Democrat as someone who fights for "people who work for a living." Armando famously wrote (more than once) about the necessity of having a brand. Thom Hartmann addressed the issue of not only creating a brand, but owning it, in a reprinted article he wrote in CommonDreams.org:
We're still letting cons define our brand for us, and they're still doing it aggressively. In the month of February, 2005, timed to coincide with the Academy Awards, a con group has rented prominent billboards in Hollywood that will show a smiling picture of George W. Bush with the slogan: "Thank you, Hollywood!". In a row under the prominent and smiling Bush are less flattering photos of Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Afleck, and other outspoken liberals.
There are no Democratic billboards showing the biggest supporters of the Republican Party - corporate fat-cats like Ken Lay, with private jets and limousines, living in baronial mansions.
In classic marketing theory, there are two foundational concepts. Features ("what is it?") without benefits ("why should I care?") lack relevance. And, benefits without features lack credibility...
...Most progressives know all the features they're interested in: Universal single payer health care, a viable social safety net, prison and sentencing reform, a livable wage, support for unions and the repeal of Taft-Hartley and its heirs, voting (and voting machine) reforms, revoking corporate personhood and getting corporate money out of politics, moral leadership in the world, and working for a reduction of crime and poverty at home and towards stable, lasting worldwide peace (to name a few).
But there's no "benefit statement" in lists like these. Sure, some people think they're obvious, but the cons know - as does any good marketer - that you have to lead with the benefit, and only then do you follow with the features. Sell "lower taxes" to everybody before rolling out tax cuts for the wealthy. Sell "personal accounts" for Social Security before rolling out benefit cuts for future generations. Sell "protect your children" before rolling out homophobia and theocracy.
Democrats in elected office need to realize that as long as they go without putting a face on their initiatives and/or a face on the corrupt Republicans every day will be about defending their position on something. They need to go on the attack, like, 10 months ago.
Why can't voting reform be packaged as "Making Your Vote Count?" Why can't single payer health care be billed as "Building a Secure Society" so we can concentrate on other more fluid issues? Why can't fighting to eradicate poverty be labled "Strengthing Our Nation's Economy?"
Why can't we propose to be an "Open Hand" as opposed to a "Closed Fist?"
The average non-FoxNews-loving American knows what Democrats stand for; it's just that they have a hard time identifying with them. Having easy-to-recognize symbols and phrases is the first step to creating that identity.
The next step is letting them know how our way benefits them, and just saying "Well, you'll be alive, happy and healthy" doesn't cut it anymore.