Democrats are facing significant hurdles, but they appear unwilling to confront the full extent of their issues. The first problem is their pervasive disdain for everyday Americans, evident in their communication style. The second, perhaps more troubling issue, is the reality that this contempt is not merely superficial; it is ingrained in their positions and policies. Recently, the think tank Third Way issued a report suggesting that Democrats might benefit from a change in their language. They have pinpointed 45 terms and expressions that create a disconnect with voters, labeling such words and phrases as contributors to the party’s negative perception.
In its memo, Third Way succinctly stated, “For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying.” This sentiment reflects a growing frustration over how the party’s choice of terminology alienates rather than attracts potential supporters. The memo categorized the offending terms into six groups, illustrating just how entrenched this problem is.
Under “Therapy-speak,” terms like “privilege,” “othering,” “microaggression,” and “safe space” were identified as particularly problematic. These words resonate with a specific audience, but they fail to connect with the average American who often finds them overreaching or out of touch. Similarly, the category of “Gender/Orientation Correctness” highlighted terms like “pregnant people,” “cisgender,” “deadnaming,” and “patriarchy.” Such jargon evokes a sense of exclusivity rather than inclusiveness, which may undermine efforts to broaden the party’s appeal.
Adam Wren of Politico shared additional insights from the memo, reiterating the call for Democrats to engage in more relatable dialogue. Matt Bennett, Third Way’s executive vice president, put it plainly: “We are doing our best to get Democrats to talk like normal people and stop talking like they’re leading a seminar at Antioch.” This critique echoes a broader disillusionment with the party’s current trajectory, as it grapples with a perception of elitism.
The irony, however, is thick. While the memo aims to refine the Democrats’ messaging, it still conveys a sense of moral superiority that could be off-putting. Third Way seems to believe that changing the language alone will resolve the contemptible image Democrats have cultivated over the years. Yet, the authors of the memo remain oblivious to the larger issue: attitudes that are established by behavior, not merely by choice of words.
Critics argue that simply avoiding certain terms will not alter the perception that Democrats are insufferable authoritarians. The lingering label of hyperbole, especially in calling opponents “Nazis,” only serves to alienate. Until the party genuinely reassesses its approach and the underlying principles that guide its communication, the image of an insufferable authoritarianism will persist. Voters are perceptive; they see through the attempts to repackage old rhetoric as fresh.
In sum, Democrats confront a dual crisis: they must reckon with their language and the attitudes that fuel it. The Third Way memo might be a step in the right direction, but without a sincere effort to understand and engage with the everyday experiences of ordinary Americans, the party risks remaining estranged from a significant portion of the electorate. The challenge lies not just in the words they use but in the ideology they promote. Ultimately, voters demand authenticity, clarity, and respect—qualities that must permeate both speech and action if Democrats hope to regain trust and relevance.
"*" indicates required fields
