In April 2004, when the country was gearing up for the presidential election and a Kerry administration was still a tantalizing possibility, I joined a million men and women on the National Mall for the March for Women's Lives. My group arrived early, so we headed to the main stage to watch the morning entertainment. After navigating through the Socialist Workers Party booths and Dykes For Choice newsletters, we walked up just in time for the announcer to introduce a feminist poet, who took the microphone and launched into a poem filled with the word "cunt:" she spoke of a "cunt nation," taking back the "cunt-try" with a "gynecologist-in-chief" who ensured "happy cunts." The poem was well-written and passionate, the puns and twists were funny and clever, and she had a great performance. But with every shouted "cunt," I couldn't help but cringe and nervously look around. The cameras weren't on, were they? This wasn't being recorded, was it? Was Bill O'Reilly watching this right now, gleefully planning that evening's show?

There's no group more openly reviled in this country than feminists. Today's conservative is stripped of most of the scapegoats his predecessors had readily available: blame blacks or communists for today's problems and you'll likely be shown the door, even if it's labeled "Fox News." But the feminist has remained a steady - and increasingly favorite - target for the right-wing's hatred and derision. Rush Limbaugh famously equates them with Nazis. Pat Robertson considers them partially responsible for September 11. Every right-wing authored book on the market has a chapter that links them to the decline in moral values and decency. And who hasn't heard - or told - a joke about feminists at some point?

Part of the reason for this hatred can be attributed to the success of the left in the past few decades. The civil rights movement has all but eliminated racial scapegoating from the conservative arsenal. The recent backlashes against Trent Lott and Rush Limbaugh have made it clear to the right that minorities must be blamed only in euphemisms, such as "urban youth" or "welfare queens," and even then it's best not to push too far. Luckily, feminists provide an attractive alternative: they're outspoken, they demand change, and most of them are women.

The conservative assault has been devastating for feminism's public image. Although a majority of Americans agree with the goals of feminism ("social, political, and economic equality of all people"), less than half of women consider themselves feminist, and not even a quarter of men do. Rarely do you find such a reluctance to associate with a group whose goals you share. But the feminist movement bears some responsibility for its poor image: it never disappoints the right when it comes to providing grist for the mill. At rallies such as the March for Women's Lives, there are always groups that insist on behavior that would be considered shocking or offensive to the moderate American. In fact, many groups carry out such behavior precisely because of its shock value, acting on a confrontational theory that assumes repeated exposure will force tolerance.

To be fair, this isn't an issue only with the women's movement. The entire left has a huge problem with image control, especially when organizing and mobilizing in the public eye. Protests against the WTO prominently feature anarchists; rallies against the Bush administration and the Iraq war feature bongo drum beating hippies; marches for gay rights feature leather-clad, half-naked gyrating men.

This is especially damaging in this day and age of right-wing media. With Fox at the helm of the cable news networks and radio dominated by conservative talk, protests and marches are now covered with an eye toward ridiculing and delegitimizing them. The bongo drum players are extensively filmed, the anarchists who pick fights with the police are interviewed, and the unkempt dancing flower children are laughed at and held up as the personification of the entire message.

Yet despite the knowledge that our message is going to be distorted and suppressed to whatever extent possible by the modern media, the left remains shockingly resistant toward instituting some form of image control. There has been no attempt to drive out, or at least quiet down, those who would impart our message through interpretive dance and shock poetry.

Part of the reason is because many on the left are deeply committed to principles of diversity, tolerance, and acceptance, and they naturally recoil at the thought of self-censorship. Why, goes the argument, should the left seek to drown out the voices that provide it with vitality and spark? Why should the left pander to the prejudices of mainstream Americans and speak in the same tones as the homogenous right?

This approach has two critical flaws. First, it confuses unorthodox behavior with progressive ideas. What gives the left its vitality and spark is not the antics of its members, but the unique perspectives they bring to the table. When was the last time you were inspired by two men simulating oral sex in the middle of a parade?

Second, and far more important, this approach sacrifices policy for substance. Fundamentally, the left is not, nor should it be, dedicated to forcing Mr. and Mrs. Average American to confront their superficial distaste over the word "cunt." The left is fundamentally committed to goals much more vital to the health and welfare of the United States: civil rights, workers' rights, reproductive choice, health care, social security, and social justice, among others. These policies should be the one and only focus of the left, and we should be willing to do whatever is necessary to advance them. This means, among other things, that we need to present our message with media-savvy methods, tactics that don't distract from what we're trying to say with the way we say it. Cunt poetry should be kept off the cameras. Anarchist outfits and gear should stay at home. And for God's sake, the bongo drums need to be thrown out.

What should the left replace them with? As with most issues of public relations, we should take our cue from the right here. Conservatives learned important lessons in the art of presentation, especially from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. While Klansmen publicly pranced around in white hoods and Southern sheriffs ranted about segregation in interview after interview, Martin Luther King made sure the cameras were on young, noble men and women in Sunday dress. The images of black children being blasted with fire hoses and attacked by guard dogs destroyed the legitimacy of segregation, and conservatives never forgot it. In the 1980s, Reagan and the New Right wore suits, spoke intelligently, and framed their issues in terms of heartland values and patriotism. It's a formula that's worked through to 2004.

Certainly, there are elements of the right that engage in shock value - anti-choice advocates and their grotesque pictures of fetuses come to mind. But by and large, these elements are kept quiet, disavowed by the leaders and not discussed when the cameras start rolling. The left, in the meantime, has remained wholly mired in the sixties mindset of in-your-face antagonism, enthusiastically allowing our fringe elements up on stage. The right takes full advantage of this, and thanks to their domination of much of our national media they get a tremendous amount of use out of it.

I am not advocating that feminists abandon, or even modify, our positions in order to appeal to moderate Americans. But feminists and leftists do need to adapt to an increasingly conservative American public if we're going to influence the debate. The right will still do whatever possible to discredit liberals, but we can minimize the traction they get off the presentation and force them to confront the issues on their merits. Our message must be framed in terms more appealing to the moderate American, and it must be presented in a way that doesn't risk superficial judgments.

Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans support legal abortion, gender pay equity, and enforcement of civil rights laws. Yet we currently have a government that works passionately against those positions, because our opposition is better skilled in delivering their message and attacking ours. The left is going to have to accept that we've got a choice to make: we can scream obscenities into the cameras and dance on floats, or we can wield political power.