Fightin' Word

Over at TomPaine.com, Paul Waldman makes a meta-argument about something Democrats need to do in order to not only beat the GOP this fall or in 2008, but discredit them as a party:

As everyone knows, conservatives have succeeded in making “liberal” an epithet, something they throw at their opponents—who try desperately to dodge the label... This didn’t happen by accident. It is the result of a relentless campaign against liberalism by conservatives. And liberals need to do the same thing to conservatism... A good first step would be to never, ever again use the word with a positive connotation... How many times have solidly liberal Democrats described themselves as "fiscally conservative?" Those formulations accept that true conservatives are principled people with noble goals. They are not, and should not be talked about as though they were. When was the last time you heard a Republican call himself a “social liberal,” even if he is one? They don’t, because they understand that liberalism is an opposing ideology to which they will give no aid or comfort.

Waldman goes on to offer three talking points which he thinks every liberal intellectual, campaigner, elected official, blogger, or citizen should use relentlessly:

1. Conservatism has failed.
2. Conservatism is the ideology of the past—a past we don’t want to return to.
3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too.

I like it a hell of a lot. It's succinct, pointed, and, done right, could be devastating. The whole piece is well worth a few minutes.

P.S. Waldman's piece mentions the recent and heavily blogged essay by Alan Wolfe, "Why Conservatives Can't Govern,". Wolfe is thoughtfully devastating in analyzing why and how the GOP is so damnably bad at running the country:

A conservative in America, in short, is someone who advocates ends that cannot be realized through means that can never be justified, at least not on the terrain of conservatism itself. In the past, the ends sought were the preservation of hierarchy, even if the means included appeals to democratic sentiment. In more recent times, conservatives promised order and stability through means dependent upon the uncertainties and insecurities of the market. Unwilling to accept the fact that government was here to stay, conservatives stood on the sidelines as conditions kept arising that demanded bigger and more effective national authority.

Wolfe's essay merits a reading on its own considerable strengths and as a complementary expansion on Waldman's ideas.