David Brooks writes a really good column - "The Dark Century"

[gulliver]

29. "What weakness in liberalism are its enemies exploiting?"

Just asking the question is a great service to liberalism. Every liberal should be asking that same question of themselves as a mantra. I like the article a lot, and I always tend to learn from Brooks. I think he might have taken the scenic route in response to the question. That and subject-verb disagreement are my main quibbles.

There is no reason our ideas shouldn't plain dominate if we go by the quality of the ideas themselves. Equality, opportunity, sustainability, justice...no problem. Our problem is mainly an image problem. If one person says, for example, "defund the police" or "tear down that Lincoln statue," all of the rest of us liberals pay for that foolishness. The media hand the mic to anyone. It's their paycheck.

I don't know how to solve the problem of "self-elected, Dunning Krueger effect voices" getting handed mics. Maybe we can firewall the Democratic Party from fools if not all of liberalism. The Democratic Party, unlike liberalism, has an official institution, the DNC. If some self-elected rhetorical maladroit says something dumb and a meme takes off, perhaps DNC arbitration boards can check the statement against the current platform. That would result in an immediate, authoritative response.

For example, someone says, "defund the police." The DNC arbitration board system could very quickly check the platform and note that the platform doesn't in any way support that idea. Biden, Pelosi, and Clyburn don't have to worry and "unsay" what the fool said. The DNC can just "rule on it" and say, "The Democratic Party arbitration board reviewed this idea. The Democratic Party platform firmly opposes defunding the police. Those who support defunding the police do not speak for us."

Then, take it from there and use the "official ruling" to explain to the audience what our position really is.