I've been puzzled for a long time why Democrats and progressives persist in letting the right wing control the conversation about basically everything. A lot of it is because we unthinkingly adopt the framing and terminology that Frank Luntz and his ilk come up with to give themselves a rhetorical advantage. They push it to the media, and before long, Democrats are using it too.
The classic example is the "death tax." (Parenthetically, Democrats blew a golden opportunity to counter this by calling the Bush deficit inherited by each child the "birth tax.")
One that I think is especially dangerous is the concept of "reforming" something like Social Security. The dictionary defines "reform" as to change something for the better. Politicians seem to use it more as a synonym for "change", without necessarily including the concept of improving.
So when Republicans talk about "reforming" Social Security, they have one thing in mind. Democrats might have different ideas. Yet they both use the same word, creating the impression that they must agree about the basics, at least. And because most people think "reform" means "improve," this gives legitimacy and credibility to the Republican proposals.
I'd recommend that progressives either avoid the word "reform" entirely, or, when they use it, be sure to make it crystal clear that they are NOT talking about the same thing that the Republicans are. In fact, it might be worthwhile to say something like "When Republicans talk about 'reform,' here's what they really mean…".
What words should we use instead? When characterizing Republican proposals, how about "cut," "attack," "tinker with"? Progressive proposals should be said to "strengthen," "improve," "reinforce" etc. Don't let Republicans get away with implying that they're going to improve anything.
Words matter. How about a little "message discipline" from Dems on this one, for a change?