To make a long discussion short, this is one suggestion to help reform the public image of closure at math.SE. I'd like to propose that we should be thinking of it more like a wheel clamp, and less like a car crusher.
For a long time closure has had a really bad reputation here, and as far as I can tell it is mainly a cultural thing here at math.SE. Other SE have been using closures frequently and constructively for a long time even without the new paint job of "on hold." I know I certainly experienced no small culture shock in my visits to those sites. I see a bit of wisdom in their actions now, though.
With such a high volume of questions, we really need to figure out how to use closure constructively. There are plenty of users who get all bent out of shape about closures (both posters and kibitzers), possibly because they view it is a death sentence for a question.
From other SE's examples, we can see that it doesn't have to be used/viewed that way, and insisting closure-is-the-devil-forever is just isn't constructive.
One way to make closure less scary is to make it easier to reopen stuff. Here are a few ideas I had, not guaranteed to be good ones:
When a question is nominated for reopening, notify the users who closed it and make their reopen votes count for more. (In several cases I left advice about what would make the question reopenable, but I lack the energy to track and follow through, so they probably just slip through the cracks.) There could be reasonable limits to keep the volume of these notifications under control. Ideally the nomination would be resolved quickly so that the notification would expire and disappear before users saw it.
Keep questions which are nominated and accumulating reopen votes near the top of activity. (Of course it ought to speedily drop out if the reopening motion is defeated.)
Devise (if there isn't one already) a good audit on the reopening review queue. (Anyone who is rubberstamping reopens with "leave closed" is not helping the reputation of closure at all.)
I guess answers to this question should mainly follow the discussion aspect of using closures
this way with the intent to reopen, and finding holes or expressing support for the three ideas. If you've got other good ideas, those would probably be best put forth in a new feature-request :)
Update: And to clarify I never meant to imply that there aren't appropriate reasons for permanent closure. I meant to imply that the damage done by closures which don't have to be permanent can be mitigated to a great extent by helping ensure that deserving ones get reopened.