The recent memo from Third Way, a left-leaning think tank, reveals a stark acknowledgment among some Democratic strategists about the crucial impact of language on their party’s appeal. Titled “Was It Something I Said?”, the document encourages Democrats to rethink their word choices as a means to reconnect with voters who feel alienated by what the party often calls its ideals. The memo suggests that the language used by the Democrats has become part of the problem… an obstacle that distances them from the very Americans they hope to persuade.
According to Third Way, Democrats have been employing a style of communication described as “superior, haughty, and arrogant.” This “elitist language” does not resonate with everyday voters, and the group warns that such communication could reinforce support for President Trump and his brand of politics. They state, “Communicating in authentic ways that welcome rather than drive voters away would be a good start.” This is a candid admission indicating that the party recognizes the need for change.
In a detailed breakdown, Third Way lists 45 specific terms deemed problematic, categorizing them into six distinct groups. Each group highlights the type of jargon that might alienate voters further. For instance, the category labeled “Therapy-Speak” contains words like “privilege,” “microaggression,” and “safe space.” These terms are often viewed as symbols of a particular ideological stance that many find off-putting. The memo underscores that there is a disconnect… “Those words put up their own Ivy League walls between policymakers and voters.”
The categories range from “Organizer Jargon” to “Gender/Orientation Correctness,” illustrating the depth of the issue. Terms like “radical transparency” and “housing insecurity” come under scrutiny for sounding more like academic theory than practical solutions. The recommendation to avoid words such as “Latinx” and “cisgender” suggests a recognition that many Americans simply do not relate to or feel comfortable with certain progressive terminology.
Third Way’s acknowledgment of its own previous use of these terms adds another layer of intrigue, as they express the need to pivot away from what they term the “catastrophe of Trump 2.0.” It appears that their analysis aims to rebrand their image and approach in an effort to build support around core issues rather than divisive language. They admit, “As the catastrophe of Trump 2.0 has shown, the most important thing we can do for these people and causes is to build a bigger army to fight them.” This recognition suggests a pivotal moment within the party that may lead to meaningful changes… even if some doubt remains.
There is an underlying skepticism about the effectiveness of merely changing language without addressing the substance of the policies. Critics may argue that while tweaking phrases may help soften the image of the party, it does little to alter the fundamental beliefs and actions of its members. As one observer put it perfectly, “One can only hope voters do not fall for this effort to put lipstick on a pig because not one radical Democrat policy will change.”
This insight touches on a broader discourse surrounding political communication, where the choice of words can either bridge gaps or widen divides. Critics suggest that facades of authenticity and understanding cannot substitute for substantial policy changes or a genuine connection with voters’ everyday concerns.
The recommendations provided in the memo reflect an urgent plea for self-reflection among Democrats, signaling an understanding of the detrimental effects that language can have on electoral prospects. It begs the question… can a shift in rhetoric truly lead to a revitalized connection with the electorate, or is it merely a superficial fix in a party grappling with deeper ideological divides? The coming months will likely reveal whether this new approach will resonate with voters or if it is simply an exercise in semantics.
"*" indicates required fields
