The new coinage carries several advantages. First of all, the average American maintains much stronger images of “Nazis” than “Fascists.” No matter how historically illiterate he may be, every American knows that the Nazis were genocidal, sadistic maniacs, but he may not possess a clear idea of what the word “Fascist” even means.

Moreover, the Islamists of Al Qaeda and Hisbollah and the Mullah-ocracy of Iran promote grandiloquent dreams of world conquest that more closely resemble Hitlerism than the more modest domestic Fascism of, say, Mussolini’s Italy or Franco’s Spain.

Finally, it’s unmistakable that anti-Semitism of the crudest and cruelest variety formed the true, impassioned core belief of both yesterday’s Nazis and today’s Islamists; it’s no accident that Islamic leaders proudly circulate and republish “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and other Jew-hating classics, while recent film of Iran’s elite “Revolutionary Guard” in military review shows the sort of sky-high goose-stepping unseen since the salad days of the SS.

The term “Islamo-Fascist” sounds a bit bookish, complicated, even philosophical, but the phrase “Islamo-Nazi” carries unmistakable impact.

On another crucial issue, I believe that conservatives need to find a new phrase to replace “traditional marriage.” The common come-back to that term from advocates of redefining marriage is “just because it’s traditional doesn’t make it right” or “nobody follows the old traditions anymore.” When we talk about male-female relationships as “traditional,” we set ourselves up for the other side to talk about all the ways that those time-honored arrangements have already changed—with women working out of the home, rampant divorce, living together—even having babies-- before weddings, and so forth.

The tireless promoters of same sex unions argue that in many ways the “traditional marriage” we claim to cherish has already disappeared and so can hardly count as worth defending. It’s true that the number of couples who fulfill traditional norms – with the mother staying home to raise kids, both parties perennially faithful, and waiting to have sex until marriage – represents a distinct minority in today’s America. That’s why I’ve  become convinced that we need to strike the phrase “traditional marriage” and replace it with “natural marriage.” For one thing, this change will drive the gay activists crazy, raising immediately the one argument they find most impossible to answer-- that as a mechanism for preserving the species and raising a new generation, same sex unions are undeniably unnatural.

That doesn’t mean the people who participate in such relationships are bad people, but it does mean that these romantic associations are less organic, less eternal (with power to influence countless future generations) than the natural coupling of a man and a woman.

Rather than placing us in the uncomfortable, reactive position of trying to defend “tradition,” the new term “natural marriage” will force the other side to try to assert the obviously absurd proposition that it’s just as natural for a same-sex couple to raise somebody else’s baby as it is for a heterosexual couple to raise their own.

The overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens will understand that homosexual partners can be great human beings, credits to their community, and even loving adoptive parents, but there remains something synthetic, artificially constructed about such unions that contrasts with the instinctive, logical, productive and natural connection between a man and a woman.

Employing phrases like “Islamo-Nazis” and “Natural Marriage” won’t instantly end our most persistent public debates, but their introduction into public discourse can help advance the long, essential process of persuasion.