Ever since the '80s people on the American right have been using “liberal” as a snarl-word, to the point where many liberals have sought shelter under the name “progressive” even though that word, IMO, means something entirely different (something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist”; what would be called “social-democratic” in Europe; but it also fits the RW agenda to encourage everyone to look at the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope, collapsing distinctions).
We could do the same job on “conservative.” It’s easy. Simply:
Point out all the most horrible, egregious persons on the right and call them “conservatives.” They can hardly object, they call themselves that now, including the RWs (which, again, is something different from “conservative”; no conservative would think of, e.g., scrapping the Federal Reserve system or repealing the 16th or 17th Amendment; conservatism is much more cautious than that).
Point it out again, with focus on all the horrible things “conservatives” do, and pound and pound on them. Of course most of those things are only “horrible” in the eyes of moderates and liberals and leftists, but, that is the exact same situation as WRT to liberalism when the RW went to work on it. It didn’t stop them. The essence of propaganda is repetition. Just assume all sensible right-thinking folk see those things as “horrible” and keep saying so.
Repeatedly associate the horrors with the “conservative” label and imply anyone who self-IDs as a “conservative” is just as bad as the evilest nutjobs who so identify. John McCain is a conservative, therefore there is no important difference between John McCain and David Duke.
Repeat, repeat, repeat, until even the right starts fleeing the “conservative” label and hunting for a more innocuous one.
Why wouldn’t that work?
But, if it did work, what would be the point anyway?